People v Aldueza (Appellee's Brief -Draft)

7/30/2019 People v Aldueza (Appellee's Brief -Draft)

1/21

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESCOURT OF APPEALS

MANILA

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff-Appellee,

-versus- CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05779

ROMEO ALDUEZA y DUBLASAccused-Appellant.

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

BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant Romeo Aldueza y Dublas (hereinafter referred toas appellant) was charged before the Regional Trial Court(RTC) branch 12, Lipa City, along with Guillermo Aldueza yDimaandal, with the crime of Murder in an Information whichreads:

That on or about the 30th

day of March 2008 atabout 6:30 oclock in the evening , at Tenyente C.Pesa St. Purok 5B, Brgy. Talisay, Lipa City,Philippines and within the jurisdiction of thisHonorable Court, the above-named accused whilearmed with a gun, conspiring, and confederating, andmutually aiding each other, with intent to kill and


2/21

without any justifiable cause, with the qualifyingcircumstances of treachery, evident premeditationand abuse of superior strength, did then andwillfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault

and shoot with the use of said gun and suddenly andwithout warning, one Joey Mayor y Banduhanthereby inflicting upon the latter gunshot woundabdomen (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 courtconvicted appellant of the crime of Murder in a decision, to wit;

WHEREFORE, FINDING ACCUSED RomeoAldueza y Dublas guilty beyond reasonable doubt ofthe felony of Murder as defined and penalized under

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as a co-conspirator of Guillermo Aldueza, hereby sentenceshim to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA.

Accused Romeo Aldueza is ordered to indemnifythe heirs of Joey Mayor the amount of P39, 124.60 asactual damages representing burial expenses and theamount of P75, 000.00 for the death of Joey Mayor.

The period of his detention shall be credited inthe service of his sentence.

SO ORDERED.

(Ibid. page 11).


3/21

Appellant now challenges the aforequoted decision of the

trial court, raising the following grounds:

I

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED INCONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITETHE PROSECUTORS FAILURE TO PROVE HISGUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

II

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDINGTHAT TREACHERY, EVIDENT PREMEDITATIONAND ABUSE OF STRENGTH ATTENDED THECOMMISSION 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, thecelebration for the graduation of Benjamin Alduezas daughterwas in full swing. Seated in a table located between the housesof Benjamin Aldueza and Cesar Aldueza and having a drinkingspree are the appellant, Joey Mayor (hereinafter referref to asthe victim), Eddie Olave and four to five other persons (TSN, 6August 2009, pp. 4-5).

Eddie Olave testified that during the drinking session, analtercation broke out between the appellant and the victimwhen the latter broke a glass. The altercation degenerated intoa fistfight between the appellant and the victim which Olaveand the others seated in the table were able to pacify. After the


4/21

commotion, the appellant and the victim returned to theirrespective 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 cousinGuillermo Alduezas house located nearby. The appellantstayed there for two (2) minutes. The appellant thereafterreturned to the table with Guillermo Aldueza, the co-accused inthis case (Ibid. pp. 10-11; 21).

Guillermo suddenly pulled out a revolver and shot thevictim twice. The first bullet hit the victim in the stomachwhich caused him to fall down from his seat while the second

bullet hit him on the left shoulder. The appellant, who wasstanding right beside Guillermo the whole time, did not doanything. Immediately after the shooting, Guillermo and theappellant disappeared from the scene (Ibid. pp. 11-17).

The victim managed to walk for three (3) meters towards apathway but eventually fell down. He was taken to a hospitalwhere eventually he expired (Ibid. page 16-17).

ARGUMENTS

I

ALL THE ELEMENTS OF MURDER WERE PROVENBEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT BY THEPROSECUTION.

II

THE APPELLANTS PARTICIPATION AS CO-CONSPIRATOR TO THE OFFENSE WASSUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISHED.


5/21

III

THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CITED BY THERTC IS SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THE

LIABILITY OF THE APPELLANT FOR THEOFFENSE CHARGED.

IV

THE QUALIFYING CICUMSTANCE OF TREACHERYWAS PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT BYTHE PROSECUTION.

DISCUSSION

All the elements of murderwere proven beyondreasonable doubt by theprosecution.x-----------------------------------x

The case ofPeople v Dela Cruz enumerates the elementsof murder, thus;

1. That a person was killed.2. That the accused killed him.3. That the killing was attended by any of thequalifying 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 theRevised Penal Code (RPC) are as follows;


6/21

Art. 248. Murder. Any person who, not fallingwithin the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another,shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished byreclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if

committed with any of the following attendantcircumstances:

1. With treachery, taking advantage of superiorstrength, with the aid of armed men, or employingmeans to weaken the defense or of means or personsto 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 assaultupon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, bymeans of motor vehicles, or with the use of any othermeans involving great waste and ruin.

4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in

the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruptionof a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or otherpublic calamity.

5. With evident premeditation.

6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanlyaugmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging orscoffing at his person or corpse.

All the elements of murder were successfully proven bythe prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

The killing of Joey Mayor by appellants co-accusedGuillermo Aldueza as well as the appellants participation as


7/21

conspirator was sufficiently established by the testimony ofprosecution witness Eddie Olave, to wit;

Q: On that drinking session at the house of the

Alduezas which according to you was owned bya certain Benjamin, was there any unusualincident that happened?

A: There was maam.

Q: And what is this incident Mr. Witness?A: A glass was broken and Romeo and Joey had an

altercation because of the broken glass, maam.

Q: You are referring to whom?A: Joey, maam.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: You made mentioned that because of thebreaking of the glass, Joey and Romeo had analtercation, how did you know?

A: Because we were beside each other, maam.

Q: What happened after the glass was broken?What did Romeo Aldueza do if he did any?

A: They have a fistfight, maam.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: After the fistfight both Romeo and Joey joined

the same table where they were drinking prior tothe incident?

A: Yes, maam.

Q: Until when did the drinking session lasted?A: For a long time maam until Romy disappeared.


8/21

Q: What do you mean Romy disappeared?A: He disappeared from the drinking session until

after sometime he went back with another

person, maam.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: Who was this person with whom Romy cameback in the place where you were drinking?

A: Guillermo, maam.

Q: And what is the family name of Guillermo?

A: Aldueza, maam.

Q: Is this the same person who was the co-accusedof Romeo Aldueza in this case?

A: Yes, maam.

Q: So what happened when the two came back towhere you were drinking?

A: I was surprised when Gullermo pulled out agun, maam.

Q: From where did he pull out the gun?A: From his waist, maam.

Q: And what happened after he pulled out the gunfrom his waist?

A: He shot Joey, sir.

Q: And do you still recall where the shot landed onthe body ofdid it hit Joey?

A: Yes, maam.xxx xxx xxx


9/21

Q: And do you still recall how many shots wasmade by Guillermo Aldueza?

A: Yes, maam.

Q: How many?A: Two, maam.

Q: And the two gun shots both landed in the bodyof Joey Mayor?

A: Yes, maam.

Q: When Romeo Aldueza and Guillermo Alduezaarrived at the place where you were drinking, did

you here Romeo and Guillermo say anything?A: None, maam.

Q: So when the gun was fired on Joey Mayor wherewas Romeo then?

A: They were together, maam.

Q: What was he doing then?

A: None, maam.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: And when Joey run towards the pathway, do youstill recall where Romeo and Gullermo were?

A: They both disappeared, maam.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: By the way, this Romeo Aldueza disappearedfrom the place where you have your drinkingsession and when he returned he was withGuillermo Aldueza already, how long was Romeo


10/21

Aldueza absent from that drinking sessionbefore he returned with Guillermo Aldueza?

A: Just for a while, Your Honor.

Q: In terms of seconds and minutes, how long wasthat?

A: Maybe about two (2) minutes, Your Honor.

Q: Do you know the house of Guillermo Aldueza?A: Yes, Your Honor.

Q: How far was the house of Gulklermo from theplace where you have your drinking session?

A: About two (2) arm stretches, Your Honor.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: After the first shot was fired, did you noticeRomy beside Guillermo?

A: Yes, maam.

Q: And when your attention was caught by Romy,did you see him do anything to stop Guillermofrom firing another shot?

A: No, maam.

(TSN, 6 August 2009, pp. 6-30).

The testimony of Olave, who was in a position to observethe events which led to the killing of the victim, sufficiently

established the manner by which the offense was carried outand the respective participations of the appellant and his co-accused Guillermo. Such facts constitute the elements of thecrime of murder.


11/21

The appellantsparticipation as co-conspirator to the offensewas sufficiently

established.x-----------------------------------x

Anent the finding of conspiracy, the People sustains thedecision of the RTC, thus;

The Court believes that conspiracy exists as shownby the following circumstances:

1.Joey Mayor and Romeo Alduezaengaged in a fist fight when JoeyMayor accidentally broke a glass.

2.Although they were pacified, andboth returned to the drinkingsession, Romeo left the place andentered the house of Guillermo.

3.After two (2) minutes, Guillermoemerged from his house withRomeo following him.

4.The two directly proceeded to thetable were Joey was seated

5.Without uttering any word,Guillermo pulled out a gun andfired two (2) successive shots at theunsuspecting victim.

6.All the time, Romeo was besideGuillermo. Romeo could haveprevented the latter from firing atthe victim but he did nothing.

7.Guillermo has motive to shoot atthe victim.


12/21

8.Guillermo and Romeo are firstcousins as their fathers arebrothers.

From these circumstances there can be no otherconclusion to arrive at except that Guillermo wouldnot have shot Joey Mayor if not for Romeo havingfetched him from his house to do the dastardly act.Conspiracy therefore exists between the two accusedhence the act of one is the act of all. Although it wasonly Guillermo Aldueza who fired the fatal shots onJoey Mayor, Romeo Aldueza being a co-conspirator isalso liable for the death of the victim.

(RTC Decision, 1 August 2012, page 8).

The circumstances cited by the RTC clearly show theoneness of purpose which characterized the acts of appellantand his co-accused Guillermo in killing the victim which is thevery foundation for the finding of conspiracy.

The effects of conspiracy were discussed by the SupremeCourt (SC) as follows:

For indeed, it is well-entrenched in ourjurisprudence that when there is conspiracy, the act of oneis the act of all, and all persons taking part in the crimeshall be held guilty as principals. It is of no moment thatnot all the accused took part in the actual commission ofevery act constituting the crime. Each is responsible for allthe acts of the others done in the furtherance of the

conspiracy.

(People v Hasan et al., 199 SCRA 421, [1999], citingthe case of People v Obando)


13/21

With the aforementioned rule, the fact that it was notappellant who pulled the trigger of the gun which killed the victim isno 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 circumstantialevidence cited by the RTCis sufficient to establishappellants liability for theoffense charged.x-----------------------------------x

The appellant, however, is of the argument that thecircumstances cited by the RTC were not proven beyondreasonable doubt. The appellant argued as follows:

The record shows that the initial investigationof the police at the scene of the crime reveals thatJoey and Guillermo had a fistfight; that the latterfatally shot the former; and that Guillermo alone wasimplicated in the killing of Joey on March 30, 2008.

In fact, it was only on April 9, 2008,that EddieOlave gave a statement to the police that accused-appellant had a fistfight with the Joey prior to thelatters shooting by Guillermo. He further stated thatRomeo went inside the house of Guillermo and bothof them came out after two (2) minutes. Thereupon,Guillermo shot Joey causing the latters death andthat accused-appellant did not do anything and bothof them disappeared. After Olave gave his statement,the police did not conduct any further investigation.Thus, the police were not even able to reconcile theconflicting accounts of the persons they interviewed.Hence, the testimony of Olave does not deserve fullfaith and credence.


14/21


15/21

(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived areproven; and(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such asto produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

In People v Pajares, the SC further explained the rule asfollows;

For circumstantial evidence to be sufficient tosupport a conviction, all the circumstances must beconsistent with each other, consistent with thehypothesis that accused is guilty and at the same timeinconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent,

and with every other rational hypothesis except that ofguilt. In other words, a judgment of conviction basedon circumstantial evidence can be sustained when thecircumstances proved form an unbroken chain thatresults in a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing tothe accused, to the exclusion of all others, as theperpetrator.

(615 SCRA 399 [2010]).

It is therefore clear from the foregoing that it is the totalityof the circumstances which should be taken into account indetermining the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence in orderto sustain a ruling of conviction. In this case, suchcircumstances were provided for by the prosecution witnessEddie Olave who personally witnessed the events leading toand the actual killing of Joey Mayor.

The appellants arguments attack the sufficiency of Olavestestimony.The appreciation of Olaves testimonial evidence lies,however, with the sound discretion of the RTC. In the case ofMagdiwang Realty Corporation et al. v The Manila Banking


16/21

Corporation, the Supreme Court reiterated the well-entrenched jurisprudential rule, to wit;

The settled rule is that conclusions and findings

of fact of the trial court are entitled to great weight onappeal and should not be disturbed unless for strongand cogent reasons because the trial court is in abetter position to examine real evidence, as well asobserve the demeanor of the witnesses while testifyingin the case.

(680 SCRA 251 [2012]).

The appellant was not able to overturn the key factsestablished by Olave through his testimony who withstood therigors of trial and cross examination of the opposing counsel.

As regards the fact that the initial investigation onlypointed to Guillermo as the initial suspect, the People sustainsthe findings of the RTC, to wit;

According to PO2 Jonathan Recto, who asearlier pointed out was the only policeman who gavea substantial piece of testimonial evidence to bolsterthe denial of the accused, he initially believed thepeople he interviewed at the crime scene that RomeoAldueza has nothing to do with the killing of JoeyMayor but his position was reversed when follow upinvestigation conducted by the intelligence operativesof the Lipa City Police Station unearthed information

that the verbal altercation and his fist fighttranspired between Romeo and Joey and not betweenGuillermo and Joey as he earlier gathered fromwitnesses.


17/21

Not only this, PO2 Recto cannot have possiblyverified and counterchecked on the veracity of theinformations he earlier gathered because he did notnote down the names of the victims he interviewed

and these witnesses failed to give their writtenstatements.

Moreover, the reliance of the accused on theentry in the police blotter that he has no participationin the killing of Joey and his name was not evenmentioned in the blotter to bolster his denial cannothold water. Such entries were supplied by the policeinvestigators Recto and Silva, who changed their

theory of the case later on after follow upinvestigation by other members of the Lipa City PNP.


Anent the appellants argument that the RTC merelyspeculated that the he and Guillermo talked when hemomentarily left the drinking session, such fact only pertains

to one of the circumstances relied upon by the RTC inconvicting appellant. Again, all the other circumstances wereestablished through the testimony of a direct observer in theperson of Olave and it is the totality of such circumstancesupon which the RTC founded its decision to convict theappellant.

The other aforequoted circumstances, such as the fistfightbetween Joey and the appellant and the fact that the appellant

simply stood beside Guillermo when Guillermo shot Joey, arenot based on speculation or surmises.

The appellant, in the same line of reasoning, argued thatconspiracy was not proven beyond reasonable doubt by theprosecution and the RTC should not have inferred conspiracy


18/21


19/21

(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 appellantconspired with Guillermo in killing Joey, did not rely solely onthe fact that the appellant did not do anything when Guillermoshot Joey. The RTC also noted the fact that the appellant andGuillermo are cousins, that appellant and Joey had a fistfight,and that the appellant and Guillermo went to the table togetherafter the appellant left the drinking session for two minutes(RTC Decision, 1 August 2012, page 8).

The qualifyingcircumstance of treacherywas proven beyondreasonable doubt by theprosecutionx-----------------------------------x

Finally, the appellant argued that the RTC made an errorin making a finding that treachery attended the killing of JoeyMayor thereby qualifying the offense into Murder (AppellantsBrief, 20 March 2013, page 11).

The SC explains the qualifying circumstance of treacheryas follows;

There is treachery when the offender commits

any of the crimes against persons, employing means,methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tendto directly and specially insure the execution of thecrime, without risk to himself arising from the defensewhich the offended party might make. The elements oftreachery are: (i) the means of execution employed


20/21

gives the victim no opportunity to defend himself orretaliate; and (ii) the methods of execution weredeliberatelyor consciously adopted.

(People v Se, 425 SCRA 725 [2004]).

Again, the People sustains the ruling of the RTC on thismatter, to wit;

The victim, Joey Mayor was shot at while seatedon a chair fronting a table. He was not aware of theimpending attack as shown by the fact that he andRomeo were pacified in their fist fight Joey Mayor

returned to his seat to resume the drinking spree. Hewas therefore defenseless at that position.


In this case, the mental state of the victim, who was thenalready pacified and has resumed drinking, and the fact thatthe appellant left the table then immediately returned with his

cousin Guillermo, then already carrying a gun, show that themeans employed by them was consciously adopted to ensurethe killing of the victim. These circumstances qualify the act tothe offense of murder.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is respectfullyprayed that appellants appeal be denied for utter lack of meritand the court a quos Decision dated 1 August 2012, findingappellant GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Art.248 of the Revised Penal Code, be AFFIRMED, as co-


21/21

conspirator of Guillermo Aldueza, the same being inaccordance with the law and evidence.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the circumstances

are likewise prayed for.

Makati City for Manila, May 15, 2013.

Documents

People v Aldueza (Appellee's Brief -Draft)