G.R. No. 206292 October 11, 2017
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. ESTRILLO ESCOBAL y SALVACION and MELVIN E. ABANO, Accused-Appellants

FACTS

Accused-appellants Estrillo Escobal and Melvin Abano were convicted of Murder for the killing of SPO1 Fernando Gaabucayan, Jr. The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals found that on April 14, 2007, the victim was shot multiple times. Eyewitness Cesario Auxtero testified that he saw Escobal and the victim talking, with Escobal’s hand on the victim’s shoulder, while Abano was behind them, urinating. Auxtero heard gunshots, and upon looking, saw the victim on the ground. Escobal was standing at the victim’s feet pointing a gun, while Abano was beside Escobal in a position as if also pointing a gun. The victim pleaded for them to stop before more shots were fired. Police recovered ballistic evidence, and Escobal tested positive for gunpowder nitrates.
The defense presented alibis. Escobal claimed he was at a friend’s house, while Abano asserted he was at home. They argued the prosecution failed to prove conspiracy and Abano’s participation beyond reasonable doubt, contending his presence was merely coincidental and passive.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of both accused-appellants for Murder, specifically regarding the existence of conspiracy and the individual criminal liability of Melvin Abano.

RULING

The Supreme Court ACQUITTED Melvin E. Abano for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt but AFFIRMED the conviction of Estrillo Escobal for Murder, modifying the penalty to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. The Court found no conclusive evidence of conspiracy between Escobal and Abano. Conspiracy requires proof of a common design and concerted action towards the same criminal objective. The evidence against Abano was insufficient to establish this unity of purpose.
The testimony of eyewitness Auxtero placed Abano at the scene, initially urinating and later standing beside Escobal during the shooting in a position “as if pointing a gun.” However, the Court ruled this did not constitute proof of direct participation or prior agreement. Mere presence at the crime scene, without any overt act demonstrating a shared criminal intent, is not enough to establish conspiracy. There was no evidence Abano himself fired a weapon, possessed a gun, or performed any act of execution. His presence was passive and did not show he had conspired with Escobal to kill the victim. The positive paraffin test on Escobal, contrasted with Abano’s negative result, further weakened the case against Abano. For Escobal, the eyewitness account and forensic evidence directly and conclusively proved he perpetrated the killing with treachery, as the attack was sudden and rendered the victim defenseless.