G.R. No. 187731 - People vs. Alawig

The case involves SPO1 Alfredo Alawig and co-accused charged with the crime of murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.
Initially, Alawig and PO3 Romeo Ventinilla were charged with homicide for the killing of PO3 Miel de Ocampo Cafe.
A motion by Percelita Cafe, the victim’s mother, led to a reinvestigation which resulted in the filing of an Amended Information against Alawig and additional co-accused, including SPO2 Enrique M. Dabu.
The Amended Information specifically accused the officers of committing murder with evident premeditation, treachery, and as part of a conspiracy.

The events allegedly took place in Marulas, Valenzuela, Metro Manila, during an operation that involved a reported illegal drugs incident.
Testimony established that on the morning of November 30, 1996, the victim went to a nearby market and, upon return, was left at his residence while the accused (Alawig and Ventinilla) were seen near the scene.
Witness MacGregor Reyes testified that he observed the accused near the victim’s house and noted their positions:

Appellant Alawig and PO3 Ventinilla were seen standing by the door.
SPO2 Dabu was seen at the front gate and PO2 De Vera on top of a septic tank, with PO2 Corpuz at the main door.

Inside the residence, the victim was awakened, told to dress and arm himself, and then allegedly convinced to join a police team supposedly assigned to an operation.
A telephone conversation initiated by the victim, desperate for assistance, was abruptly cut off, and shortly afterward it was reported that the victim had been fatally shot inside the premises of the Police Kababayan Center I.

Dr. Fernando Mandapat and Dr. Valentin Bernales attested to the victim’s physical state: multiple gunshot wounds and other injuries including contusions, lacerations, and abrasions.
A paraffin test showed that Alawig and Ventinilla tested positive for gunpowder residues, while the victim’s hands tested negative.
A T-shirt allegedly worn by the victim was submitted for forensic analysis; it did not show bullet holes or traces of blood, challenging the defense claim.

Entries in the police dispatch logs were manipulated with inconsistencies in timing and instructions.
The logs indicated conflicting dispatch orders that suggested a cover-up by the accused.
Evidence such as the placement of spent ammunition cartridges and altered log entries undermined the defense’s version.

Reyeses’s detailed account established an unbroken chain of events, including sightings of the accused carrying firearms and interacting with the victim.
Other prosecution witnesses, including police investigators and medical examiners, corroborated the evidence linking the accused to the crime scene.
The victim’s earlier confessions about having made enemies due to his actions as a law enforcer were also presented.

The accused were found to have conspired to commit the crime, acting in concert before, during, and after the killing.
Evidence indicated a coordinated effort:

Manipulation of dispatch records and police blotter entries to misrepresent their whereabouts.
Deliberate placement of evidence (e.g., spent shells) to shift the narrative that the victim had fired his weapons.

The collective testimonies and documentary evidence led to the conclusion that there was a unity of purpose among the accused.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Alawig and SPO2 Dabu guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentencing them to death for murder qualified by the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation and treachery.
SPO2 Dabu’s failure to appear during the promulgation led to the issuance of a warrant of arrest, and his subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision with modifications, reducing the death penalty to reclusion perpetua for Alawig, while addressing other evidentiary and procedural issues raised by the defense.

Whether the trial court erred in holding that the guilt of the appellant was established beyond reasonable doubt based solely on circumstantial evidence.
Whether the chain of circumstantial events, as presented by the prosecution, was sufficient to convict the accused.
Whether the conflicting versions between the defense and the testimonies of witnesses (such as Reyes) were properly reconciled by the trial court.

Whether the trial court erred in imputing the burden of proof regarding the elements of self-defense upon the accused.
Whether the appellant’s claim of self-defense (asserting that it was instead PO3 Ventinilla who acted in self-defense) was properly evaluated in light of the physical and testimonial evidence.

Whether the evidence sufficiently established that the accused acted in concert (conspiracy) to commit the crime.
Whether the tampering with police records and evidence manipulated the sequence of events to cover up the true nature of the crime.

Whether the trial court properly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery, based on the manner in which the victim was attacked.
Whether or not evident premeditation was clearly demonstrated by the actions and manipulated records, or whether the lapse of time was insufficient for a conclusive finding.
Whether the trial court erred in its appreciation of the issue regarding the appellant’s non-flight from the scene.