People v. Eswan
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: An information for murder was filed against Carlito Eswan, Pedro Eswan, Moises Eswan, Eligio Eswan, Diego Sabaldo, Carlos Castro, Jr., William Navarro, and Egod Arevalo for the killing of policeman Arestedes Pajimola on January 20, 1983, in Masbate. The prosecution alleged that the accused, confederating together, with intent to kill, evident premeditation, treachery, superiority of strength, and taking advantage of nighttime, attacked and killed Patrolman Pajimola. Moises Eswan died during the pendency of the case, and William Navarro and Egod Arevalo remained at large. 2. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Masbate, after trial, acquitted Diego Sabaldo due to insufficient proof. However, Carlito Eswan, Pedro Eswan, Eligio Eswan, and Carlos Castro, Jr. were found guilty of murder and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The court also ordered them to pay P30,000.00 jointly and solidarity to the heirs of Patrolman Pajimola. The judgment of conviction against Carlito Eswan, Pedro Eswan, Eligio Eswan, and Carlos Castro, Jr. is now before the Supreme Court on joint appeal. 3. The Petition: The accused-appellants, Carlito Eswan, Pedro Eswan, Eligio Eswan, and Carlos Castro, Jr., are appealing their conviction for murder. They assign several errors to the trial court, including giving credence to the prosecution's principal witness, finding that they acted in confederacy, failing to appreciate the justifying circumstance of defense of a relative, admitting an affidavit of Carlos Castro, Jr. as evidence, and convicting them beyond reasonable doubt. Their defense primarily relies on alibi, asserting they were in their respective homes or fishing at the time of the incident. They also argue that Patrolman Pajimola was the aggressor and that their actions were in defense of Benedicto Eswan, who was shot by the victim.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimony of prosecution witness Joel Villaruel. Whether the trial court erred in finding that the accused-appellants acted in confederacy. Whether the trial court erred in not appreciating the justifying circumstance of defense of a relative in favor of Carlito Eswan, Eligio Eswan, and Pedro Eswan. Whether the trial court erred in admitting the affidavit of Carlos Castro, Jr. as evidence for the prosecution. Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellants of the crime of murder beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Regional Trial Court finding Carlito Eswan, Pedro Eswan, Eligio Eswan, and Carlos Castro, Jr. guilty of murder, with the modification that the exculpation of William Navarro and Egod Arevalo was stricken off as the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over them. Dispositive Portion: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED except as to the exculpation from liability of WILLIAM NAVARRO and EGOD AREVALO which is stricken off, the trial court never having acquired jurisdiction over them. SO ORDERED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the credibility of Joel Villaruel's testimony: The Court found no cogent reason to overturn the trial court's finding of guilt. The testimony of Joel Villaruel jibed with the doctor's testimony and autopsy findings. The Court reiterated the principle that mere relationship of a witness to the victim is not sufficient to affect credibility. Any inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses were deemed to be on collateral matters, not material or fatal to the prosecution's case, and could even bolster the truth of their presence during the incident due to the confusion and excitement of the event. The Court emphasized that it will not disturb the findings of the trial judge unless certain facts of substance and value were plainly overlooked. On acting in confederacy (conspiracy): The Court found the arguments of the accused-appellants regarding conspiracy to be without merit. The facts established conspiracy and community of purpose through their concerted actions at the scene of the incident: Benedicto Eswan's intervention and stabbing of Pajimola, Carlito Eswan's shooting of Pajimola after his brother was shot, and Pedro Eswan, Eligio Eswan, and Carlos Castro, Jr. taking turns in stabbing the victim until he was lifeless, after which they fled together. These acts demonstrated a common objective, which was the liquidation of the victim. Direct evidence is not necessary to prove conspiracy; it may be inferred from acts indicating concerted action or community of purpose. The Court cited established doctrine that where accused move in concert toward a common purpose, conspiracy may be inferred from their joint acts and design. On the justifying circumstance of defense of a relative: The Court could not appreciate the justifying circumstance of defense of a relative in favor of Carlito, Eligio, and Pedro. The Court noted that it was Carlito who fired a shot, prompting Pajimola's investigation. Benedicto Eswan was the one who first committed a felony by stabbing Pajimola, who then fired his gun only after being stabbed, in self-defense. The Court found that Pajimola was not the aggressor but was merely doing his duty. There was no necessity of defending Benedicto as his life was not actually in danger. Carlito's claim of employing reasonable means was dismissed, as was Eligio and Pedro's claim of acting under the belief that Benedicto was the victim, given the sequence of events where Benedicto initiated the aggression. On the admissibility of Carlos Castro, Jr.'s affidavit: The Court agreed with the appellants that the affidavit of Carlos Castro, Jr. was inadmissible due to the absence of counsel during its preparation. However, the Court noted that there were other independent pieces of evidence directly implicating him as one of the assailants who stabbed the victim, thus his conviction was still supported. On conviction for murder beyond reasonable doubt: The Court found no cogent reason to overturn the trial court's finding of guilt. The prosecution witnesses' testimonies were consistent with the medical findings. The victim was attacked by several individuals, and the victim fired his gun only in self-defense after being wounded and outnumbered. The positive identification by prosecution witnesses, who had no reason to testify falsely, established the guilt of the accused to a moral certainty. The Court reiterated its policy not to disturb the findings of the trial court unless plainly overlooked facts of substance and value that might affect the result.
Main Doctrine
The defense of alibi is considered weak and requires not only proof of presence elsewhere but also physical impossibility of being at the scene of the crime. Conspiracy may be inferred from concerted acts and community of purpose. The justifying circumstance of defense of a relative requires that the life of the relative be actually in danger.