PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. NOEL PAMA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

At around 10:30 o’clock in the evening of 2 October 1985, two (2)
successive bursts of gunfire rang from the ground floor of the Market Square
Building in Iloilo City. The several
persons within the area scampered to safety. After a few seconds, another burst of gunfire was heard; thereupon,
three (3) unidentified males were seen darting from the said building into the
adjacent J.M. Basa Street. Minutes
later, responding elements of the Iloilo Integrated National Police (INP)
arrived at the Market Square Building only to find two (2) men, one of whom was
already dead and the other seriously wounded and in critical condition; the
latter asked the approaching lawmen to rush him to a hospital. The first, who sustained a gunshot wound on
his right face and on his right thigh and was sprawled in a pool of his own
blood at the building’s doorway, was identified as Joji Nograles. The second victim, who was brought to the
St. Paul’s Hospital where he subsequently succumbed to two (2) gunshot wounds,
was Cesar Habaradas. The policemen
commenced their search for the suspects, one of whom was reported to have run
towards the pier along Muelle Loney Street. Bystanders recounted to the pursuing lawmen that this suspect, upon
reaching the pier, dove into the river below.

Meanwhile, at the nearby compound of the Iloilo Drydock and Engineering
Company (IDECO) located across the Iloilo River, security guards Anselmo
Garocho and Rodolfo Bolao of the Royal Protective and Janitorial Services, Inc.
(RPJSI), who were then conversing at their post, noticed an unidentified man
walk by. The man, barefoot and with
only his pants on, was soaking wet. When accosted by the guards, he introduced himself as Noel Pama and
alleged that he was held up by three (3) men at a gasoline station along Muelle
Loney Street. After being divested of
his wallet, money, wristwatch, necklace, shirt and shoes, he jumped into the
nearby river to escape from the holduppers who were about to kill him. The guards reported this incident to the
police authorities. After some time,
policemen led by Sgt. Ronaldo Porras arrived at the compound. They took Pama to the police
headquarters. Pama was accompanied by
his mother who had arrived shortly after he called her by phone.

A few days later, after the appropriate preliminary investigation
was conducted, Noel Pama, hereinafter referred to as the appellant, was charged
with the killing of Nograles and Habaradas in two (2) separate Informations for
Murder filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo. The first Information was filed on 7 October
1985, docketed therein as Criminal Case No. 19409, and raffled off to Branch 33
of said court.^[1]
The second was filed on 11 October 1985, docketed as Criminal Case No. 19418
and raffled off to Branch 32 of the same court.^[2]

On 8 November 1985, following a Motion to Consolidate Cases filed
by the prosecution, Judge Felino A. Garcia (Branch 32) issued an Order to
consolidate Criminal Case No. 19418 with Criminal Case No. 19409 in Branch 33
subject to the conformity of Judge Sixto R. Guanzon of the said branch.^[3]
The latter agreed to the condition.

Consequently, both informations were amended to include two (2)
other accused, Leonardo Lava, Jr. and Robert Ignalaga. The accusatory portions of both Amended
Informations which were filed on 18 November 1985, read as follows:

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 19409:

x x x

“That on or about the 2nd day of October, 1985, in the City of
Iloilo, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Court, said accused,
armed with guns respectively, conspiring and confederating among themselves, working
together and helping one another, with deliberate intent, with evident
premeditation, treachery and with a decided purpose to kill, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and criminally shoot and hit Joji Nograles with the said
gun (sic), with which the accused was (sic) provided at the time, thereby
causing upon the said Joji Nograles gunshot wound (sic) on vital parts of his
body, which caused his death few (sic) moments thereafter.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”^[4]

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 19418:

x x x

“That on or about the 2nd day of October, 1985, in the City of
Iloilo, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Court, said accused,
armed with guns respectively, conspiring and confederating among themselves, working
together and helping one another, with evident premeditation, treachery and
with a decided purpose to kill, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
criminally shoot and hit Cesar Habaradas with the said gun (sic), with which
the accused were provided at the time, thereby causing upon the said Cesar
Habaradas gunshot wounds on vital parts of his body which caused his death few
(sic) hours thereafter.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”^[5]

On 19 November 1985, Judge Sixto R. Guanzon issued the orders for
the arrest of accused Leonardo Lava, Jr. and Robert Ignalaga.^[6]
Both accused could not, however, be found and have thus remained at large.

Upon arraignment on 21 November 1985, appellant, assisted by
counsel, entered a plea of not guilty. Thereafter, the appellant moved for a separate trial; the trial court
issued on 23 December 1985 an order granting the said motion considering that
the appellant’s two (2) co-accused remained at large. A joint trial of both cases was also ordered.^[7]

At the joint trial on the merits, the prosecution presented as
its witnesses Patrolman (Pat.) Zarex Celis, Pat. Eliseo Villavicencio, Sgt.
Ronaldo Porras, Pfc. Gregorio M. Gopeteo, Jose Regacho, Dr. Tito Doromal,
Anselmo Garocho, Suzette Nograles Ravena, and Efrain Habaradas. Appellant took the witness stand in his
defense and denied involvement in the deaths of Nograles and Habaradas. He likewise presented Sgt. Mariano Palmes,
Police Capt. Luena Layador and Leonisa Pama as his witnesses.

On 17 March 1989, the trial court promulgated separate decisions
in the two (2) cases, both dated 22 February 1989, finding the appellant guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder in Criminal Case No. 19409^[8]
and of the lesser crime of Homicide in Criminal Case No. 19418.^[9]
The dispositive portions of the decisions read as follows:

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 19409:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, this court finds the accused
guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt and hereby sentences the accused to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

The accused is hereby ordered to pay the heirs of Joji Nograles the
sum of P35,450.00 representing expenses for the coffin, tomb, mass, food and
miscellaneous expenses during the burial, during (sic) the wake, burial
clothing, and attorney’s fees.

The accused is hereby ordered to indemnify the heirs of Joji
Nograles the sum of P30,000.00.

SO ORDERED.”^[10]

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 19418:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, this court finds the accused
guilty of homicide beyond reasonable doubt, and applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, hereby sentences the accused to suffer the penalty of eight (8)
years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to sixteen (16)
years of reclusion temporal as maximum.

The accused is hereby ordered to pay the heirs of the deceased
Cesar Habaradas the sum of P26,450.00 representing expenses for the coffin,
tomb, mass, food during the burial, attorney’s fees and other miscellaneous
expenses.

The accused is hereby ordered to indemnify the heirs of Cesar
Habaradas the sum of P30,000.00.

SO ORDERED.”^[11]

The evidence for the prosecution upon which the decisions are
based is succinctly summarized in the Appellee’s Brief as follows:

“Prosecution witness Jose Regacho testified that at around
10:00 o’clock in the evening of October 2, 1985, he and a friend left Mila’s
Refreshment and Beer House located at Hoskyn’s Compound along Guancho Street,
Iloilo City and proceeded to Irong-Irong Restaurant which is on top of the
Market Square Building. This restaurant
has two entrances or doors, one fronting J.M. Basa Street within the Taheebo
store and the other on the side of Freedom Grandstand (pp. 3-5 TSN Regalado
January 15, 1987). The sidewalk along
J.M. Basa St. leads to a passageway or alley about 15 arms length long and one and
one-half arms-length wide. After or at
the end of this passageway or alley are stores and the stairway leading to the
offices (Exhibit “K-2″) and an open space where by turning to the
left one can find the stairway leading to the restaurant (marked during the
hearing as Exh: “K-1” – pp. 7-13
Ibid.). As they were near the open
space, Regacho saw a person of about 5’8″ or 5’9” in height,
‘mestizo’, with curly hair, who was later identified as Joji Nograles (one of
the deceased), talking to a female child about 6-7 years old. The witness likewise saw two women near the
door beside the Freedom Grandstand (p. 14, Ibid.). Then he saw three persons briskly walking towards the tall,
curly-haired ‘mestizo’ (Nograles). Suddenly,
one of the three men whom he identified in court as appellant (p. 23, Ibid.)
shot Nograles. Regacho and his
companion turned around and started running away along the passageway. As they were running away, Regacho heard
another shot. Upon reaching the outside
portion of the alley they heard two more successive shots. He identified the person who fired the first
shot as the appellant (p. 22, Ibid.) since he was familiar with the faces of
the three persons as he had already seen them on several occasions at
Irong-Irong Restaurant prior to October 2, 1985.

At about the same time, about 10:30 p.m., Pat. Darex (sic) Celis of
the Iloilo INP was waiting for Maj. Norberto Plagata near the Freedom
Grandstand when he heard two successive gunshots from the direction of the
ground floor of the Market Square Building which was about 36 feet away (pp.
8-10, TSN Celis, 10 July 1986). The
shots came from the entrance leading to the restaurant. He then saw a man lying on the ground at the
entrance of Market Square Building beside Freedom Grandstand and one person
running with a limp towards the stairs of Irong-Irong Restaurant. People scampered about. He heard another two successive shots. After a while he saw the limping man ran
(sic) out of the exit of the building facing Freedom Grandstand. He met the limping man who turned out to be
Cesar Habaradas (pp. 11-12, Ibid.) and turned him over to his companion so that
he could proceed to investigate the shooting since a police car had
appeared. Pat. Celis learned and
gathered that the suspect ran towards the exit facing J.M. Basa Street. One of the suspects went to the pier at
Muelle Loney, the other to the direction of Gaisano and Aldeguer and the third
ran along J.M. Basa St. (pp. 13-15, Ibid.). Pat. Celis with other policemen pursued the man who ran towards Muelle
Loney. They asked the bystanders, who
told them that they saw a running man jump into the water. The police searched the tugboats and
barges. On a tugboat they found a pair
of tennis shoes which they turned over to the Homicide Section (pp. 14-16,
Ibid.). They returned to the scene of
the crime and continued investigating. After a while, they were informed through their radio to proceed to
RETRASCO Compound because a person there was arrested by the security guard. His companion proceeded to the Retrasco
Compound. When the patrol car returned
Celis (sic) informed him (sic) that a person, barefoot and wet, wearing only
maong pants, was arrested. So Pat.
Celis returned to headquarters and there saw the person and conducted a body search
on him and found P320.00 cash on the left back pocket of his pants. He made appellant try on the tennis shoes
and saw that they made a snug fit. The
cash was returned to appellant (pp. 20-22, Ibid.).

Pat. Eliseo Villavicencio of the Iloilo INP also heard the gunfire
at about 10:30 p.m. of October 2, 1985 as he was travelling along Mapa St.,
Iloilo City on board a patrol jeep with other members of INP (sic) Iloilo. As soon as they heard the gunfire coming
from the direction of J.M. Basa St., they quickly proceeded to that place. On the way, they heard two more shots. They parked at Photo Magic and ran towards
the Freedom Grandstand (pp. 3-5, TSN Villavicencio, August 28, 1986). Pat. Villavicencio was approached by a
limping man (Cesar Habaradas) who said, ‘Bring me to the hospital, I was
shot. I am seriously wounded.’ He took
the wounded man to their jeep and sped toward St. Paul’s Hospital. As they were approaching the gate of the
hospital, the wounded man who was on the arms of Pat. Villavicencio uttered
that he had a companion who was also shot. Asked who shot him, Cesar Habaradas breathing heavily and blood flowing
from his chest, replied that Junior Lava and Noel Pama shot him. Habaradas also said that his companion was
left behind at the Market Square Building. Pat. Villavicencio returned to the area and there saw a man lying on his
stomach near the side of the entrance of the Market Square Building. That man was Joji Nograles. He was already dead (pp. 5-8, Ibid.). He was brought to the Porras Funeral Homes
where the following day October 3, 1985, Dr. Tito Doromal (Medico Legal Officer
of the Iloilo Integrated National Police) conducted an autopsy on the body
which had bullet wounds on the right face and right thigh. The bullet wound on the right face was
fatal. The bullet entered the face just
below the cheekbone (sic) travelling backward, slightly upward and penetrating
the second cervical vertebral (sic) and lacerating the spinal cord. The deformed slug was extracted from the
spinal canal. Around the entrance wound
are gunpowder burns around 8 by 7 centimeters in diameter (TSN Feb. 12, 1988
pp. 6-9).

The bullet wound on the thigh was located on (sic) the middle of
the thigh and the direction was backward and upward. The slug that was extracted was deformed suggesting the (sic)
bullet hit hard (sic) object and then, deflected, goes (sic) upward.

Cesar Habaradas also succumbed to gunshot wound (sic) at St. Paul’s
Hospital that same night and was brought to Porras Funeral Home where he was
also autopsied by Dr. Doromal on Oct. 3, 1985 (pp. 10-27, TSN Feb. 12, 1986).

Pat. Villavicencio saw Patrolman Tony Frias and Rico Arcones. He told the latter about the man he brought
to the hospital. He went with Rico
Arcones to the police station where they were informed about the man arrested
at the Iloilo Drydock and Engineering Company (IDECO). The man was later brought to the station and
identified as Noel Pama. Pat.
Villavicencio told the investigator that Noel Pama was named by Cesar Habaradas
as one of those who shot him (pp. 9-11, Ibid.).

Anselmo Garocho, Jr., security guard of the Royal Protective and
Janitorial Services Inc., was posted together with another Security Guard,
Rodolfo Bolao, at Post No. 4 of the IDECO on that evening of October 2,
1985. At around 10:30 p.m., they saw a
man coming from the river. The man was
wet, shirtless and barefoot, wearing trousers only. They took the man, who gave his name as Noel Pama, into custody. Pama claimed that he was held up at Muelle
Loney where his watch and necklace were taken by the holduppers. He jumped into the river to avoid getting
stabbed. Pama used the guardhouse phone
to contact his mother, after which Garocho phoned the police. Per police instruction, the security guards
held Pama while waiting for the police to arrive (pp. 20-27, TSN Garocho, March
18, 1986).

Sgt. Ronaldo Porras, who was one of the patrol policemen to come,
likewise testified, corroborating the testimonies of the other police witnesses
(pp. 3-19 TSN Porras, 18 March 1986).

Suzette Nograles Ravena, older sister of Joji Nograles, testified
on the damages and expenses incurred on account of her brother’s death (pp.
2-8, TSN Ravena, February 27, 1987).”^[12]

Upon the other hand, the evidence for the appellant, as
summarized in the Appellee’s Brief, is as follows:

“The defense presented the testimony of appellant Noel Pama
who denied participation in the killings, averring that in the evening of
October 2, 1985 he was at Kweba Club drinking with his friend Jojo
Sorongon. At about 10:45 p.m. he went
out to buy cigarettes outside where it was cheaper. Outside, he felt the urge to vomit so he ran towards the gasoline
station and there threw up. At that
moment, from his back someone announced ‘hold­-up’. He was held-up by three men who got his wristwatch and his necklace. They brought him to the side of Muelle Loney
where they stripped him of his shirt and Hush Puppies shoes. One said ‘Tiruha na lang ina’ (shoot him). When he heard that, he jumped into the water
and swam 100 to 120 meters to the other side. On the riverbank he asked the security guards for help, telling them he
had been held-up. He called his mother
by phone. She arrived, even before the
police came. The police brought him to
the Station and placed him in jail. He
was investigated the next morning and a paraffin cast was taken of his hands
(pp. 3-21, TSN Pama April 12, 1988).

Leonisa Pama, mother of appellant, testified that she went to IDECO
after being summoned by her son at about 10:30 p.m. of October 2, 1985. After a while the police arrived and
arrested her son upon the suspicion that he was involved in the killing that
evening. Earlier that afternoon, she
gave her son, who asked for money, P300.00 in order to entertain his friend
Jojo Sorongon. The police, who searched
his (sic) son took his wallet with P150.00 on (sic) it. The following day October 3, 1985 the wallet
with P150.00 was returned to appellant. Noel told her he was with a woman when he was held-up (pp. 3-24, TSN
Pama, Sept. 7, 1988).

Sgt. Mariano Palmes of the PC Crime Laboratory testified that
pursuant to the request for casting made by the Station Commander of the Iloilo
Police Station he made a paraffin test on the appellant and also on the victims
Joji Nograles and Cesar Habaradas. The
cast was indorsed to Camp Crame Quezon City for examination. The Report he later received showed that the
three casts taken yielded all negative results (pp. 2-23, TSN Palmes Aug. 11,
1987).

Capt. Luena Layador, Asst. Chief of the Chemistry Branch, PC Crime
Laboratory, Camp Crame, testified that she conducted the test on the castings
made by Sgt. Palmes. All the casting
(sic) showed negative results for gunpowder residues. She examined the cotton swabbings from the barrel of the .22
Caliber Magnum Smith and Wesson revolver brought by Sgt. Palmes and found the
same to be positive for gunpowder residues — indicating that it had recently
been fired. The negative findings on
the paraffin cast of appellant’s hand means (sic) that appellant had not fired
a gun (pp. 3-19, TSN Layador, March 8, 1988).”^[13]

The judgment of conviction for Murder in Criminal Case No. 19409
is anchored principally on the trial court’s findings that a conspiracy existed
among the appellant, who was positively identified by Jose Regacho, and his
co-accused, and that the crime was committed with treachery — a qualifying
circumstance properly alleged in the information. While the trial court admitted that there was no evidence to show
who among the three (3) assailants actually fired the fatal shots, the
appellant is nevertheless liable for the death of Joji Nograles because
conspiracy was established; hence, the act of any one of the three (3) is the
act of all. It also declared that the
existence of treachery was proved through the testimony of Jose Regacho to the
effect that Joji Nograles, who was then talking to a 6-7 year old girl, was
suddenly approached by the three (3) assailants and fired at; the victim did
not expect the attack; thus, he could not have put up an effective defense. Appellant and his companions insured the
consummation of the killing without risk to themselves. The court a quo, however, ruled that
evident premeditation, which is also alleged in the information as a qualifying
circumstance, was not proven as no evidence was offered to show that the
appellant had ample time to meditate and reflect upon the impending deed.

The trial court rejected the appellant’s defense of alibi because
he was positively identified by witness Jose Regacho and was unable to prove
that he was at some other place at the time the victims were shot and that it
was also impossible for him to have been at the place of the incident at that
time. The presence of the appellant at
the scene of the crime was likewise inferred by the trial court from the
declaration of Cesar Habaradas, the other victim, that he (Habaradas) was shot
by the appellant and Junior Lava. The
trial court admitted this declaration as part of the res gestae in this
case to prove that both deceased were together, and as a dying declaration in
Criminal Case No. 19418 where the victim is Cesar Habaradas.

The trial court likewise discarded appellant’s story that he was
held up and divested of his wallet, money, shirt, wristwatch, shoes and
necklace, and that he jumped into the Iloilo river and swam to the other side
when one of the holduppers threatened to kill him. Such story is belied by the fact that when he was brought to the
police headquarters, the appellant had his wallet with him which contained
P150.00; moreover, the policemen who bodily searched him found P320.00 in the
left back pocket of his pants. As to
his defense that he could not have fired a gun because he was negative for
gunpowder residues, the court, invoking its finding of conspiracy, declared such
result to be irrelevant.

The judgment of conviction for the lesser offense of homicide in
Criminal Case No. 19418 is based on the same findings and conclusion as in
Criminal Case No. 19409 except that it overruled the prosecution’s insistence
on the presence of the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident
premeditation and instead placed greater reliance on the declaration of the
victim, Cesar Habaradas. The trial
court admitted and considered the same as a dying declaration under Section 37,
Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.

Unable to accept both verdicts, appellant filed a Notice of
Appeal on 20 March 1989 wherein he manifested his intention to appeal the
decisions to the Court of Appeals.^[14]
Considering the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed in what the trial
court considered as the more serious offense (in Criminal Case No 19409), the
appeal should have been interposed directly to this Court.^[15]
However, the trial court, guided only by the Notice of Appeal, erroneously
forwarded the records of both cases to the Court of Appeals^[16]
which, in turn, properly forwarded the same to this Court.^[17]
We accepted the appeal in our Resolution of 30 October 1989.^[18]

In his Appellant’s Brief filed on 10 January 1990, appellant
contends that the trial court:

“1.     X X X ERRED WHEN IT ACCEPTED THE TESTIMONY OF
A BIASED AND SURPRISE WITNESS AS AGAINST THE TESTIMONY OF AN EXPERT WITNESS.

2.      X X X ERRED WHEN IT TOTALLY ACCEPTED
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED.

3.      X X X SERIOUSLY ERRED WHEN IT TOTALLY DISCARDED
THE SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS OF AN EXPERT WITNESS, HENCE, THE FINDINGS OF FACTS AND
THE LAW THAT WAS MADE APPLICABLE WERE NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH THE
EVIDENCE.”^[19]

In support of his first assigned error, appellant impugns the
credibility of Jose Regacho who testified only upon the invitation of the
father of Joji Nograles; prior to the trial, Regacho did not furnish the
policemen with any sworn statement. Neither was he investigated by the latter regarding the incident. Appellant thus avers that the bare
allegation that he fired a gun cannot outweigh the finding made by an expert
witness that he (appellant) was negative for gunpowder residue. Hence, the inevitable conclusion is that he
never fired a gun.

As to the second assigned error, appellant jumps to the
conclusion that the respective testimonies of Garocho, Villavicencio, Celiz and
Porras constitute circumstantial evidence which is not sufficient to support
his conviction. Quoting Moran,^[20]
he alleges that “[B]efore a conviction can be had upon circumstantial
evidence, the circumstances proven, should constitute an UNBROKEN CHAIN which leads to
one fair and reasonable conclusion which points to the defendant to the
exclusion of others, as the guilty persons (sic).”^[21]

Anent the last assigned error, appellant insists that the trial
court committed a serious error in not considering in his favor the negative
results of the paraffin test. Since he
was found negative for gunpowder residue — thus strongly indicating that he
never fired a gun — he could not have shot Nograles or Habaradas. Furthermore, no documentary or oral evidence
was presented by the prosecution to refute the evidence brought forth by the
expert witness, Capt. Layador — the Forensic Chemist of the PC Crime
Laboratory.

The appeal is unmeritorious.

1. The first assigned error involves the credibility of witness
Jose Regacho. Deeply embedded in our
jurisprudence is the rule that when the issue of credibility of a witness is
concerned, appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of the
trial court, considering that the latter is in a better position to decide the
question, having heard the witness himself and observed his deportment and
manner of testifying during trial, unless certain facts of substance and value
have been plainly overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of
the case.^[22]
The trial court gave full faith and credit to Regacho’s testimony. We find nothing in the record to compel Us
to do otherwise. That Regacho came from
nowhere, was not listed as a prosecution witness, did not submit himself to an
investigation by any police authority and did not furnish any sworn statement,
do not diminish or impair his credibility at all or place his testimony under
suspicion. The natural reticence of
most people to get involved in a criminal case is of judicial notice.^[23]
It is likewise settled that the prosecution is not precluded from calling as a
witness a person who was not listed as such in the information.^[24]
There is as well no law which requires that the testimony of a prosecution
witness should first be reduced in writing.^[25]
Besides, the defense counsel failed during cross-examination to dent the
testimony of Regacho or create doubt as to his motive. Moreover, appellant did not offer any
credible evidence to show any ulterior or improper motive which may have moved
Regacho to testify against him. Where
there is no evidence to show any dubious reason or improper motive why a
prosecution witness should testify falsely against the accused or falsely
implicate him in the heinous crime, said testimony is worthy of full faith and
credit.^[26]

2. It is not true that appellant’s convictions are based on
circumstantial evidence. On the
contrary, such convictions were based primarily on the positive identification
by Regacho and the declaration of Cesar Habaradas which was admitted as a dying
declaration in Criminal Case No. 19418 and as part of the res gestae in
Criminal Case No. 19409. The
circumstantial evidence presented served only to strengthen further the already
formidable evidence stacked against him. Be that as it may, even if We are to assume that the convictions were
based solely on circumstantial evidence, such evidence would, nevertheless,
still be sufficient to support the same. Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court provides:

“SEC. 4. Circumstantial
evidence, when sufficient. —
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:

a)       There
is more than on circumstance;

b)       The
facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and

c)       The
combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt.”

The concordant combination and cumulative effect of the following
circumstances produced conviction beyond reasonable doubt: (a) appellant was seen with two (2) others
at the Market Square Building; (b) the three (3) walked briskly towards Joji
Nograles; (c) one of them (identified by Regacho as the appellant) shot
Nograles; (d) this first shot was followed by another shot although Regacho was
unable to see who fired it; (e) two (2) other successive shots were later
heard; (f) a limping man, identified later as Cesar Habaradas, ran out of the
exit of the Market Square Building facing the Freedom Grandstand; (g) Cesar
Habaradas had sustained gunshot wounds; (h) nearing the gate of the hospital
where he was brought, Habaradas declared that he was shot by the appellant and
Junior Lava, and that a companion of his who was also shot was left behind at
the Market Square Building; (i) returning to the said building, Pat. Villavicencio
saw Joji Nograles, who was already dead; (j) on the basis of the information
that one of the suspects ran towards the pier at Muelle Loney, the policemen
proceeded in that direction and were informed that the suspect jumped into the
river; (k) on a tugboat which they searched, the policemen found a pair of
tennis shoes; (l) meanwhile, across the river at the RETRASCO Compound, a man
without any shirt and shoes emerged from the river and was accosted by the
security guards; he identified himself as Noel Pama, the appellant herein; (m)
at the police headquarters where appellant was brought, he was made to try on
the pair of shoes; the same fit snugly.

Furthermore, as correctly ruled by the trial court, conspiracy
existed among the three (3) assailants. There is conspiracy when two (2) or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.^[27]
Direct proof is not essential to prove conspiracy; it may be shown by acts and
circumstances from which may logically be inferred the existence of a common
design among the accused to commit the offense charged;^[28]
it may likewise be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was
perpetrated.^[29]
The presence of the appellant and his two (2) companions at the Market Square
Building, their simultaneous movement towards and concerted attack on Joji
Nograles and Cesar Habaradas and their coordinated escape from the building,
reveal nothing less than a joint purpose and design, concerted action and
community of interest which establish beyond reasonable doubt the existence of
a conspiracy.^[30]
Accordingly, it does not matter at all if the appellant did not inflict the
fatal shots on Nograles and Habaradas. Where conspiracy is established, the act of one is the act of all.^[31]

3. That the appellant was found negative for nitrates is beyond
question. However, for him to maintain
that the negative result of the paraffin test would be sufficient to justify
his acquittal is another matter. The
absence of nitrates in a suspect’s hand is not conclusive proof that he did not
fire a gun. In People vs. Talingdan,^[32]
this Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Hugo E. Gutierrez, Jr., ruled:

“Moreover, the defense also presented NBI chemist Rolando
Vitug who testified that the paraffin test results of his laboratory
examination on the persons of the appellants were found to be negative. This finding, however,
is not conclusive to
show that
a person
has not
fired a
gun. As pointed out by the Court of Appeals, it is possible for a person to fire
a gun and yet be negative for the presence of nitrates, as when firing while
wearing gloves or by washing the hands afterwards. (People v. Roallos 113 SCRA 584 [1982]).” (Emphasis
supplied)

Defense witness Capt. Layador testified that the kind of paraffin
test conducted on the appellant is only 75% reliable in the determination of
whether the subject fired a gun. She
said that more modern methods for nitrate testing are already in use in other
countries. She also revealed that there
are several factors which could affect the results of a paraffin test and
admitted that even if a person had fired a gun, it is possible that he could be
negative for gunpowder residues.^[33]

The trial court correctly admitted as a dying declaration the
statement made by Cesar Habaradas made to Pat. Villavicencio while they were
approaching the gate of the St. Paul’s Hospital where the former died at 11:20
o’clock that same evening of the incident,^[34] or
barely an hour after being shot. Habaradas sustained two (2) bullet wounds on the thoraco-abdominal
regions, the first of which was a thru and thru wound with the bullet cutting
the sub-clavicular artery, penetrating thru and thru the upper lobe of the
upper lung, exiting at the 4th intercostal space, chipping the upper border of
the 5th rib, left para­vertebral area and finally exiting on the skin at the
left supero-lateral scapular area. The
second was located above the left superior iliac spine with the bullet
penetrating and perforating the abdominal cavity; thru and thru the descending
colon; stomach; right lobe of the liver; right diaphragm, penetrating the 6th
intercostal space, along the right mid-clavicular line; the slug was recovered
underneath the skin at the level of the 5th intercostal space. The cause of death was hemorrhage secondary
to bullet wounds.^[35]
Doubtless, Habaradas’ declaration is admissible as a dying declaration in
Criminal Case No. 19418, where he is the victim, because (a) it was made under
consciousness of an impending death; (b) the declaration referred to the cause
and surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s injury and impending death;
and (c) the declarant was a competent witness.^[36] That
such declaration was made by the victim under consciousness of an impending
death can hardly be doubted for, as a matter of fact, Habaradas died about an
hour after making the said declaration.^[37] The
portion of his declaration relating to his companion — Joji Nograles — as
having been also shot was likewise properly appreciated as part of the res
gestae under Section 42, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court in Criminal Case
No. 19409.

We also agree with the court that no qualifying circumstances
were established in Criminal Case No. 19418, hence appellant could only be held
liable for homicide.

Conformably with the current policy of this Court, the indemnity
should be increased to P50,000.00 in each case.

WHEREFORE, the challenged decisions in Criminal Case No.
19409 and Criminal Case No. 19418 of Branch 33 of the Regional Trial Court of
Iloilo are hereby AFFIRMED subject to the modification as to the indemnity,
which is hereby increased to P50,000.00 in each case.

Costs against Appellant Noel Pama.

SO ORDERED.

Gutierrez, Jr., (Chairman), Bidin, Romero, and Melo, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Original Records, Crim. Case No. 19409, 1.

^[2]
Id., Crim. Case No. 19418, 1.

^[3]
Id., 12.

^[4]
Id., Crim. Case No. 19409, op. cit., 15.

^[5]
Original Records, Crim. Case No. 19418, 13.

^[6]
Id., Crim. Case No. 19409, 17; Id., Crim. Case No. 19418, 15.

^[7]
Id., Crim. Case No. 19418, 19.

^[8]
Original Records, Crim. Case No. 19409, 411-428.

^[9]
Id., Crim. Case No. 19416, 95-112.

^[10]
Id., Crim. Case No. 19409, op. cit., 423.

^[11]
Original Records, Crim. Case No. 19416, 112.

^[12]
Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee, 5-12; Rollo, 135-142.

^[13]
Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee, 12-14; Rollo, 142-144.

^[14]
Original Records, Crim. Case No. 19409, 429.

^[15]
Section 5(2) (d), Article VIII, 1987 Constitution; Section 3(c), Rule 122,
Rules of Court; and Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended.

^[16]
Original Records, Crim. Case No. 19409, op. cit., 431.

^[17]
Rollo, 2.

^[18]
Id., 64.

^[19]
Rollo, 69.

^[20]
The appellant fails to indicate the particular volume and edition of Moran’s
book where the quoted portion of the Court of Appeals decision is cited.

^[21]
Rollo, 86.

^[22]
People vs. Garcia, 89 SCRA 440 [1979]; People vs. Bautista, 92
SCRA 465 [1979]; People vs. Abejuela, 92 SCRA 503 [1979].

^[23]
People vs. Pacabes, 137 SCRA 158 [1985]; People vs. Sabellano,
198 SCRA 196 [1991]; People vs. Caraig, 202 SCRA 357 [1991].

^[24]
People vs. Manabat, 100 Phil. 603 [1956]; People vs. Bagsican, 6
SCRA 400 [1962]; People vs. Zapatero, 58 SCRA 450 [1974].

^[25]
People vs. De Guzman, 194 SCRA 168 [1991].

^[26]
People vs. Valera, 90 SCRA 400 [1979], People vs. Angeles, 92
SCRA 432 [1979].

^[27]
Article 8, Revised Penal Code.

^[28]
People vs. Tiongson, 47 SCRA 243 [1972].

^[29]
People vs. Manlangit, 73 SCRA 49 [1976].

^[30]
People vs. Lunar, 45 SCRA 119 [1972]; People vs. Custodio, 47
SCRA 289 [1972].

^[31]
People vs. Gumayo, 70 SCRA 488 [1976]; People vs. Alonzo, 73 SCRA
483 [1976]; People vs. Maranion, 199 SCRA 421 [1991].

^[32]
171 SCRA 333 [1990].

^[33]
TSN, 8 March 1988, 23-25.

^[34]
Exhibit “C” (Autopsy Report on the cadaver of the deceased Cesar
Habaradas); Original Records, Crim. Case No. 19418, 66.

^[35]
Exhibit “C” (Autopsy Report on the cadaver deceased Cesar Habaradas);
Original Records, Crim. Case No. 19418, 66.

^[36]
Section 37, Rule 130, Rules of Court; People vs. Balbas, 122 SCRA 859
[1983];

^[37]
People vs. Bustos, 171 SCRA 243 [1989].