G.R. No.

180421, October 30, 2009

People vs. Alpapara

Facts:

On or about January 13, 1998, at around 7:00 o’clock in the evening, at Barangay Talin-talin, Municipality
of Liban, Albay Province, Philippines, Domingo Alpapara, Pedro Alpapara and Aldan Paya were alleged to have
thrown stones at the roof of Gomez Relorcasa while the latter was having a chat with a friend. Then the three
named-accused challenged Gomez to come out of his house. Shortly thereafter, the three named-accused, armed
with revolvers stormed into the victim’s house and subdued him by holding and pinning him down. As the victim
was being held, he was then shot at close range twice—first at the back then at the right temple. Alden Paya then
fired upwards warning those present not to testify on what transpired. The three accused then went out and took
off in a passenger jeepney driven by Mario Bicuna.

In their defense, the three named-accused stated that the victim was drunk and had an alteration with Do-
mingo. They further stated that they tried pleading with the victim to sober up first then talk the following day.
Afterwards, three gunshots were heard coming from the victim’s house and they alleged that the victim shot him-
self. During that time, the three named-accused claimed that Domingo closed his store. Alden and Pedro were on
their way home.

The RTC found the three named-accused as well as Mario Bicuna guilty beyond reasonable doubt of mur-
der with qualified treachery, so the accused elevated the case to the CA.

During the appeal, the accused contended that the witnesses were not credible. They have alleged that the
testimonies of the witnesses were rehearsed since the witnesses seem to have accurately recalled certain details of
the crime. The contended details were as follows:
· Which parts of the victim’s body the accused were held.
· The order in which the victim was shot.
· The number and names of accused.

In contrast the accused have pointed out that the witnesses missed certain details during cross examina-
tion like:
· Color of the guns used
· What the companions of the witnesses did right after shooting- conflicting versions.

The accused also pointed out that the testimony of the wife of the victim who is one of the witnesses, is
politically motivated because Domingo and Gomez are political rivals. Lastly, the accused pointed out that they
would not kill someone in the presence of the witnesses.

The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC and the case was elevated to the SC.

Issues:

1. Whether or not the witness identification of the accused was credible.

2. Whether or not there was conspiracy in the commission of the crime.

3. Whether or not that there was treachery where it qualifies the crime from homicide to murder.

Held:

1. The Supreme Court has held that the witnesses cannot be expected to give a flawless testimony. Further-
more, the place where the crime happened was well lit, the accused and the witnesses are neighbors, and
lastly, the victim lived in a “nipa” hut so it is not unlikely that the witnesses were at least able to catch a
glimpse of the accused leaving the scene. It is also important to note that it is unlikely for relatives to put the
blame on persons whom they know are innocent since they are the most interested in obtaining justice for the
 victim.

2. On the issue on whether or not if there was conspiracy, the Supreme Court said that there was.
Conspiracy is defined as, “when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commis-
sion of a felony and decide to commit it.” Based on the actions of the accused, it can be seen that they
were united in purpose and made sure that it was consummated. The Supreme Court further stated
that direct proof is not essential in proving that there was conspiracy. Conspiracy maybe inferred
from the acts of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime which undoubt-
edly point to a joint purpose, concert of action, and the same interest. Case and point, the accused
are equally liable for the crime.

3. On the last issue, it is clear that the victim was pinned down and was not able to parry the fatal
attack. Though it is true that an argument prior to the killing would give the victim an awareness of
imminent aggression from the assailants, treachery now becomes absent, in this case however, the
time between the argument and the crime was long enough to cease hostilities. There was no reason
for the victim to anticipate aggression from the accused. Therefore, treachery was present.

The accused were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder qualified by treachery. Mario
Bicuna was acquitted however, due to lack of evidence.