GR 175781; (March, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 175781 ; March 20, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. FRANCISCA TALARO, et al., Accused. NORBERTO (JUN) ADVIENTO, RENATO RAMOS and LOLITO AQUINO, Accused-Appellants.
FACTS
Accused-appellants Norberto Adviento, Renato Ramos, and Lolito Aquino were charged with Murder for the killing of Atty. Melvin Alipio. The prosecution established that on April 24, 1994, witness Raymundo Zamora overheard a conversation where Francisca Talaro contracted the three appellants to kill the victim for a total price of ₱60,000.00, with an advance payment of ₱30,000.00. Zamora later drove the Talaro spouses to Barangay Bactad, presumably to deliver the balance. Appellant Aquino admitted during preliminary investigation that he and Ramos conducted surveillance on the victim the day before the shooting.
On the morning of April 26, 1994, witness Rodolfo Duzon, a tricycle driver hired by appellant Ramos, drove Ramos on a motorcycle to Laoac, Pangasinan. Ramos alighted near the victim’s clinic with a basket. Duzon subsequently heard three gunshots, saw Ramos fleeing while being chased, and was forced at gunpoint by Ramos to drive away. Ramos later instructed Duzon to leave the motorcycle with appellant Aquino. Duzon was threatened by both Ramos and Adviento to keep silent but later executed affidavits detailing his account.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of accused-appellants Norberto Adviento, Renato Ramos, and Lolito Aquino for the crime of Murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Murder. The Court found the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, particularly Raymundo Zamora and Rodolfo Duzon, to be credible, consistent, and corroborative of each other. Zamora’s account of the contract to kill was detailed and based on his personal hearing of the conversation. Duzon’s testimony provided a clear narrative of the execution of the crime, from the trip to Laoac to the immediate aftermath of the shooting, which was corroborated by the location of the spent shells and the victim’s body. His initial reluctance to testify, explained by the death threats from appellants, strengthened rather than weakened his credibility.
The Court upheld the presence of treachery, qualifying the killing as Murder. The attack was sudden and from behind, giving the unarmed victim, who was tending to his plants in his garage, no opportunity to defend himself. The Court rejected the defenses of denial and alibi, which were unsubstantiated and could not prevail over the positive identification and credible narrations of the eyewitnesses. The collective actions of the appellants—from the planning and surveillance to the execution and cover-up—established conspiracy. However, the penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, in accordance with prevailing law, as the death penalty was no longer applicable. The awards for damages were modified accordingly.