GR 126303; (April, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 126303 April 14, 1999
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALBERTO NULLAN y BINLAIO, VICENTE ALAGABAN y LAGUNUY and EDGAR MALIGAYA y NULLAN, accused-appellants.
FACTS
On July 26, 1995, Benito Gotanci was shot and killed near his office-store in Binondo, Manila. Accused-appellants Alberto Nullan, Vicente Alagaban, and Edgar Maligaya, along with an unidentified companion, were charged with murder. The prosecution’s case hinged on the eyewitness testimony of Alden Adona, who operated a store and barbecue stand adjacent to the victim’s establishment. Adona testified that the group had reconnoitered the area the previous day. On the day of the killing, they took strategic positions: Alagaban acted as a lookout at a street corner, while Maligaya and the unidentified companion positioned themselves near Adona’s stand. When Gotanci emerged to board his vehicle, Nullan, closely followed by Maligaya, approached from behind and Nullan shot the victim twice at point-blank range. All accused then fled. The post-mortem examination confirmed the cause of death as gunshot wounds.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the guilt of all three accused-appellants for the crime of Murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimony of eyewitness Alden Adona to be credible, consistent, and sufficient to establish the conspiracy among all accused. Adona had a clear vantage point and was able to provide detailed accounts of the appellants’ conduct both on the day before and during the shooting, demonstrating a coordinated plan. The act of Nullan in directly shooting the victim, with Maligaya in close support and Alagaban serving as a lookout, constituted a community of design indicative of conspiracy. Thus, all conspirators are equally liable for the crime. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated because the attack was sudden and from behind, ensuring the victim had no opportunity to defend himself. The Court, however, found that the circumstance of evident premeditation was not sufficiently proven. The penalty of death was imposed, but the award of damages for loss of earning capacity was modified, as the claimed monthly income was not fully substantiated by evidence.