G.R. No. 122934. January 5, 2001.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANGEL PRECIADOS, ARTURO ENAD, EMIGDIO VILLAMOR, LEONCIO ALGABRE and FLORIANO ALGABRE, Accused, ARTURO ENAD, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Arturo Enad was charged with murder for the death of Primo Hilbero and frustrated murder for the poisoning of Antonio Hilbero. The charges stemmed from an incident on May 12-13, 1992, in Sagbayan, Bohol, where the accused, allegedly conspiring, forced the victims to ingest poison. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on the eyewitness account of Helen Hilbero, Primo’s wife. She testified that on the night in question, she saw appellant holding a hand grenade and restraining Antonio Hilbero, while co-accused Angel Preciados pointed a gun. She further witnessed co-accused Emigdio Villamor forcing poison into Primo’s mouth, with others holding him down. Primo was found dead, and Antonio, though seriously injured, survived.
The defense presented a different version, claiming the charges were politically motivated fabrications due to rivalries in the recent local elections. Appellant denied participation, asserting he was elsewhere during the incident. The trial court, however, found Helen’s testimony credible and convicted Enad. He was sentenced to reclusion perpetua for murder and an indeterminate prison term for frustrated murder. Enad appealed, challenging the credibility of the lone eyewitness and the sufficiency of the evidence proving conspiracy.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of appellant Arturo Enad for the crimes of murder and frustrated murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of Helen Hilbero’s credibility, noting that her testimony was clear, consistent, and given in a straightforward manner. As an eyewitness who personally saw the events unfold, her positive identification of appellant as a direct participant was accorded great weight. The Court found no ill motive for her to falsely testify against her own cousin-in-law. The defense of alibi and political frame-up was rejected for being weak and unsubstantiated.
On the legal sufficiency, the Court ruled that conspiracy was adequately established. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement to commit a felony and decide to commit it. The evidence showed a coordinated attack where appellant restrained Antonio Hilbero while his co-accused simultaneously poisoned Primo Hilbero. Their concerted actions demonstrated a common purpose to kill, making each conspirator equally liable for the acts of the others. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was also present, as the victims were attacked while defenseless and unable to offer any resistance. Thus, the crimes were correctly qualified as murder and frustrated murder.