People vs. Asuncion

Circumstantial evidence may establish conspiracy and murder beyond reasonable doubt where the accused’s conduct before, during, and after the killing shows a joint design, and the act of one is the act of both; treachery and abuse of public position may qualify and aggravate the killing when the armed accused use their authority to disarm the victim and insure the offense without risk to themselves.

The Catalina Intelligence Security Agency (CISA) provided security services at the National Irrigation Administration (NIA) and coordinated with the 183rd PC Company detachment in Canili on security, peace, and order within the NIA compound. Asuncion was the detachment’s officer-in-charge and Aguinaldo was a member; Vergara was CISA’s officer-in-charge.

On the evening of November 6, 1978, Batung-malaki, the property custodian of the National Irrigation Administration (NIA), asked Felomeno Sarmiento, security guard supervisor of the Catalina Intelligence Security Agency (CISA) in Canili, and the appellants Asuncion and Aguinaldo to pacify NIA security guard Eblacas and Rodolfo Tapat, a CISA member, who were fighting inside the warehouse in Post No. 3 in the NIA compound. Batung-malaki, Sarmiento, Asuncion, and Aguinaldo proceeded to the warehouse; Vergara followed them. They met Eblacas, who was bleeding, and he told them that he had fought Tapat. The group proceeded to Post No. 3 to look for Tapat; the guards there did not know where he was, but the appellants suspected that Vergara was hiding him. Except for Batung-malaki, who remained at the main gate of Post No. 3, the group, which included Bayani Agustin, Aguinaldo’s brother-in-law, proceeded to the Transbasin Canal within the NIA compound. Before reaching the canal, Aguinaldo ordered the group to stop at a place covered with tall talahib grass. Aguinaldo ordered Sarmiento and Vergara to bring out their bullets; Sarmiento answered that they had no bullets. Aguinaldo ordered them to bring out their guns; Vergara obeyed. Aguinaldo ordered him to throw his gun on the ground in front of him; after Vergara laid down his firearm, Aguinaldo kicked him. Asuncion fired a shot upward. Aguinaldo fired at Vergara’s left leg and kicked his bleeding leg. Vergara tied his wounded leg with a handkerchief and begged, “Huwag ninyo akong papatayin. Maawa kayo sa mga anak ko.” He requested Sarmiento to get an ambulance so he could be brought to the hospital. Agustin embraced Sarmiento to stop him from getting an ambulance, but Sarmiento extricated himself and left. The appellants had their guns pointed at Vergara, who was seated. Upon reaching Post No. 3, Sarmiento asked the guards Presto and Martinez to help Vergara, but they refused for fear that they might be sprayed with bullets. At that juncture, Sarmiento, Presto, and Martinez heard a gunshot coming from the place where Sarmiento had left the accused and Vergara. Because the NIA ambulance was out of order, Sarmiento requested Presto and Martinez to inform Vergara’s wife. Later that evening, Perla Luz Vergara, accompanied by two security guards, went to the scene; they did not find Vergara where he was shot, but following a trail of blood, they found him dead at the edge of a canal. Vergara sustained two gunshot wounds, one on the head (face) and the other on the left leg, and died immediately due to “hemorrhage, severe, secondary to gunshot wound at the head (face).”

The next day, November 7, 1978, the appellants left Canili. Aguinaldo reported the killing to Major Juanita Flores of the 183rd PC Company at Baloc, Santo Domingo, Nueva Ecija, saying: “Nakabaril kami ni Asuncion, hindi ko alam kung patay.” Asuncion reported the incident to Sgt. Lorenzo Suelto. A PC team was dispatched to investigate the crime, and after the investigation, the appellants were required to surrender their guns to the PC Commander at Baloc, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija. The appellants were charged with murder in an information alleging that on or about November 6, 1978, at nighttime, in Barangay Canili, Alfonso Castañeda, Nueva Vizcaya, the accused, a policeman and a PC sergeant attached to the 183rd PC Company, with abuse of their public positions, with the qualifying circumstances of treachery, advantage of superior strength, and aid of armed men, the generic circumstances of nocturnity and evident premeditation, and intent to kill, mortally shot Vergara with their service firearms (carbines), causing his instantaneous death, and that the heirs suffered actual, moral, and exemplary damages of not less than P50,000.00. Upon arraignment, they pleaded “NOT GUILTY.”

There was no eyewitness to the killing, and the prosecution’s case rested on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances relied on included the appellants’ resentment against Vergara because they suspected him of concealing the erring CISA guard Tapat; Asuncion’s positioning himself with his gun ready to assist Aguinaldo when Aguinaldo disarmed Vergara; Aguinaldo’s shooting Vergara in the leg and kicking him while Asuncion watched; both appellants being armed with guns; the appellants’ pointing their guns at Vergara, who was seated, after Sarmiento escaped to summon help; the security guards’ refusal to intervene because they knew the appellants were in a black mood and feared being shot; and Aguinaldo’s admission to Major Flores that he and Asuncion had shot someone.

At trial, the appellants put up alibi. Asuncion alleged that at the time of the killing he was in the store of Villagracia around 10 meters away from the NIA gate and 100 meters from the scene of the crime. Aguinaldo alleged that after he had shot Vergara in the leg, he left the place to summon an ambulance and from there heard a gunshot coming from the scene of the crime.

• Commission of the Crime: Appellants alleged that the trial court erred in finding that they committed the crime charged. They maintained alibi: Asuncion was in Villagracia’s store about 10 meters from the NIA gate and 100 meters from the scene; Aguinaldo, after shooting Vergara in the leg, left to summon an ambulance and heard a gunshot from the scene.
• Qualifying and Aggravating Circumstances: Appellants alleged that the trial court erred in finding that the crime was qualified by treachery and attended by the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public positions.
• Cause of Death: Appellants alleged that the trial court erred in finding that the victim died of gunshot wounds.

• Commission of the Crime, Conspiracy, and Alibi: Whether the trial court erred in finding that the appellants committed the crime charged, based on circumstantial evidence establishing conspiracy, despite their defense of alibi.
• Treachery: Whether the crime was qualified by treachery.
• Abuse of Public Position: Whether the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public positions attended the crime.
• Cause of Death: Whether the victim died of gunshot wounds.

• Commission of the Crime, Conspiracy, and Alibi: No. The combination of circumstantial evidence established conspiracy and guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and alibi failed because it was not physically impossible for Asuncion to be at the scene.
• Treachery: Yes. Treachery qualified the killing as murder because the appellants employed means to insure the offense without risk to themselves, leaving Vergara unarmed and defenseless after his leg was shattered.
• Abuse of Public Position: Yes. The appellants used their authority as police and constabulary members to disarm Vergara before shooting him.
• Cause of Death: Yes. Vergara sustained two gunshot wounds and died immediately from severe hemorrhage secondary to the gunshot wound at the head (face).

• Commission of the Crime, Conspiracy, and Alibi: There was no eyewitness, and the conviction rested on circumstantial evidence. The SC held that the combination of the circumstances—the appellants’ resentment against Vergara, Asuncion’s backup position when Aguinaldo disarmed Vergara, Aguinaldo’s shooting and kicking of Vergara while Asuncion watched, both appellants being armed, their pointing guns at the seated Vergara after Sarmiento left, the guards’ refusal to intervene out of fear, and Aguinaldo’s admission to Major Flores—was sufficient to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt under Sec. 5, Rule 133, as supported by People vs. Modesto and People vs. Pajanustan. The SC found that the appellants acted in concert and assisted each other in killing Vergara: Asuncion acted as backup for Aguinaldo, who fired the first shot that disabled their victim before the final kill. Conspiracy having been established, the act of one was the act of both, so it was not necessary to ascertain their individual participation in the final liquidation of Vergara (People vs. Beltran; People vs. Garcia). The SC also held that conspiracy may be established by circumstantial evidence only; where the accused move in concert toward a common purpose, conspiracy may be inferred from their joint acts and design, without need of direct evidence of the criminal agreement, and the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime can show conspiracy (People vs. Rojas). On alibi, the SC held that it is the weakest defense; it must not only appear that the accused was at some other place but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime (People vs. Aquino). Asuncion’s claim placed him only about 10 meters from the NIA gate and 100 meters from the scene, not physically impossible. Aguinaldo’s claim that he left to summon an ambulance after shooting Vergara in the leg and heard a gunshot from the scene did not exculpate him. Their conflicting stories, tending to impute responsibility on each other, not only proved both were liars but bolstered the prosecution’s theory.
• Treachery: The SC affirmed that treachery qualified the killing as murder. In People vs. Guardo, the SC held that although the attack was frontal, the crime was murder qualified by treachery because the accused employed means to insure the commission of the offense without risk to themselves from any defense the offended party might make. Here, the appellants disarmed Vergara, and Aguinaldo shot him in the leg and kicked the bleeding leg; unarmed and unable to flee because his leg was shattered, Vergara was completely defenseless. Treachery was present because the killers employed means to insure the commission of the offense with no risk to themselves.
• Abuse of Public Position: The SC affirmed the trial court’s finding that the aggravating circumstance of abuse of public position was present (People vs. Alegarbes, Jr.). The appellants used their authority as members of the police and constabulary to disarm Vergara before shooting him. Unarmed and unable to flee because Aguinaldo had shattered his leg, Vergara was completely defenseless before his attackers.
• Cause of Death: The SC affirmed the finding that Vergara sustained two gunshot wounds, one on the head (face) and the other on the left leg, and died immediately due to “hemorrhage, severe, secondary to gunshot wound at the head (face).” The assigned error on the cause of death therefore failed.

• Circumstantial Evidence — When there is no eyewitness, conviction may rest on circumstantial evidence if the combination of circumstances produces conviction beyond reasonable doubt under Sec. 5, Rule 133. The SC applied the seven circumstances and upheld the murder conviction.
• Conspiracy — A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement to commit a crime and decide to commit it. It may be proved by circumstantial evidence; where the accused move in concert toward a common purpose, conspiracy may be inferred from their joint acts and design, without need of direct evidence of the criminal agreement; the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the crime can show conspiracy. Once established, the act of one is the act of both. The SC applied this to Asuncion as backup and Aguinaldo as the shooter.
• Alibi — Alibi is the weakest defense; it must not only appear that the accused was at some other place but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime. The SC rejected Asuncion’s alibi because his claimed location was not physically impossible, and Aguinaldo’s account did not exculpate him.
• Treachery — Treachery qualifies a killing as murder when the accused employ means to insure the commission of the offense without risk to themselves from any defense the offended party might make; even a frontal attack can be treacherous if the victim is defenseless. The SC applied this where Vergara was disarmed, his leg was shot, and he was unable to flee.
• Abuse of Public Position — The aggravating circumstance is present when the appellants used their authority as police and constabulary members to disarm the victim before shooting him. The SC affirmed its presence.
• Murder — Murder is defined and penalized under Article 248, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code; the SC affirmed the conviction under that provision.

• “where the accused move in concert toward a common purpose, conspiracy may be inferred from their joint acts and design, without need of direct evidence of the criminal agreement.” — The SC uses this to explain that conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence and may be inferred from concerted acts.
• “Conspiracy having been established, the act of one is the act of both, hence, it is not necessary to ascertain their individual participation in the final liquidation of Vergara” — The SC applies the rule to hold both appellants liable for the killing without need to determine their individual roles in the final liquidation.
• “Although the attack was frontal, the crime committed was murder, qualified by treachery, as the accused employed means to insure the commission of the offense without risk to themselves from any defense the offended party might make.” — The SC quotes People vs. Guardo to uphold treachery despite the frontal nature of the attack.
• “if the defense of alibi is to be believed, it must not only appear that the accused was at some other place but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime” — The SC uses this standard to reject Asuncion’s alibi.

• People vs. Modesto, 25 SCRA 36 — Cited to support conviction based on circumstantial evidence.
• People vs. Pajanustan, 97 SCRA 699 — Cited with Modesto on the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence.
• People vs. Beltran, 138 SCRA 321 — Cited for the rule that once conspiracy is established, the act of one is the act of both.
• People vs. Garcia, 141 SCRA 336 — Cited with Beltran on the same conspiracy rule.
• People vs. Rojas, 147 SCRA 175 — Cited for the rule that conduct before, during, and after the crime can show conspiracy.
• People vs. Aquino, 133 SCRA 283 — Cited for the alibi requirement that it be physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene.
• People vs. Guardo, 156 SCRA 152 — Quoted to hold that treachery may qualify a killing as murder even if the attack was frontal.
• People vs. Alegarbes, Jr., 154 SCRA 125 — Cited to affirm abuse of public position as an aggravating circumstance.

• Article 248, paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes murder; the trial court convicted under it and the SC affirmed.
• Section 5, Rule 133, Rules of Court — Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction when the combination of circumstances produces conviction beyond reasonable doubt; the SC applied it to uphold the murder conviction.
• Section 5, Rule 122, Rules of Court — The SC exercised discretion to entertain the appeal despite failure to file a notice of appeal; it reviewed the case because of the gravity of the offense and the filing of appellants’ brief.