G.R. No. 84275 . February 14, 1992.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GIL UY and ROGELIO JOLITO (at large), accused-appellants.

FACTS

On September 8, 1984, in Alangalang, Leyte, Felino Bantanos was killed. The prosecution’s eyewitness, Sonia Bantanos-Andrada, testified that she saw accused Rogelio Jolito with his arm on the victim’s shoulder. Appellant Gil Uy then approached from behind and without warning stabbed Bantanos with a long knife. As the victim fell, both Uy and Jolito took turns stabbing him. The autopsy revealed six wounds, three of which were fatal, inflicted by at least two different bladed instruments.
The antecedent motive stemmed from a barangay complaint filed by the victim against Gil Uy and his employees in July 1983, suspecting them of theft. An Information for Murder was filed, alleging conspiracy, treachery, evident premeditation, and abuse of superior strength. Upon arraignment, Gil Uy pleaded not guilty, while Rogelio Jolito remained at large. The Regional Trial Court convicted Gil Uy as a principal for the crime of Murder, qualified by treachery, and appreciated the aggravating circumstance of recidivism due to his prior homicide conviction.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted appellant Gil Uy of the crime of Murder, qualified by treachery, and properly appreciated the existence of conspiracy and the aggravating circumstance of recidivism.

RULING

Yes, the conviction is affirmed. The Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s finding of treachery (alevosia) as a qualifying circumstance. Treachery exists when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime that directly and specifically ensure its execution without risk from any defense the victim might make. The evidence established that Jolito restrained the victim by placing an arm on his shoulder, while Uy attacked from behind without warning. This sudden and unexpected assault from a position where the victim could not defend himself squarely constitutes treachery.
Furthermore, conspiracy was duly proven. Conspiracy does not require a prior agreement; it can be inferred from the concerted actions of the accused evidencing a common purpose. The acts of Jolito in holding the victim and Uy in launching the initial attack, followed by both taking turns in stabbing the prostrate victim, demonstrated a united and synchronized effort to kill. Finally, the aggravating circumstance of recidivism was correctly applied, as the appellant had a previous final conviction for Homicide. The decision of the trial court was affirmed in toto.