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 shoot Maderse with a homemade shotgun or “pugakhang.” Molina stated he saw Jolito fire the fatal shot while Wilfredo, also armed, pointed his weapon but did not fire. Both witnesses identified the accused, whom they had seen earlier that day. The defense interposed alibi, with Wilfredo claiming he was elsewhere during the incident. The trial court convicted both accused of murder, qualifying it with treachery and evident premeditation.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution evidence, particularly the eyewitness testimonies, sufficiently establishes the guilt of accused-appellant Wilfredo Talla beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the qualifying and aggravating circumstances were correctly appreciated.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The positive identification by eyewitnesses Molina and Marbebe prevails over the defense of alibi, which was not physically impossible. The Court found the witnesses credible; their testimonies were consistent on material points despite minor variances, which actually bolster their credibility. The legal logic establishes that conspiracy existed. Wilfredo’s presence at the scene, armed and acting in concert with Jolito, who fired the shot, makes him equally liable as a co-conspirator. Conspiracy does not require a prior agreement; it can be inferred from concerted actions toward a common criminal objective. Here, both brothers armed themselves, positioned themselves behind a rock, and ambushed the victim, demonstrating a unified purpose to kill.
The qualifying circumstance of treachery was correctly applied because the attack was sudden, from behind cover, giving the victim no chance to defend himself. Evident premeditation was also established, as the plan was allegedly hatched the previous day, with sufficient time for reflection. The Court increased the civil indemnity to P30,000.00. Justice Cruz, in a separate opinion, concurred but noted Wilfredo’s extrajudicial confession should have been excluded for being obtained without counsel, though it was deemed unnecessary given the other strong evidence.