Navarro v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121087, August 26, 1999

3/1/22, 4:45 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 313
VOL. 313, AUGUST 26, 1999 153 Navarro vs.

Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 121087. August 26, 1999.*
FELIPE NAVARRO, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF

APPEALS and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
respondents.
Criminal Law; Evidence; Witnesses; The testimony of a witness

who has an interest in the conviction of the accused is not, for this
reason alone, unreliable.—Petitioner Navarro questions the
credibility of the testimony of Jalbuena on the ground that he was a
__________________
*
SECOND DIVISION.
154
154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Navarro
vs. Court of Appeals
biased witness, having a grudge against him. The testimony of a

witness who has an interest in the conviction of the accused is not,
for this reason alone, unreliable. Trial courts, which have the
opportunity to observe the facial expressions, gestures, and tones of
voice of a witness while testifying, are competent to determine
whether his or her testimony should be given credence. In the
instant case, petitioner Navarro has not shown that the trial court
erred in according weight to the testimony of Jalbuena.
Same; Same; Same; Anti-Wiretapping Act; Voice Recordings;
Where the exchange between two persons is not private, its tape
recording is not prohibited.—Indeed, Jalbuena’s testimony is
confirmed by the voice recording he had made. It may be asked
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f421580c037b48ae8000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/17
whether the tape is admissible in view of R.A. No. 4200, which
prohibits wire tapping. The answer is in the affirmative. The law
provides: x x x Thus, the law prohibits the overhearing, intercepting,
or recording of private communications. Since the exchange between
petitioner Navarro and Lingan was not private, its tape recording is
not prohibited.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; A voice recording is
authenticated by the testimony of a witness (1) that he personally
recorded the conversation; (2) that the tape played in court was the
one he recorded; and (3) that the voices on the tape are those of the
persons such are claimed to belong.—Nor is there any question that
it was duly authenticated. A voice recording is authenticated by the
testimony of a witness (1) that he personally recorded the
conversation; (2) that the tape played in court was the one he
recorded; and (3) that the voices on the tape are those of the persons
such are claimed to belong. In the instant case, Jalbuena testified
that he personally made the voice recording; that the tape played in
court was the one he recorded; and that the speakers on the tape
were petitioner Navarro and Lingan. A sufficient foundation was
thus laid for the authentication of the tape presented by the
prosecution.
Same; Homicide; Mitigating Circumstances; Sufficient
Provocation; Words and Phrases; Provocation is defined to be any
unjust or improper conduct or act of the offended party, capable of
exciting, inciting, or irritating anyone.—It is argued that the
mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation or threat on the
part of the offended party immediately preceding the act should
have been appreciated in favor of petitioner Navarro. Provocation is
defined to be
155
VOL. 313, AUGUST 26, 1999 155 Navarro vs. Court of
Appeals
any unjust or improper conduct or act of the offended party, capable

of exciting, inciting, or irritating anyone. The provocation must be
sufficient and should immediately precede the act. To be sufficient,
it must be adequate to excite a person to commit the wrong, which
must accordingly be proportionate in gravity. And it must
immediately precede the act so much so that there is no interval
between the provocation by the offended party and the commission
of the crime by the accused.
Same; Same; Same; No Intention to Commit so Grave a Wrong;
The frantic exclamations of the accused after the scuffle
that it was the victim who provoked him shows that the former had
no intent to kill the latter.—The mitigating circumstance that the
offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that
committed should also be appreciated in favor of petitioner. The
frantic exclamations of petitioner Navarro after the scuffle that it
was Lingan who provoked him shows that he had no intent to kill
the latter. Thus, this mitigating circumstance should be taken into
account in determining the penalty that should be imposed on
petitioner Navarro. The allowance of this mitigating circumstance is
consistent with the rule that criminal liability shall be incurred by
any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be
different from that which he intended. In People v. Castro, the
mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong
as that committed was appreciated in favor of the accused while
finding him guilty of homicide.
Same; Same; Aggravating Circumstances; Commission of Crime
in a Place Where Public Authorities Are Engaged in Discharge of
Their Duties; The aggravating circumstance of commission of a
crime in a place where the public authorities are engaged in the
discharge of their duties is appreciated where the offense was
committed right in the police station.—The aggravating
circumstance of commission of a crime in a place where the public
authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties should be
appreciated against petitioner Navarro. The offense in this case was
committed right in the police station where policemen were
discharging their public functions.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. 156
156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Navarro vs. Court of Appeals
Lorenzo O. Navarro, Jr. for petitioner.

The Solicitor General for the people.
MENDOZA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision 1of
the Court of Appeals, dated December 14, 1994, which
affirmed the judgment of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
5, Lucena City, dated July 27, 1992, finding petitioner
Felipe Navarro guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide
and sentencing him to ten (10) years of prision mayor, as
minimum, and fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and

one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, but
increased the death indemnity awarded to the heirs of the
victim, Enrique “Ike” Lingan, from P30,000.00 to
P50,000.00.
The information against petitioner alleged—
That on or about the 4th day of February, 1990, in the nighttime, in

the City of Lucena, Province of Quezon, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, being then a
member of the Lucena Integrated National Police, with intent to
kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault
one Ike Lingan inside the Lucena police headquarters, where
authorities are supposed to be engaged in the discharge of their
duties, by boxing the said Ike Lingan in the head with the butt of a
gun and thereafter when the said victim fell, by banging his head
against the concrete pavement, as a consequence of which said Ike
Lingan suffered cerebral concussion and shock which directly caused
his death.
The evidence shows that, at around 8:40 in the evening of

February 4, 1990, Stanley Jalbuena and Enrique “Ike”
Lingan, who were reporters of the radio station DWTI in
Lucena City, together with one Mario Ilagan, went to the
Entertainment City following reports that it was showing
nude dancers.
___________________
1
Per Justice Godardo A. Jacinto and concurred in by Justices Ricardo J.
Francisco and Ramon A. Barcelona.
157

Court of Appeals
After the three had seated themselves at a table and

ordered beer, a scantily clad dancer appeared on stage and
began to perform a strip act. As she removed her brassieres,
Jalbuena brought out his camera and took a picture.2
At that point, the floor manager, Dante Liquin, with a
security guard, Alex Sioco, approached Jalbuena and
demanded to know why he took a picture. 3Jalbuena replied:
“Wala kang pakialam, because this is my job.”4 Sioco pushed
Jalbuena towards the table as he warned the latter that he
would kill him.5 When Jalbuena saw that
Sioco was about to pull out his gun, he ran out of the joint
followed by his companions.6
Jalbuena and his companions went to the police station
to report the matter. Three of the policemen on duty,
including petitioner Navarro, were having drinks in front of
the police station, and they asked Jalbuena and his
companions to join them. Jalbuena declined and went to the
desk officer, Sgt. Añonuevo, to report the incident. In a
while, Liquin and Sioco arrived on a motorcycle. 7
Sioco and Liquin were met by petitioner Navarro who
talked with them in a corner for around fifteen minutes. 8
Afterwards, petitioner Navarro turned to Jalbuena and,
pushing him to the wall, said to him: “Putang ina,
kinakalaban mo si Kabo Liquin, anak yan ni Kabo Liquin,
hindi mo ba kilala?”9Petitioner Navarro then pulled out his
firearm and cocked it, and, pressing it on the face of
Jalbuena, said, “Ano, uutasin na kita?”10
At this point, Lingan intervened and said to petitioner
Navarro: “Huwag namang ganyan, pumarito kami para
mag-
___________________
2
TSN, pp. 4-8, May 28, 1990.
3
Id., pp. 9-10.
4
Id., p. 10.
5
Id., pp. 10-11.
6
Id., p. 11.
7
Id., pp. 11-14.
8
Id., p. 15.
9
Id., pp. 16-17.
10
Id., p. 20.
158

pa-blotter, I am here to mediate.”11Petitioner Navarro

replied: “Walang press, press, mag-sampu pa kayo.”12 He
then turned to Sgt. Añonuevo and told him to make of
record the behavior of Jalbuena and Lingan.13
This angered Lingan, who said: “O, di ilagay mo
diyan.”14Petitioner Navarro retorted: “Talagang ilalagay
ko.”15The two then had a heated exchange. 16Finally, Lingan
said: “Masyado kang abusado, alisin mo yang baril
17
mo at magsuntukan na lang tayo.”17Petitioner Navarro
replied: “Ah, ganoon?”18
As Lingan was about to turn away, petitioner Navarro
hit him with the handle of his pistol above the left eyebrow.
Lingan fell on the floor, blood flowing down his face. He
tried to get up, but petitioner Navarro gave him a fist blow
on the forehead which floored him.19
Petitioner Navarro turned to Jalbuena and said: “Kita
mo yan ha, buhay kang testigo, si Ike Lingan ang
naghamon.”20 He said to Sgt. Añonuevo: “ Ilagay mo diyan
sa blotter, sa harap ni Alex Sioco at Dante Liquin, na si Ike
Lingan ang naghamon.”21 He then poked his gun at the
right temple of Jalbuena and made him sign his name on
the blotter.22Jalbuena could not affix his signature. His
right hand was trembling and he simply wrote his name in
print.23
Capt. Coronado, the station commander, called
petitioner Navarro to his office, while a policeman took
Lingan to the
__________________
11
Id., p. 23.
12
Ibid.
13
Id., p. 24.
14
Ibid.
15
Id., p. 25.
16
Ibid.
17
Id., p. 26.
18
Ibid.
19
Id., pp. 26-32.
20
Id., p. 32.
21
Id., p. 34.
22
Id., pp. 34-35.
23
Id., pp. 35-37.
159

Court of Appeals
Quezon Memorial Hospital. The station manager of DWTI,

Boy Casañada, arrived and, learning that Lingan had been
taken to the hospital, proceeded there. But Lingan died
from his injuries.24
Unknown to petitioner Navarro, Jalbuena was able to
record on tape the exchange between petitioner and the
25
deceased.25The following is an excerpt from the tape
recording:
Lingan: Pare, you are abusing yourself.

Navarro: Who is that abusing?
Lingan: I’m here to mediate. Do not include me in the
problem. I’m out of the problem.
....
Navarro: Wala sa akin yan. Ang kaso lang . . . .
Lingan: Kalaban mo ang media, pare. Ako at si Stanley,
dalawa kami. Okay. Do not fight with me. I just
came here to ayusin things. Do not say bad
things against me. I’m the number one loko sa
media. I’m the best media man . . . .
Navarro: Huwag tayong mag-lokohan sa ganyan! Huwag na
tayong mag-takotan! Huwag mong sabihing loko
ka!
Lingan: I’m brave also.
Navarro: Ay lalo na ako. Tahimik lang naman ako. Wala ka
namang masasabi sa akin dahil nag
tatrabaho lang ako ng ayon sa serbisyo ko.
Lingan: You are challenging me and him. . . .
Navarro: Ay walastik ka naman Ike! Pag may problema ka
dito sinasabihan kita na may balita tayong
maganda. Pambihira ka Ike. Huwag mong
sabihin na . . . Parang minomonopoly mo eh.
Lingan: Pati ako kalaban ninyo.
Navarro: Talagang kalaban namin ang press. Lahat, hindi
lang ikaw!
Lingan: You are wrong. Bakit kalaban nyo ang press?
Navarro: Pulis ito! Aba!
___________________
24
Id., pp. 45-53.
25
TSN, pp. 8-11, June 26, 1990.
160

Lingan: Alisin mo ang baril mo! Alisin mo ang baril mo!

Suntukan tayo, sige.
Navarro: Mayabang ka ah!

(Sounds of a scuffle)
Navarro: Hinamon ako nyan! Pare hinamon ako nyan! Pare
hinamon ako nyan, testigo kayo. Alisin ko daw ang baril ko.
Hinamon ako nyan. Pare,
ilagay mo diyan, hinamon ako sa harap ni
Stanley. Testigo kayo, hinamon ako. Pulis tayo
eh. Puta, buti nga, suntok lang ang inabot nyan.
Sa harap ni Alex, ni Joe, ni Stanley, hinamon
ako. Pare, hinamon ako, kinig nyo ha. Hinamon
ako nyan. Sige, dalhin nyo sa hospital yan.
Petitioner Felipe Navarro claims that it was the deceased

who tried to hit him twice, but he (petitioner) was able to
duck both times, and that Lingan was so drunk he fell on
the floor twice, each time hitting his head on the concrete.26
In giving credence to the evidence for the prosecution,
the trial court stated:
After a thorough and in-depth evaluation of the evidence adduced by

the prosecution and the defense, this court finds that the evidence
for the prosecution is the more credible, concrete and sufficient to
create that moral certainty in the mind of the court that accused
herein is criminally responsible.
The defense’s evidence which consists of outright denial could not
under the circumstance overturn the strength of the prosecution’s
evidence.
This court finds that the prosecution witnesses, more particularly
Stanley Jalbuena, lacked any motive to make false accusation,
distort the truth, testify falsehood or cause accusation of one who
had neither brought him harm or injury.
Going over the evidence on record, the postmortem report issued
by Dra. Eva Yamamoto confirms the detailed account given by
Stanley Jalbuena on how Lingan sustained head injuries.
Said post-mortem report together with the testimony of Jal
buena sufficiently belie the claim of the defense that the head inju-
___________________
26
TSN, pp. 5-6, Sept. 16, 1991.
161

Appeals
ries of deceased Lingan were caused by the latter’s falling down on

the concrete pavement head first.
The Court of Appeals affirmed:
We are far from being convinced by appellant’s aforesaid

disquisition. We have carefully evaluated the conflicting versions of
the incident as presented by both parties, and we find the trial
court’s factual conclusions to have better and stronger evidentiary
support.
In the first place, the mere fact that Jalbuena was himself a
victim of appellant’s aggression does not impair the probative worth
of his positive and logical account of the incident in question. In fact,
far from proving his innocence, appellant’s unwarranted assault
upon Jalbuena, which the defense has virtually admitted, clearly
betrays his violent character or disposition and his capacity to harm
others. Apparently, the same motivation that led him into assailing
Jalbuena must have provoked him into also attacking Lingan who
had interceded for Jalbuena and humiliated him and further
challenged him to a fist fight.
....
On the other hand, appellant’s explanation as to how Lingan was
injured is too tenuous and illogical to be accepted. It is in fact
contradicted by the number, nature and location of Lingan’s injuries
as shown in the post-mortem report (Exh. D). According to the
defense, Lingan fell two times when he was outbalanced in the
course of boxing the appellant. And yet, Lingan suffered lacerated
wounds in his left forehead, left eyebrow, between his left and right
eyebrows, and contusion in the right temporal region of the head
(Exh. E). Certainly, these injuries could not have resulted from
Lingan’s accidental fall.
Hence, this appeal. Petitioner Navarro contends:
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS HAS DECIDED THE

CASE NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND WITH THE
APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT. ITS
CONCLUSION IS A FINDING BASED ON SPECULATION,
SURMISE OR CONJECTURE; THE INFERENCE IT MADE IS
MANIFESTLY MISTAKEN, ABSURD OR IMPOSSIBLE; IT
COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION; ITS JUDGMENT
IS BASED ON A MISAPPREHENSION OF FACTS; ITS FINDING
IS CONTRADICTED
162
162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Navarro

vs. Court of Appeals
BY EVIDENCE ON RECORD; AND ITS FINDING IS DEVOID OF

SUPPORT IN THE RECORD.
The appeal is without merit.

First. Petitioner Navarro questions the credibility of the
testimony of Jalbuena on the ground that he was a biased
witness, having a grudge against him. The testimony of a
witness who has an interest in the conviction of the accused
is not, for this reason alone, unreliable. 27Trial courts, which
have the opportunity to observe the facial expressions,
gestures, and tones of voice of a witness while testifying,
are competent to determine whether his or her testimony
should be given credence.28In the instant case, petitioner
Navarro has not shown that the trial court erred in
according weight to the testimony of Jalbuena.
Indeed, Jalbuena’s testimony is confirmed by the voice
recording he had made. It may be asked whether the tape is
admissible in view of R.A. No. 4200, which prohibits wire
tapping. The answer is in the affirmative. The law provides:
SECTION 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, not being

authorized by all the parties to any private communication or
spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device
or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such
communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known
as a dicta-phone or dictagraph or detectaphone or walkie
talkie or tape-recorder, or however otherwise described: It shall also
be unlawful for any person, be he a participant or not in the act or
acts penalized in the next preceding sentence, to knowingly possess
any tape record, wire record, disc record, or any other such record,
or copies thereof, of any communication or spoken word secured
either before or after the effective date of this Act in the manner
prohibited by this law; or to replay the same for any other person or
persons; or to communicate the contents thereof, either verbally or
in writing, or to furnish transcriptions thereof,
__________________
27
See People v. Mandal, 188 SCRA 526 (1990).
28
People v. Padilla, G.R. No. 126124, January 20, 1999, 301 SCRA 265. 163

Appeals
whether complete or partial, to any other person: Provided, That the

use of such record or any copies thereof as evidence in any civil,
criminal investigation or trial of offenses mentioned in section 3
hereof, shall not be covered by this prohibition.
....
SEC. 4. Any communication or spoken word, or the existence,
contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of the same or any
part thereof, or any information therein contained obtained or
secured by any person in violation of the preceding sections of this
Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi
judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation.
Thus, the law prohibits the overhearing, intercepting, or

recording of private communications.29Since the exchange
between petitioner Navarro and Lingan was not private, its
tape recording is not prohibited.
Nor is there any question that it was duly authenticated.
A voice recording is authenticated by the testimony of a
witness (1) that he personally recorded the conversation; (2)
that the tape played in court was the one he recorded; and
(3) that the voices on the tape are those of the persons such
are claimed to belong.30In the instant case, Jalbuena
testified that he personally made the voice recording; 31that
the tape played in court was the one he recorded; 32and that
the speakers on the tape were petitioner Navarro and
Lingan.33A sufficient foundation was thus laid for the
authentication of the tape presented by the prosecution.
Second. The voice recording made by Jalbuena
established: (1) that there was a heated exchange between
petitioner Navarro and Lingan on the placing in the police
blotter of an entry against him and Jalbuena; and (2) that
some form of violence occurred involving petitioner Navarro
and Lingan, with the latter getting the worst of it.
_________________
29
Ramirez v. Court of Appeals, 248 SCRA 590 (1995).
30
United States v. Jones, 730 F. 2d. 593 (1984).
31
TSN, pp. 8-22.
32
Id., pp. 11-13.
33
Id., p. 11.
164

Furthermore, Dr. Eva Yamamoto, who performed the

autopsy on the body of Lingan, issued a medical
certificate,34dated February 5, 1990, containing the
following findings:
Post Mortem Findings:

= Dried blood, forehead & face
= No blood oozed from the ears, nose & mouth =
Swelling, 3 cm x 2 cm, temporal region, head, right
= Lacerated wound, 2 cm in length, 1-2 in depth, lateral,
eyebrow, Left
= Lacerated wound, 0.5 cm in length, superficial, between the
left & right eyebrow
= Lacerated wound, 2 cm in length, 1 cm in depth,
forehead, Left
= Cyanosis of the tips of fingers & toes
CAUSE OF DEATH:
= CEREBRAL CONCUSSION & SHOCK
= BLOW ON THE HEAD
Dr. Yamamoto testified:
Q Give your opinion as to what was the possible cause of this

findings number one, which is oozing of blood from the
forehead?
A It may be due to a blow on the forehead or it bumped to a
hard object, sir.
Q Could a metal like a butt of a gun have caused this
wound No. 1?
A It is possible, sir.
Q And in the alternative, could have it been caused by
bumping on a concrete floor?
A Possible, sir.
FISCAL:
What could have been the cause of the contusion and
swelling under your findings No. 2 doctor?
WITNESS:
It may be caused by bumping to a hard object, sir.
___________________
34
Records, p. 56.
165

Court of Appeals
Q Could a butt of a gun have caused it doctor?

A The swelling is big so it could have not been caused by a
butt of a gun because the butt of a gun is small, sir.
Q How about this findings No. 4?
A By a bump or contact of the body to a hard object, sir. Q
And findings No. 5 what could have caused it? A Same
cause, sir.
Q This findings No. 6 what could have caused this wound? A
Same thing, sir.
Q How about this last finding, cyanosis of tips of fingers
and toes, what could have caused it doctor?
WITNESS:
It indicates there was cardiac failure, sir.
FISCAL:
In this same post mortem report and under the heading
cause of death it states: Cause of Death: Cerebral
concussion and Shock, will you explain it?
A Cerebral concussion means in Tagalog “naalog ang
utak” or jarring of the brain, sir.
Q What could have been the cause of jarring of the brain? A It
could have been caused by a blow of a hard object, sir. Q
What about the shock, what could have caused it? A It was
due to peripheral circulatory failure, sir. Q Could any one of
both caused the death of the victim? A Yes, sir.
Q Could cerebral concussion alone have caused the death of
the deceased?
A May be, sir.
Q How about shock?
A Yes, sir.
FISCAL:
Which of these two more likely to cause death?
WITNESS:
Shock, sir.
Q Please explain further the meaning of the medical term
shock?
166

A It is caused by peripheral circulatory failure as I have

said earlier, sir.
....
FISCAL:
Could a bumping or pushing of one’s head against a
concrete floor have caused shock?
WITNESS:
Possible, sir.
How about striking with a butt of a gun, could it cause
shock?
A Possible, sir.35
The above testimony clearly supports the claim of Jalbuena

that petitioner Navarro hit Lingan with the handle of his
pistol above the left eyebrow and struck him on the
forehead with his fist.
Third. It is argued that the mitigating circumstance of
sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended
party immediately preceding the act should have been
appreciated in favor of petitioner Navarro. Provocation is
defined to be any unjust or improper conduct or act of the
offended party, capable of exciting, inciting, or irritating
anyone.36The provocation must be sufficient and should
immediately precede the act.37To be sufficient, it must be
adequate to excite a person to commit the wrong, which
must accordingly be proportionate in gravity. 38And it must
immediately precede the act so much so that there is no
interval between the provocation by the offended party and
the commission of the crime by the accused.39
In the present case, the remarks of Lingan, which
immediately preceded the act of petitioner, constituted
sufficient
___________________
35
TSN, pp. 7-11, Aug. 23, 1990.
36
Pepito v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119942, July 8, 1999, 310 SCRA
128.
37
People v. Paga, 79 SCRA 570 (1977).
38
People v. Nabora, 73 Phil. 434 (1941).
39
Supra, note 35.
167

Court of Appeals
provocation. In People v. Macaso,40we appreciated this
mitigating circumstance in favor of the accused, a
policeman, who shot a motorist after the latter had
repeatedly taunted him with defiant words. Hence, this
mitigating circumstance should be considered in favor of
petitioner Navarro.
Furthermore, the mitigating circumstance that the
offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as
that committed should also be appreciated in favor of
petitioner. The frantic exclamations of petitioner Navarro
after the scuffle that it was Lingan who provoked him
shows that he had no intent to kill the latter. Thus, this
mitigating circumstance should be taken into account in
determining the penalty that should be imposed on
petitioner Navarro. The allowance of this mitigating
circumstance is consistent with the rule that criminal
liability shall be incurred by any person committing a
felony although the wrongful act done be different from that
which he intended.41In People v. Castro,42the mitigating
circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as
that committed was appreciated in favor of the accused
while finding him guilty of homicide.
However, the aggravating circumstance of commission of
a crime in a place where the public authorities are engaged
in the discharge of their duties should be appreciated
against petitioner Navarro. The offense in this case was
committed right in the police station where policemen were
discharging their public functions.43
The crime committed as found by the trial court and the
Court of Appeals was homicide, for which the penalty under
Art. 249 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion temporal. As
there were two mitigating circumstances and one
aggravating circumstance, the penalty should be fixed in its
minimum period.44Applying the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, petitioner
____________________
40
64 SCRA 659 (1975).
41
REVISED PENAL CODE, Art. 4.
42
117 SCRA 1014 (1982).
43
People v. Regala, 113 SCRA 613 (1982).
44
REVISED PENAL CODE, Art. 64.
168

Navarro should be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty,
the minimum of which is within the range of the penalty
next lower in degree, i.e., prision mayor, and the maximum
of which is reclusion temporal in its minimum period.45
The indemnity as increased by the Court of Appeals from
P30,000.00 to P50,000.00 is in accordance with current
jurisprudence.46
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is
AFFIRMED with the modification that petitioner Felipe
Navarro is hereby SENTENCED to suffer a prison term of 8
years of prision mayor, as minimum, to 14 years and 8
months of re-clusion temporal, as maximum.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo (Chairman), Quisumbing and Buena, JJ.,

concur.
Reviewed decision affirmed with modification.
Notes.—Unauthorized tape recordings of telephone

conversations not admissible in evidence. (Salcedo-Ortañez
vs. Court of Appeals, 235 SCRA 111 [1994])
Even a person privy to a communication who records his
private conversation with another without the knowledge of
the latter will qualify as a violator under Section 1 of
Republic Act 4200. (Ramirez vs. Court of Appeals, 248
SCRA 590 [1995])
——o0o——
___________________
45
Act No. 4103, §1.
46
E.g., Pepito v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119942, July 8, 1999, 310
SCRA 128.
169
© Copyright 2022 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.


Navarro v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121087, August 26, 1999

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Navarro v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121087, August 26, 1999

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Navarro v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121087, August 26, 1999

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3/1/22, 4:45 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 313

VOL. 313, AUGUST 26, 1999 153 Navarro vs.

G.R. No. 121087. August 26, 1999.*

FELIPE NAVARRO, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF

Criminal Law; Evidence; Witnesses; The testimony of a witness

154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Navarro

vs. Court of Appeals

biased witness, having a grudge against him. The testimony of a

VOL. 313, AUGUST 26, 1999 155 Navarro vs. Court of

any unjust or improper conduct or act of the offended party, capable

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. 156

156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lorenzo O. Navarro, Jr. for petitioner.

minimum, and fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and

That on or about the 4th day of February, 1990, in the nighttime, in

The evidence shows that, at around 8:40 in the evening of

VOL. 313, AUGUST 26, 1999 157 Navarro vs.

After the three had seated themselves at a table and

158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

pa-blotter, I am here to mediate.”11Petitioner Navarro

VOL. 313, AUGUST 26, 1999 159 Navarro vs.

Quezon Memorial Hospital. The station manager of DWTI,

Lingan: Pare, you are abusing yourself.

160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lingan: Alisin mo ang baril mo! Alisin mo ang baril mo!

Navarro: Mayabang ka ah!

Petitioner Felipe Navarro claims that it was the deceased

After a thorough and in-depth evaluation of the evidence adduced by

VOL. 313, AUGUST 26, 1999 161 Navarro vs. Court of

ries of deceased Lingan were caused by the latter’s falling down on

The Court of Appeals affirmed:

We are far from being convinced by appellant’s aforesaid

Hence, this appeal. Petitioner Navarro contends:

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS HAS DECIDED THE

162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Navarro

BY EVIDENCE ON RECORD; AND ITS FINDING IS DEVOID OF

The appeal is without merit.

SECTION 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, not being

VOL. 313, AUGUST 26, 1999 163 Navarro vs. Court of

whether complete or partial, to any other person: Provided, That the

Thus, the law prohibits the overhearing, intercepting, or

164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Furthermore, Dr. Eva Yamamoto, who performed the

Post Mortem Findings:

Dr. Yamamoto testified:

Q Give your opinion as to what was the possible cause of this

VOL. 313, AUGUST 26, 1999 165 Navarro vs.

Q Could a butt of a gun have caused it doctor?

166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

A It is caused by peripheral circulatory failure as I have

The above testimony clearly supports the claim of Jalbuena

VOL. 313, AUGUST 26, 1999 167 Navarro vs.

168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bellosillo (Chairman), Quisumbing and Buena, JJ.,

Reviewed decision affirmed with modification.

Notes.—Unauthorized tape recordings of telephone

© Copyright 2022 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like