G.R. No. 130091 - People vs. Naguita

Case Summary (G.R. No. 130091)

Factual Background

At about 10:30 p.m. on 17 January 1995, Guillerma left the second floor of their house to check if there was water at a public faucet located about sixty meters away. She returned when she learned at about 11:00 p.m. that water was available, and while approaching her home she saw NAGUITA and FUENTES descending the stairs of their house, each wielding bloodied bladed weapons. She recognized them because they were relatives and neighbors. The staircase was illuminated by a fluorescent lamp. When Guillerma shouted for help, NAGUITA warned her not to tell anyone because they would return to kill her. Guillerma then fainted. When she regained consciousness and went up her house to look for WENIFREDO, she found him missing. She again shouted for help and later fainted once more. When she regained consciousness, people were already milling around her house, and they told her that WENIFREDO was dead from stab wounds.

Guillerma testified that she spent P5,500 for WENIFREDO’s tomb, P7,000 for the pantheon and grave marker, P12,000 for funeral services, and P5,000 for the wake. She further contracted for P50,000 the services of a lawyer to assist her in prosecuting the case against NAGUITA. Guillerma related a prior history: before his death, WENIFREDO had participated in a criminal case for rape against Julito Naguita, NAGUITA’s father. After Julito’s trial events, Julito escaped from detention. She also stated that WENIFREDO received death threats connected to this prosecution.

Police Investigator SPO1 Jaime Ave examined the crime scene at 9:00 a.m. on 18 January 1995 and observed bloodstains on the mat where WENIFREDO slept. He found no other traces of blood elsewhere. Ave gathered information about quarrels among the Naguita families and learned that Julito had been charged with rape involving the wife of Jimmy Naguita, WENIFREDO’s brother, and that Jimmy had been killed by unidentified assailants on his way to a hearing in the rape case. Ave also testified about alleged threats: he said that WENIFREDO’s son Rhandy Naguita reported that FUENTES told him on 24 October 1994 that someone in Rhandy’s family would die in the coming days. Ave further testified that Guillerma relayed death threats against WENIFREDO and that Julito, in NAGUITA’s presence, told Gegeline Tombiga that time would come when her parents would regret. Ave also stated that civilian volunteer Mario Bolanio failed to submit a written statement after interviews, though Bolanio had given Ave information on the family quarrels.

Dr. Anacleto Awiten examined the cadaver at about 10:00 a.m. on 18 January 1995. He found nine (9) wounds and concluded that a sharp pointed instrument caused them. He estimated that WENIFREDO died about six hours before the examination. He attributed death to internal hemorrhage.

Police photographer Eugenio T. Ramos took pictures of the crime scene. He identified photographs marked as Exhibits “C,” “C-3,” and “C-4,” showing bloodstains near WENIFREDO’s head where the victim was found.

The Accused’s Defense and Rebuttal

For his defense, NAGUITA denied participation and invoked alibi. He claimed that at around 11:30 p.m. on 17 January 1995, he was awakened by shouts from the direction of Guillerma’s house. He went to his mother’s house near Guillerma’s and asked what happened. Guillerma told him WENIFREDO was killed but did not say who killed him. NAGUITA then went to the house of Barangay Captain Julito Tadeo about four hundred meters away to report the incident. On the way, he met FUENTES. Tadeo instructed them to go to the house of barangay kagawad Marlon Bolanio because Bolanio had a radio to contact the police. NAGUITA and FUENTES met Marlon, and Bolanio told them they would not enter WENIFREDO’s house until police arrived. They allegedly waited until police arrived at around 3:00 a.m. or 4:00 a.m., when they entered with Bolanio. NAGUITA claimed he did not know what happened next.

NAGUITA further testified that FUENTES was arrested on the morning of 19 January 1995 and that he himself was “invited” to the police station at about 2:00 or 3:00 a.m. on that day. He alleged that at the police station he was detained for charges he did not know, and he asserted that he was handcuffed while FUENTES was not. He also claimed Guillerma visited FUENTES while he was detained and brought cigarettes, money, and food; he concluded that Guillerma stopped going to the station after FUENTES escaped from detention.

Julito Tadeo corroborated that around 12:00 midnight of 17 January 1995, NAGUITA reported trouble at Guillerma’s house. Tadeo stated that he instructed NAGUITA to go to Marlon Bolanio’s house to use the radio. He admitted he did not ask Guillerma what caused the death after he later found WENIFREDO dead at 9:00 a.m. on 18 January 1995. He also testified that WENIFREDO and NAGUITA were speaking terms before the incident.

Marlon Bolanio testified that he was awakened by NAGUITA and accompanied FUENTES to report the incident. He used his radio to contact the police. After that, he woke three other barangay tanods and proceeded to WENIFREDO’s house. He said they waited for police arrival and that blood was only on the mat where WENIFREDO lay. He did not participate in the investigation and only watched as policemen examined the scene.

In rebuttal, Nonime Macas, WENIFREDO’s sister, testified that at around 11:00 p.m. she heard Guillerma’s shouts for help and saw Guillerma outside still shouting. She found blood on a table downstairs and saw that the blood came from the second floor. Because it was dark, she asked for light but did not receive help. She reported to Guillerma’s sister’s house, returned with a flashlight, and stayed beside Guillerma. She said she never saw NAGUITA near Guillerma.

PO3 Oliver Leyros testified that he was a jail guard at the Tagoloan Police Station from 17 December 1994 to December 1995, and that FUENTES was never allowed to go out of his cell during detention. Leyros stated he saw Guillerma at the police station but did not know whom she visited. He testified that permission must be obtained from the guard for visits, and that Guillerma never asked permission to visit FUENTES.

Trial Court Proceedings and Findings

The trial court gave full faith and credit to the prosecution evidence. It rejected NAGUITA’s defense theory that he had no reason to report the incident to Barangay Captain Tadeo if he were a participant. It interpreted his conduct as a cover-up and a ploy, reasoning that if NAGUITA and FUENTES were innocent, they should have accompanied the barangay tanods and policeman to the crime scene instead of failing to do so. The trial court acknowledged that no witness saw the actual killing, but it held that the totality of circumstances established that NAGUITA was one of WENIFREDO’s killers. It pointed to: (1) the filing and conviction in the rape case involving NAGUITA’s father; (2) WENIFREDO’s instrumental role in the rape case prosecution; (3) the presence of NAGUITA when Julito threatened Gegeline Tombiga that time would come when they would regret; (4) Guillerma’s observation that immediately before WENIFREDO’s body was found, NAGUITA and FUENTES were descending from the stairs holding bloodied weapons and that NAGUITA warned Guillerma not to tell anyone or they would come back and kill her; and (5) NAGUITA and FUENTES’ failure to accompany the barangay tanods and wait for police arrival.

The trial court appreciated treachery because it found that the victim was under a mosquito net when discovered and that blood was concentrated on the mat where he lay rather than scattered, suggesting he could not have put up resistance. It also appreciated evident premeditation, concluding it was established by WENIFREDO’s role in achieving NAGUITA’s father’s conviction in the rape case.

Accordingly, on 17 May 1997, the trial court found NAGUITA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder qualified by treachery and evident premeditation, and it imposed the supreme penalty of death under Article 248, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, together with awards of actual damages, moral damages, and indemnity for the heirs.

Issues Raised on Appeal

NAGUITA challenged his conviction by arguing that the trial court erred in convicting him based on circumstantial evidence and facts allegedly not introduced in evidence, and despite the alleged absence of proof of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He focused on several circumstances, contending that two acts attributed to the family conflict were not attributable to him: the warning to Gegeline Tombiga was made by his father, while the threat to Rhandy Naguita was said to have been made by FUENTES. He also assailed the court’s finding that he was nowhere to be found during the investigation, asserting that he testified he had returned to Guillerma’s house and had seen Bolanio and some police officers later. He maintained that the only circumstantial evidence of his direct link was Guillerma’s testimony that he threatened her with a return to kill if she reported the incident, but he argued the threat was dubitable because Guillerma allegedly failed to shout for help at the time the accused allegedly ran away, failed to induce neighbors to arrest the accused, and only revealed his identity six days later. He also cited alleged inconsistencies between Guillerma’s testimony and her affidavit.

The Office of the Solicitor General maintained that the arguments lacked merit, asserting that denial cannot prevail over the positive identification and that NAGUITA’s alibi failed for lack of physical impossibility, especially because the distance between the houses was only one hundred (100) meters, making it feasible for him to go to WENIFREDO’s house.

Supreme Court Review on Credibility and Identity

The Court reiterated the principle that when the issue is one of credibility, appellate courts generally do not disturb the trial court’s findings because the trial court hears

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 130091)

The case reached the Supreme Court for automatic review under Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659.
The prosecution sought affirmance of the Regional Trial Court conviction, while the accused-appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and the appreciation of qualifying circumstances.
The Court ultimately modified the conviction by sustaining guilt for murder, but disallowing evident premeditation and reducing the damages.

Parties and Procedural Posture

The People of the Philippines appeared as plaintiff-appellee.
Elino “Bobong” Naguita appeared as accused-appellant.
Dioscoro Comigue appeared in the caption as accused, but the decision under review focuses on Naguita as the appellant.
The Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 40 convicted Naguita in Criminal Case No. 95-130.
Fuentes, a co-accused, escaped while in detention and before arraignment, and thus did not participate in the trial and appeal described in the text.
The Supreme Court reviewed the trial court’s findings and the penalties and damages imposed.

Information and Charge

The information alleged that on 17 January 1995, at 6:00 p.m. and within the court’s jurisdiction, Naguita and Fuentes conspired to attack and stab Wenifredo “Dodong” Naguita.
The information alleged the presence of intent to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation.
The information charged the offense as murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659.

Facts Established at Trial

On the evening of 17 January 1995, Guillerma and her husband, Wenifredo Naguita, stayed on the second floor of their house.
Around 10:30 p.m., Guillerma left to check the public faucet and returned about 11:00 p.m..
As she approached the house, Guillerma saw Naguita and Fuentes descending the stairs from the house while holding bloodied bladed weapons.
Guillerma recognized the accused because she and the accused were relatives and neighbors, and the staircase was illuminated by a fluorescent lamp.
Guillerma shouted for help, but Naguita warned her not to tell anyone, because they would return to kill her.
Guillerma briefly lost consciousness after the warning, and when she regained it, she searched for Wenifredo and repeatedly shouted for help.
People later informed Guillerma that Wenifredo had died from stab wounds.
Guillerma testified to expenditures for the tomb, pantheon, grave marker, funeral services, and wake, and she also testified that she contracted for P50,000 for counsel to assist in the case.
The prosecution evidence showed prior family hostility linked to a rape case: Julito Naguita faced charges for rape, Wenifredo supported the prosecution, Julito escaped from detention, and thereafter death threats were allegedly made.
Police investigator SPO1 Jaime Ave examined the scene on 18 January 1995 and found bloodstains on the mat where Wenifredo slept, with no other blood trace found elsewhere.
Rhandy Naguita and Gegeline Tombiga testified to death threats made before the stabbing.
Dr. Anacleto Awiten found nine wounds and inferred they were caused by a sharp pointed instrument.
The doctor estimated that Wenifredo’s death occurred about six hours before the cadaver examination and concluded that internal hemorrhage caused death.
The defense presented denial and alibi, asserting that Naguita was at home with his wife at the time of the killing.
Naguita testified that he was awakened by a shout around 11:30 p.m., went to his mother’s house, reported the incident to the Barangay Captain, and thereafter his whereabouts after that were unclear to him.
Barangay Captain Julito Tadeo corroborated that Naguita reported the incident and that it was arranged to contact police through Marlon Bolanio who had a radio.
Marlon Bolanio testified that he was awakened by Naguita, accompanied Fuentes, and later contacted the police, and he waited with the barangay tanods until police arrived.
Nonime Macas, Wenifredo’s sister, testified she saw blood on a table on the ground floor and traced it to the second floor, but she never saw Naguita near Guillerma.
PO3 Oliver Leyros testified that Fuentes was detained in a way that did not permit going out of his cell and that Guillerma was seen at the station but without permission to visit.

Trial Court’s Reasoning

The trial court gave full faith and credit to the prosecution witnesses, especially Guillerma.
The trial court rejected Naguita’s defense that it would have been implausible to report the incident to the Barangay Captain if he had participated in the crime.
The trial court interpreted Naguita’s conduct of not accompanying barangay tanods and police to inspect the crime scene as a cover-up and a ploy, reasoning that he would have otherwise accompanied them if innocent.
The trial court acknowledged that no one directly testified on the actual stabbing, yet it held that the circumstantial circumstances sufficed to identify Naguita as one of Wenifredo’s killers.
The trial court treated the following circumstances as persuasive of guilt: prior family hostility; Wenifredo’s role in the rape prosecution; threatened regret relayed in Naguita’s presence; and Naguita and Fuentes being seen descending stairs holding bloodied weapons immediately before the body was discovered, plus the warning to Guillerma.
The trial court appreciated treachery based on the finding that Wenifredo was under a mosquito net when discovered and on the concentration of blood on the mat rather than scattered in a manner suggesting a struggle.
The trial court appreciated evident premeditation based on the conclusion that the threats and hostility culminating in murder were connected to Wenifredo’s instrumental role in the prosecution against Julito.
The trial court imposed the death penalty, consistent with the then-applicable framework under Article 248, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, and awarded actual damages, moral damages, and indemnity.

Issues on Appeal

Naguita argued that his conviction rested on circumstantial evidence without proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Naguita contended that the trial court relied on circumstances not properly attributable to him.
Naguita specifically disputed that threats cited as evidence were his acts, pointing out that one warning allegedly came