REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF APPEALS MANILA

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, -versusCA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05779

ROMEO ALDUEZA y DUBLAS Accused-Appellant. x---------------------------------------------x

BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE

STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant Romeo Aldueza y Dublas (hereinafter referred to as appellant) was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) branch 12, Lipa City, along with Guillermo Aldueza y Dimaandal, with the crime of Murder in an Information which reads: That on or about the 30th day of March 2008 at about 6:30 oclock in the evening , at Tenyente C. Pesa St. Purok 5B, Brgy. Talisay, Lipa City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused while armed with a gun, conspiring, and confederating, and mutually aiding each other, with intent to kill and

without any justifiable cause, with the qualifying circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength, did then and willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot with the use of said gun and suddenly and without warning, one Joey Mayor y Banduhan thereby inflicting upon the latter gunshot wound abdomen (sic) which directly caused his death. Contrary to Law. (RTC Decision, 1 August 2012, page 1.) When arraigned, the appellant pleaded NOT GUILTY. On August 1, 2012, after trial on the merits, the trial court convicted appellant of the crime of Murder in a decision, to wit; WHEREFORE, FINDING ACCUSED Romeo Aldueza y Dublas guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the felony of Murder as defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as a coconspirator of Guillermo Aldueza, hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA. Accused Romeo Aldueza is ordered to indemnify the heirs of Joey Mayor the amount of P39, 124.60 as actual damages representing burial expenses and the amount of P75, 000.00 for the death of Joey Mayor. The period of his detention shall be credited in the service of his sentence. SO ORDERED. (Ibid. page 11).

Appellant now challenges the aforequoted decision of the trial court, raising the following grounds: I THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE PROSECUTORS FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. II THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT TREACHERY, EVIDENT PREMEDITATION AND ABUSE OF STRENGTH ATTENDED THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME. (Appellants Brief, 20 March 2013, page 1). COUNTERSTATEMENT OF FACTS On the night of March 30, 2008, at around 6: 30 pm, the celebration for the graduation of Benjamin Alduezas daughter was in full swing. Seated in a table located between the houses of Benjamin Aldueza and Cesar Aldueza and having a drinking spree are the appellant, Joey Mayor (hereinafter referref to as the victim), Eddie Olave and four to five other persons (TSN, 6 August 2009, pp. 4-5). Eddie Olave testified that during the drinking session, an altercation broke out between the appellant and the victim when the latter broke a glass. The altercation degenerated into a fistfight between the appellant and the victim which Olave and the others seated in the table were able to pacify. After the

commotion, the appellant and the victim returned to their respective seats (Ibid. pp. 7-10). Olave then noticed that the appellant is no longer seated with them at the table and that the latter went to his cousin Guillermo Alduezas house located nearby. The appellant stayed there for two (2) minutes. The appellant thereafter returned to the table with Guillermo Aldueza, the co-accused in this case (Ibid. pp. 10-11; 21). Guillermo suddenly pulled out a revolver and shot the victim twice. The first bullet hit the victim in the stomach which caused him to fall down from his seat while the second bullet hit him on the left shoulder. The appellant, who was standing right beside Guillermo the whole time, did not do anything. Immediately after the shooting, Guillermo and the appellant disappeared from the scene (Ibid. pp. 11-17). The victim managed to walk for three (3) meters towards a pathway but eventually fell down. He was taken to a hospital where eventually he expired (Ibid. page 16-17). ARGUMENTS I
ALL THE ELEMENTS OF MURDER WERE PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT BY THE PROSECUTION. II

THE APPELLANTS PARTICIPATION AS COCONSPIRATOR TO THE OFFENSE WAS SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISHED.

III THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CITED BY THE RTC IS SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THE LIABILITY OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE OFFENSE CHARGED. IV THE QUALIFYING CICUMSTANCE OF TREACHERY WAS PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT BY THE PROSECUTION. DISCUSSION
All the elements of murder were proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. x-----------------------------------x

The case of People v Dela Cruz enumerates the elements of murder, thus; 1. That a person was killed. 2. That the accused killed him. 3. That the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Art. 248. 4. The killing is not parricide or infanticide. (612 SCRA 738, February 16, 2010). The qualifying circumstances for murder under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) are as follows;

Art. 248. Murder. Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity. 2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise. 3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin. 4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity. 5. With evident premeditation. 6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse. All the elements of murder were successfully proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The killing of Joey Mayor by appellants co-accused Guillermo Aldueza as well as the appellants participation as

conspirator was sufficiently established by the testimony of prosecution witness Eddie Olave, to wit; Q: On that drinking session at the house of the Alduezas which according to you was owned by a certain Benjamin, was there any unusual incident that happened? There was maam. And what is this incident Mr. Witness? A glass was broken and Romeo and Joey had an altercation because of the broken glass, maam. You are referring to whom? Joey, maam. xxx xxx xxx Q: A: Q: A: You made mentioned that because of the breaking of the glass, Joey and Romeo had an altercation, how did you know? Because we were beside each other, maam. What happened after the glass was broken? What did Romeo Aldueza do if he did any? They have a fistfight, maam. xxx xxx xxx Q: A: Q: A: After the fistfight both Romeo and Joey joined the same table where they were drinking prior to the incident? Yes, maam. Until when did the drinking session lasted? For a long time maam until Romy disappeared.

A: Q: A: Q: A:

Q: A:

What do you mean Romy disappeared? He disappeared from the drinking session until after sometime he went back with another person, maam. xxx xxx xxx

Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A:

Who was this person with whom Romy came back in the place where you were drinking? Guillermo, maam. And what is the family name of Guillermo? Aldueza, maam. Is this the same person who was the co-accused of Romeo Aldueza in this case? Yes, maam. So what happened when the two came back to where you were drinking? I was surprised when Gullermo pulled out a gun, maam. From where did he pull out the gun? From his waist, maam. And what happened after he pulled out the gun from his waist? He shot Joey, sir. And do you still recall where the shot landed on the body ofdid it hit Joey? Yes, maam. xxx xxx xxx

Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A:

And do you still recall how many shots was made by Guillermo Aldueza? Yes, maam. How many? Two, maam. And the two gun shots both landed in the body of Joey Mayor? Yes, maam. When Romeo Aldueza and Guillermo Aldueza arrived at the place where you were drinking, did you here Romeo and Guillermo say anything? None, maam. So when the gun was fired on Joey Mayor where was Romeo then? They were together, maam. What was he doing then? None, maam. xxx xxx xxx

Q: A:

And when Joey run towards the pathway, do you still recall where Romeo and Gullermo were? They both disappeared, maam. xxx xxx xxx

Q:

By the way, this Romeo Aldueza disappeared from the place where you have your drinking session and when he returned he was with Guillermo Aldueza already, how long was Romeo

A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A:

Aldueza absent from that drinking session before he returned with Guillermo Aldueza? Just for a while, Your Honor. In terms of seconds and minutes, how long was that? Maybe about two (2) minutes, Your Honor. Do you know the house of Guillermo Aldueza? Yes, Your Honor. How far was the house of Gulklermo from the place where you have your drinking session? About two (2) arm stretches, Your Honor. xxx xxx xxx

Q: A: Q: A:

After the first shot was fired, did you notice Romy beside Guillermo? Yes, maam. And when your attention was caught by Romy, did you see him do anything to stop Guillermo from firing another shot? No, maam.

(TSN, 6 August 2009, pp. 6-30). The testimony of Olave, who was in a position to observe the events which led to the killing of the victim, sufficiently established the manner by which the offense was carried out and the respective participations of the appellant and his coaccused Guillermo. Such facts constitute the elements of the crime of murder.

The appellants participation as coconspirator to the offense was sufficiently established.

x-----------------------------------x

Anent the finding of conspiracy, the People sustains the decision of the RTC, thus; The Court believes that conspiracy exists as shown by the following circumstances: 1. Joey Mayor and Romeo Aldueza engaged in a fist fight when Joey Mayor accidentally broke a glass. 2. Although they were pacified, and both returned to the drinking session, Romeo left the place and entered the house of Guillermo. 3. After two (2) minutes, Guillermo emerged from his house with Romeo following him. 4. The two directly proceeded to the table were Joey was seated 5. Without uttering any word, Guillermo pulled out a gun and fired two (2) successive shots at the unsuspecting victim. 6. All the time, Romeo was beside Guillermo. Romeo could have prevented the latter from firing at the victim but he did nothing. 7. Guillermo has motive to shoot at the victim.

8. Guillermo and Romeo are first cousins as their fathers are brothers. From these circumstances there can be no other conclusion to arrive at except that Guillermo would not have shot Joey Mayor if not for Romeo having fetched him from his house to do the dastardly act. Conspiracy therefore exists between the two accused hence the act of one is the act of all. Although it was only Guillermo Aldueza who fired the fatal shots on Joey Mayor, Romeo Aldueza being a co-conspirator is also liable for the death of the victim. (RTC Decision, 1 August 2012, page 8). The circumstances cited by the RTC clearly show the oneness of purpose which characterized the acts of appellant and his co-accused Guillermo in killing the victim which is the very foundation for the finding of conspiracy.
The effects of conspiracy were discussed by the Supreme Court (SC) as follows: For indeed, it is well-entrenched in our jurisprudence that when there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, and all persons taking part in the crime shall be held guilty as principals. It is of no moment that not all the accused took part in the actual commission of every act constituting the crime. Each is responsible for all the acts of the others done in the furtherance of the conspiracy. (People v Hasan et al., 199 SCRA 421, [1999], citing the case of People v Obando)

With the aforementioned rule, the fact that it was not appellant who pulled the trigger of the gun which killed the victim is no longer relevant. This is because as co-conspirator of Guillermo, the actual shooter in this case, the appellant is criminally liable for the acts of Guillermo.

The circumstantial evidence cited by the RTC is sufficient to establish appellants liability for the offense charged.
x-----------------------------------x

The appellant, however, is of the argument that the circumstances cited by the RTC were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant argued as follows: The record shows that the initial investigation of the police at the scene of the crime reveals that Joey and Guillermo had a fistfight; that the latter fatally shot the former; and that Guillermo alone was implicated in the killing of Joey on March 30, 2008. In fact, it was only on April 9, 2008,that Eddie Olave gave a statement to the police that accusedappellant had a fistfight with the Joey prior to the latters shooting by Guillermo. He further stated that Romeo went inside the house of Guillermo and both of them came out after two (2) minutes. Thereupon, Guillermo shot Joey causing the latters death and that accused-appellant did not do anything and both of them disappeared. After Olave gave his statement, the police did not conduct any further investigation. Thus, the police were not even able to reconcile the conflicting accounts of the persons they interviewed. Hence, the testimony of Olave does not deserve full faith and credence.

xxx xxx xxx In the present case, Olave testified that accusedappellant entered the house of Guillermo and came out after two (2) minutes. It was, however, established that there were many people inside the house at that time, since it was the graduation party of accused-appellants niece. It is, therefore, possible that the accused-appellant merely talked with the visitors or relived himself during the two (2) minute period. Thus, it is speculative for the trial court to infer that accused-appellant and Guillermo planned the killing of Joey in that short span of time. Besides, there was no witness who testified as having seen accused-appellant talked with Guillermo while they were inside the house, muchless, conceive, plan and deliberate on how to kill Joey. Speculations and probabilities cannot substitute for proof required to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In a criminal case, every circumstance favoring the innocence of the accused must be duly taken into account. (Appellants Brief, 20 March 2013, page 9-10). The arguments of the appellant fail to persuade. The rules on evidence provide the basis for conviction by way of circumstantial evidence, thus; Rule 133, SEC. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient.Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (a) There is more than one circumstance;

(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. In People v Pajares, the SC further explained the rule as follows; For circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to support a conviction, all the circumstances must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that accused is guilty and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent, and with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt. In other words, a judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained when the circumstances proved form an unbroken chain that results in a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the perpetrator. (615 SCRA 399 [2010]). It is therefore clear from the foregoing that it is the totality of the circumstances which should be taken into account in determining the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence in order to sustain a ruling of conviction. In this case, such circumstances were provided for by the prosecution witness Eddie Olave who personally witnessed the events leading to and the actual killing of Joey Mayor. The appellants arguments attack the sufficiency of Olaves testimony. The appreciation of Olaves testimonial evidence lies, however, with the sound discretion of the RTC. In the case of Magdiwang Realty Corporation et al. v The Manila Banking

Corporation, the Supreme Court entrenched jurisprudential rule, to wit;

reiterated

the

well-

The settled rule is that conclusions and findings of fact of the trial court are entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless for strong and cogent reasons because the trial court is in a better position to examine real evidence, as well as observe the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying in the case. (680 SCRA 251 [2012]). The appellant was not able to overturn the key facts established by Olave through his testimony who withstood the rigors of trial and cross examination of the opposing counsel. As regards the fact that the initial investigation only pointed to Guillermo as the initial suspect, the People sustains the findings of the RTC, to wit; According to PO2 Jonathan Recto, who as earlier pointed out was the only policeman who gave a substantial piece of testimonial evidence to bolster the denial of the accused, he initially believed the people he interviewed at the crime scene that Romeo Aldueza has nothing to do with the killing of Joey Mayor but his position was reversed when follow up investigation conducted by the intelligence operatives of the Lipa City Police Station unearthed information that the verbal altercation and his fist fight transpired between Romeo and Joey and not between Guillermo and Joey as he earlier gathered from witnesses.

Not only this, PO2 Recto cannot have possibly verified and counterchecked on the veracity of the informations he earlier gathered because he did not note down the names of the victims he interviewed and these witnesses failed to give their written statements. Moreover, the reliance of the accused on the entry in the police blotter that he has no participation in the killing of Joey and his name was not even mentioned in the blotter to bolster his denial cannot hold water. Such entries were supplied by the police investigators Recto and Silva, who changed their theory of the case later on after follow up investigation by other members of the Lipa City PNP. (RTC Decision, 1 August 2012, page 8). Anent the appellants argument that the RTC merely speculated that the he and Guillermo talked when he momentarily left the drinking session, such fact only pertains to one of the circumstances relied upon by the RTC in convicting appellant. Again, all the other circumstances were established through the testimony of a direct observer in the person of Olave and it is the totality of such circumstances upon which the RTC founded its decision to convict the appellant. The other aforequoted circumstances, such as the fistfight between Joey and the appellant and the fact that the appellant simply stood beside Guillermo when Guillermo shot Joey, are not based on speculation or surmises. The appellant, in the same line of reasoning, argued that conspiracy was not proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution and the RTC should not have inferred conspiracy

from the fact that the appellant did not do anything when Guillermo shot Joey (Appellants Brief, 20 March 2013, page 10-11). The argument also fails to persuade. The SC has laid down the rule in determining the existence of conspiracy in criminal cases, thus; Conspiracy is always predominantly mental in composition because it consists primarily of a meeting of minds and intent. By its nature, conspiracy is planned in utmost secrecy. Hence, for collective responsibility to be established, it is not necessary that conspiracy be proved by direct evidence of a prior agreement to commit the crime as only rarely would such agreement be demonstrable since, in the nature of things, criminal undertakings are rarely documented by agreements in writing. But the courts are not without resort in the determination of its presence. The existence of conspiracy may be inferred and proved through the acts of the accused, whose conduct before, during and after the commission of the crime point to a common purpose, concert of action, and community of interest. In short, conduct may establish conspiracy. An accepted badge of conspiracy is when the accused by their acts aimed at the same object, one performing one part and another performing another so as to complete it with a view to the attainment of the same object, and their acts though apparently independent were in fact concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments.

(People v Serrrano, 620 SCRA 327 [2010]). Conspiracy, therefore, can be inferred from the established facts of the case. The RTC, in ruling that the appellant conspired with Guillermo in killing Joey, did not rely solely on the fact that the appellant did not do anything when Guillermo shot Joey. The RTC also noted the fact that the appellant and Guillermo are cousins, that appellant and Joey had a fistfight, and that the appellant and Guillermo went to the table together after the appellant left the drinking session for two minutes (RTC Decision, 1 August 2012, page 8). The qualifying circumstance of treachery was proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution
x-----------------------------------x

Finally, the appellant argued that the RTC made an error in making a finding that treachery attended the killing of Joey Mayor thereby qualifying the offense into Murder (Appellants Brief, 20 March 2013, page 11). The SC explains the qualifying circumstance of treachery as follows; There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend to directly and specially insure the execution of the crime, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The elements of treachery are: (i) the means of execution employed

gives the victim no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (ii) the methods of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted. (People v Se, 425 SCRA 725 [2004]). Again, the People sustains the ruling of the RTC on this matter, to wit; The victim, Joey Mayor was shot at while seated on a chair fronting a table. He was not aware of the impending attack as shown by the fact that he and Romeo were pacified in their fist fight Joey Mayor returned to his seat to resume the drinking spree. He was therefore defenseless at that position. (RTC Decision, 1 August 2012, page 10). In this case, the mental state of the victim, who was then already pacified and has resumed drinking, and the fact that the appellant left the table then immediately returned with his cousin Guillermo, then already carrying a gun, show that the means employed by them was consciously adopted to ensure the killing of the victim. These circumstances qualify the act to the offense of murder. PRAYER WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed that appellants appeal be denied for utter lack of merit and the court a quos Decision dated 1 August 2012, finding appellant GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code, be AFFIRMED, as co-

conspirator of Guillermo Aldueza, accordance with the law and evidence.

the

same

being

in

Other reliefs just and equitable under the circumstances are likewise prayed for. Makati City for Manila, May 15, 2013.