G.R. No. 173551 ; October 4, 2007
ARNALDO MENDOZA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Arnaldo Mendoza, along with his relatives Manolito Gonzales, Glenn Gonzales, and Ruperto de Villa, was charged with the murder of Ernesto Velasquez. The incident stemmed from an altercation on August 31, 1998, where the victim, Ernesto, confronted Glenn about a gunshot and pushed his chin. Glenn threatened to kill Ernesto. The following day, September 1, 1998, petitioner drove the group in a car to the victim’s location. Petitioner approached Ernesto, who was playing cards, and questioned him about the prior incident. Upon petitioner’s call, Glenn alighted from the car, immediately shot the seated Ernesto, and fired more shots as the victim fell. Petitioner then also shot Ernesto. When petitioner noticed Ernesto was still alive, he instructed his companions, leading Manolito to fire an M-16 rifle at the victim. The group then fled.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed petitioner Arnaldo Mendoza’s conviction for murder, qualified by treachery, despite his defense of mere presence and lack of direct participation in the shooting.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic rests on the establishment of conspiracy among the accused. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it, as inferred from their collective acts before, during, and after the crime. Here, petitioner’s actions demonstrated unity of purpose with his co-accused. He drove the group to seek out the victim, initiated the confrontation that set the stage for the attack, and himself fired a shot. Most damningly, when he saw the victim was still alive, he instigated the final, fatal assault with the command, “Pare, buhay pa ito, gamitin mo yung mahaba.” This active instigation and participation rendered him equally liable as a co-conspirator. Treachery was correctly appreciated because the attack was sudden and employed means that ensured the defenseless victim, who was initially seated, had no opportunity to retaliate. Petitioner’s denial and claim of being an unwitting driver were deemed inherently weak against the positive and credible testimonies of eyewitnesses. Consequently, he was guilty of murder, although the penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua following the abolition of the death penalty.