G.R. No. 71526 May 27, 1992
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSELITO VILLALOBOS and ROBERTO VILLALOBOS, accused-appellants.

FACTS

An information for murder was filed against Joselito Villalobos, Roberto Villalobos, and Victorino Villalobos (at large) for the killing of Eduardo Alarba on October 31, 1981, in San Enrique, Iloilo. Only Joselito and Roberto were arrested and tried. The prosecution’s case was built on circumstantial evidence. Witnesses testified that: (1) Norberto dela Cruz heard a gunshot and saw three persons, recognizing Victorino (holding a firearm) and Roberto, emerge from the crime scene; (2) Alejandro Alagos also heard the shot, met the three persons, and recognized Victorino; (3) Openiano Berona saw Joselito buy cigarettes from the victim’s store earlier that evening, despite living a kilometer away, with two unidentified companions nearby; (4) The victim’s wife, Evangelina, later heard a gunshot from the direction where her husband had gone to tend his carabaos and found his body the next morning; (5) Dr. Leonardo Deza’s autopsy revealed multiple gunshot wounds on the victim’s back; (6) During police investigation, Joselito initially denied being at the store but was positively identified by witnesses, after which he broke down and pointed to Roberto and Victorino as his companions; (7) Roberto then led the police to recover the firearm (a 12-gauge “pugakhang”) from the house of Severino Petrola, who stated the appellants had left it there on the night of the killing; (8) Prior motives existed: an altercation between the victim and Victorino over a lost plow, and a near-fight between the victim and the appellants on October 24, 1981. The appellants denied the charges and invoked alibi, which the trial court rejected, convicting them of murder qualified by treachery.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in holding both accused killed Eduardo Alarba based on circumstantial evidence.
2. Whether the trial court erred in holding that the deceased was killed with treachery.

RULING

1. No, the trial court did not err. Conviction based on circumstantial evidence is sufficient under Rule 133, Section 5 of the Rules of Court if: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all circumstances produces conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The chain of circumstances—the appellants’ presence near the crime scene, their prior altercations with the victim, Joselito’s unusual presence at the victim’s store before the killing, their post-crime conduct and admissions leading to the recovery of the firearm, and the eyewitness accounts placing them with Victorino at the time and place of the shooting—when considered together, sufficiently prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, conspiracy was established by their unity of purpose and concerted actions before, during, and after the crime, making them equally liable as co-conspirators.
2. No, the trial court did not err. Treachery (alevosia) was duly proven. The autopsy report showed the gunshot wounds were all located at the back of the victim, indicating he was shot from behind without any opportunity to defend himself and without risk to the assailants, which constitutes treachery.
The appealed decision is AFFIRMED with the modification that the civil indemnity is increased to P50,000.00.