GR 175926; (July, 2011) (Digest)
G.R. No. 175926; July 6, 2011
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Restituto Carandang, Henry Milan and Jackman Chua, Accused-Appellants.
FACTS
Accused-appellants Henry Milan and Jackman Chua, along with Restituto Carandang, were charged with two counts of murder (for the deaths of PO2 Dionisio Alonzo and SPO2 Wilfredo Red) and one count of frustrated murder (against SPO1 Wilfredo Montecalvo) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The prosecution evidence established that on April 5, 2001, a police team from the La Loma Police Station, acting on a tip from Milan’s sister about a drug deal, proceeded to Milan’s house in Quezon City. Upon arrival, the team saw Carandang, Milan, and Chua inside a room. When the police identified themselves, Milan shut the door. PO2 Alonzo and SPO2 Red forced the door open, and upon entering, gunshots were immediately fired, hitting and killing both officers. SPO1 Montecalvo, who was behind them, was also shot and wounded by Carandang. SPO1 Estores heard Chua urge Milan, “Sugurin mo na!” Milan then lunged at the wounded Montecalvo but was shot by him. Reinforcements arrived, and after a lengthy negotiation, Carandang and Chua surrendered hours later. The post-mortem examination confirmed the gunshot wounds caused the deaths. The defense claimed the police were the aggressors, firing all shots, and that the accused took cover during the incident.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the RTC’s decision convicting accused-appellants of two counts of murder and one count of frustrated murder.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the convictions. The Court found the prosecution’s version credible and established the existence of conspiracy among the accused-appellants. Their simultaneous and coordinated actions—immediately opening fire upon the police officers’ entry—demonstrated a common purpose to kill. The qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength were properly appreciated for the murder charges, as the sudden and unexpected attack deprived the victims of any chance to defend themselves, and the accused employed overwhelming force. For the frustrated murder of SPO1 Montecalvo, the intent to kill was proven by the nature and location of the gunshot wound. The defense of denial and frame-up was rejected for lack of clear and convincing evidence. The penalties imposed by the lower courts were affirmed in accordance with the Revised Penal Code.