PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. REYNALD T. NARVASA @ ALLAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Narvasa

The Case

People versus Narvasa is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines, as plaintiff, prosecuted Reynald Narvasa, known also as Allan, for the killing of Mario Raguindin. The accused was charged with murder and convicted by the trial court. The case matters to a reviewee because it gathers, in one decision, the rules every bar candidate must be able to state from memory: the weight given on appeal to the trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses, the standards for assessing the testimony of a child witness and of witnesses related to the accused, the nature of res gestae, that is, statements made spontaneously under the stress of a startling event, and the elements of treachery as a qualifying circumstance that raises a killing to murder.

Procedural History

The accused was arraigned before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, Dagupan City, and pleaded not guilty to murder. After trial, the court rendered judgment finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua with the accessories provided by law, ordering him to pay the victim's heirs 50,000 pesos as indemnity, and directing his transfer to the national penitentiary for security reasons. The accused then appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning errors against the trial court's appreciation of the evidence. The appeal reached the Court directly, and the Court affirmed the conviction.

Facts

At around ten o'clock in the evening of April 14, 1992, Mario Raguindin was attending a wake at Bonuan Sabangan, Dagupan City, together with his brother David. After about two hours, Mario left the wake, and David followed some two minutes later. Outside, as David trailed his brother by five to six meters, he saw the accused rush past him and suddenly stab Mario at the back with a knife.

Mario turned and grappled with the accused for the knife, wrested it away, and tried to stab the accused in turn. The two fell to the ground with Mario on top. David approached, and Mario uttered, "Naalaak, hermano," meaning "I was hit, brother." A certain Mitang Cayabyab pulled the accused away. David brought Mario to the provincial hospital, but Mario died along the way. David promptly reported the incident to the police and explained that the accused killed Mario because Mario had refused to give him some milkfish from the fishpond where Mario was a caretaker.

The accused claimed that it was David who accidentally stabbed Mario. He said the brothers had asked him for money at the wake, that Mario later held him by the neck and poked a knife at him, and that David stabbed him frontally in the chest. When David thrust again, the accused said, he hit his own brother instead, and Mario uttered, "Nala mo ak, hermano," meaning "You hit me, brother." Defense witnesses Joel Vidal and Rodolfo Tamayo corroborated this version. The deceased suffered one fatal stab wound in the back; the accused suffered four stab wounds. The accused was arrested on April 20, 1992, while being treated at the hospital.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in not giving credence to the testimony of Joel Vidal, an eleven-year-old witness for the defense.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in its appreciation of the evidence of res gestae consisting of statements uttered in the Pangasinense dialect.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimony of David Raguindin.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in failing to consider that a person stabbed at the back would have suffered immediate shock and could not have retaliated against the accused.

Applicable Provisions

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as applied by the trial court in convicting the accused of murder, provides:

Article 248. Murder. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.

The Court sustained the conviction under this provision because the killing was attended by treachery, the attack being sudden and unexpected, from behind, without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to give credence to the eleven-year-old witness. The general rule is that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are given great weight on appeal and will not be disturbed, because the trial court was in the best position to observe the witnesses' deportment during trial and to assess whether their accounts are truthful. The Court will not depart from those findings unless it is clearly shown that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts which, when considered, would have altered the result. The Court also noted that the defense witnesses were the accused's friend and his uncle, and that the uncle gave his statement to the police only after one and a half months.

On the second issue, the Court weighed the two competing utterances. The trial court found that the accused's claim that Mario said, "Nala mo ak, hermano," was made belatedly to suit his version of the incident. The Court agreed that the accused needed time to concoct his story, and that his belated claims did not square with human experience and common sense.

On the third issue, the Court gave full credit to the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses. David testified in a clear and straightforward manner that the accused suddenly stabbed his brother from behind, and his testimony was corroborated by another eyewitness, Noli Vidal. The Court found no showing that the prosecution witnesses were motivated by ill will. It also held that the scene was not poorly lit, since electric lights from nearby houses and a lamppost sufficiently illuminated the area. The Court stressed that if the accused had truly been the victim, it made no sense for him to wait more than a month before reporting the incident, when he could have done so as early as his arrest.

On the fourth issue, the Court rejected the claim that David accidentally stabbed his own brother. Mario was shorter and bulkier than the taller and leaner accused, and the two bore no resemblance, so there was no reason to overturn the trial court's finding. Finally, the Court held that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated, because the attack was sudden and unexpected, from behind, without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim.

Doctrine

First, findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are accorded great weight on appeal and will not be disturbed absent a clear showing that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied facts that would have altered the result. Second, the testimony of a child witness, or of witnesses related to the accused, is weighed against the whole record, and relationship or friendship may affect credence. Third, delay in reporting an assault to the authorities, without a satisfactory explanation, is contrary to human experience and weakens the defense. Fourth, treachery qualifies a killing to murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code when the attack is sudden and unexpected, from behind, and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim, thereby ensuring the execution of the offense without risk to the assailant arising from the defense the victim might make.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court finding Reynald Narvasa guilty of murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to indemnify the victim's heirs in the amount of 50,000 pesos, with costs against the appellant.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses bind the appellate court absent a clear showing of overlooked or misapplied facts, and a sudden attack from behind without provocation is treachery. Examiners use this case to test credibility review, the belated-report rule, and the appreciation of treachery under Article 248.