G.R. No. 108780 -81 April 29, 1994
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MODESTO OREHUELA and ANECITO CAÑIZARES, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Modesto Orehuela and Anecito Cañizares, along with a John Doe (at large), were charged with Murder (Criminal Case No. 6021) for the killing of Teoberto Cañizares on January 29, 1989, in San Miguel, Bohol. Orehuela was separately charged with Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition (Criminal Case No. 6134) under P.D. No. 1866, for possessing a .38 caliber revolver used in the murder without a license. The cases were consolidated. The prosecution’s main witness, Teofilo Marimon, testified that he saw Orehuela aiming a gun at the victim through a window and firing two shots. After the shooting, Marimon saw three persons walking away: an unidentified man, followed by Orehuela (carrying a flashlight and handgun), and then Anecito Cañizares. The victim’s widow, Rosalina Cañizares, testified to hearing the shots and finding her husband dead. A ballistic examination confirmed the slug recovered was a .38 caliber bullet. Orehuela presented an alibi, claiming he was celebrating his wedding anniversary 25 kilometers away at the time, corroborated by two witnesses. Cañizares denied participation, claiming he was at home. The Regional Trial Court convicted both appellants of Murder and Orehuela of Qualified Illegal Possession. Both appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of Modesto Orehuela and Anecito Cañizares for Murder beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of Modesto Orehuela for Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

1. Regarding Modesto Orehuela (Murder): The Supreme Court AFFIRMED his conviction. The testimony of eyewitness Teofilo Marimon was found credible, positive, and consistent. His identification of Orehuela as the gunman was reliable, given the sufficient illumination and proximity (10 meters). Orehuela’s alibi was rejected as it was not physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene, and his defense witnesses were deemed biased. The killing was qualified by treachery, as the attack was sudden and gave the victim no chance to defend himself.
2. Regarding Anecito Cañizares (Murder): The Supreme Court REVERSED his conviction and ACQUITTED him. The evidence against him was insufficient to prove conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt. Mere presence at the scene or prior animosity with the victim is not enough to establish conspiracy. The prosecution failed to show any overt act by Cañizares indicating common criminal design with Orehuela.
3. Regarding Modesto Orehuela (Qualified Illegal Possession): The Supreme Court AFFIRMED his conviction. The ballistic evidence established the firearm used was a .38 caliber. Orehuela’s possession and use of an unlicensed firearm in committing murder constituted the aggravated offense under P.D. No. 1866.
Dispositive Portion:
1. In Criminal Case No. 6134 (Illegal Possession), the conviction of Modesto Orehuela is AFFIRMED.
2. In Criminal Case No. 6021 (Murder), the conviction of Modesto Orehuela is AFFIRMED, but the conviction of Anecito Cañizares is REVERSED and he is ACQUITTED.