GR 44414; (January, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 44414 ; January 18, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. WILFREDO TALLA and JOLITO TALLA, defendants. WILFREDO TALLA, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
On June 22, 1972, Ernesto Maderse was shot and killed along the Suage river bank in Janiuay, Iloilo. The post-mortem examination revealed he suffered eight gunshot wounds. Two eyewitnesses, Anacleto Molina and Felipe Marbebe, testified that they saw accused-appellant Wilfredo Talla and his brother Jolito Talla, both armed with homemade shotguns (pugakhang), shoot the victim. Molina stated he saw Jolito fire the fatal shot while Wilfredo pointed his gun but did not fire. Both witnesses identified the accused, whom they had seen earlier that day. The accused interposed the defense of alibi, claiming they were elsewhere attending a barangay meeting. Wilfredo had also executed an extrajudicial confession implicating himself and his relatives, but this was obtained without counsel.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused-appellant Wilfredo Talla beyond reasonable doubt, particularly regarding his criminal liability as a co-conspirator in the crime of murder.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed Wilfredo Talla’s conviction for Murder. The positive identification by two eyewitnesses, who had no motive to falsely testify, prevailed over the weak defense of alibi. The Court found the alibi unpersuasive as the accused failed to prove it was physically impossible for them to be at the crime scene. The extrajudicial confession, while obtained without counsel and thus inadmissible per the constitutional mandate, was deemed unnecessary for conviction given the strong and credible direct eyewitness testimony.
The legal logic for finding Wilfredo liable hinges on conspiracy. The evidence established that Wilfredo and Jolito acted in concert, hiding behind a rock and ambushing the victim. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement to commit a felony and decide to pursue it. Proof of a prior agreement is not required; conspiracy can be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the crime. Wilfredo’s presence at the scene, armed, and acting in unison with Jolito to execute a sudden attack, clearly demonstrated a community of criminal purpose. Thus, as a conspirator, Wilfredo is equally liable for the crime committed by his co-accused.
The qualifying circumstance of treachery was present because the attack was sudden and unexpected, denying the victim any chance to defend himself. The Court also found evident premeditation, as the plan was hatched the previous day. The civil indemnity was increased to P30,000.00. Justice Cruz, in a separate opinion, concurred but emphasized the confession’s inadmissibility.