GR 137750; (January, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 137750, January 25, 2001
People of the Philippines vs. Dindo Absalon and Joel Dijon
FACTS
Accused-appellants Dindo Absalon and Joel Dijon, along with others, were charged with the murder of Barangay Captain Romulo Acebedo. The prosecution’s primary witness was the victim’s wife, Ruperta Acebedo. She testified that on October 5, 1996, while she and her husband were walking, three gunshots rang out, and her husband fell. She then saw appellant Dindo Absalon approach and shoot her husband at close range in the mouth with a long firearm. She further stated that she saw appellant Joel Dijon, who was unarmed, approach Absalon after the shooting, and then she fled. The trial court convicted both appellants of murder, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua, giving full credence to Ruperta’s testimony and rejecting their defenses of alibi.
ISSUE
The central issue is whether the prosecution, through the testimony of Ruperta Acebedo, proved the guilt of both accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt, particularly focusing on the existence of conspiracy.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Dindo Absalon but acquitted Joel Dijon. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of Ruperta Acebedo’s credibility. Minor inconsistencies in her testimony were deemed to strengthen, not weaken, her credibility as they indicated an unrehearsed narration. Her positive identification of Absalon as the one who shot her husband at close range was categorical and convincing, rendering his alibi defense worthless. For treachery, the sudden and deliberate attack at close range, which ensured the victim had no opportunity to defend himself, qualified the killing as murder.
However, the Court agreed with the Solicitor General that conspiracy was not proven against Joel Dijon. The evidence merely placed him at the scene, approaching Absalon after the shooting, but showed no direct participation or any act revealing a common criminal design. His mere presence, without any overt act in furtherance of the killing, is insufficient to establish conspiracy. Conviction must rest on the prosecution’s strength, not the defense’s weakness. Since proof of Dijon’s guilt was lacking, he was acquitted based on reasonable doubt. Absalon was solely held liable for the indemnity to the victim’s heirs.