G.R. No. 241164 - Torres vs. Court of Appeals

On February 20, 1967, while Mayor James L. Gordon was conversing with a woman at the ground floor of Olongapo City Hall, appellant Nenito Alincastre fired a shot at the right-hand side of the mayor’s occipital region, causing a fatal bullet wound that pierced his skull.
Immediately after the shooting, amidst the ensuing commotion, Nenito fled the scene, boarded a jeep that transported him to the public market, and later took a tricycle to the house of appellant Pablo Salcedo where he was sheltered in a dug-out beneath the residence.

Peace officers apprehended Nenito in the dug-out under Salcedo’s house, where appellant Rogelio Lorenzo was also found. During a search, police recovered Exhibit ‘M’, a .32 caliber revolver containing live rounds—the instrument used in Mayor Gordon’s killing.
Immediately following his arrest, Nenito, along with Pablo Salcedo and Rogelio Lorenzo, made sworn statements implicating each other and also naming appellant Mamerto Lorenzo, the former chief of police of Olongapo and father of Rogelio Lorenzo.
A complaint for murder was duly filed on February 23, 1967, charging Nenito Alincastre, Pablo Salcedo, Rogelio Lorenzo, Mamerto Lorenzo, and others identified only as John, Peter, and Richard Doe.

During the preliminary investigation before the City Court of Olongapo on March 14, 1967, Nenito indicated his intention to plead guilty, whereas the other accused refrained from presenting evidence—action interpreted as a waiver of their right to a full preliminary investigation.
When the case was transferred to the Court of First Instance of Zambales, upon arraignment Nenito entered a plea of guilty while reserving the right to introduce evidence regarding mitigating circumstances. The other defendants were deemed to have pleaded not guilty.
The trial court initially accepted memoranda from the parties, and on November 4, 1968, when Nenito appeared without his counsel de oficio, he requested to testify about his knowledge of the case. The court then reopened the trial, allowing him to testify on November 5, 1968.

Nenito’s testimony revealed that the killing of Mayor Gordon was part of a premeditated conspiracy involving:

Appellant Mamerto Lorenzo, who had a personal vendetta against the mayor for having relieved him of his position as Chief of Police.
His son, Rogelio Lorenzo, and appellant Pablo Salcedo, who participated in planning and executing the assassination.
Other conspirators including Narciso Cruz and prominent local politicians who were to benefit from the mayor’s elimination.

Evidence indicated that prior to the crime, visitors persuaded Nenito—while he was incarcerated at the New Bilibid Prison—to escape with promises that included financial rewards, a house, a jeep, and future inclusion in the city government payroll.
Meetings were held in various locations (including the house of Mamerto Lorenzo and that of Rogelio Lorenzo) where details of the assassination plot, such as the layout of the church and city hall—as well as the identification of the mayor—were discussed and planned.

After the shooting, subsequent investigations involved intensive interrogations by the local police, the National Bureau of Investigation, and the Philippine Constabulary, producing multiple affidavits and testimonies that linked all the accused to the conspiracy.
Forensic and medical evidence was presented regarding the physical injuries sustained by Pablo Salcedo and Rogelio Lorenzo, further corroborating the prosecution’s version of events.
The defense argued that some affidavits were obtained under duress and later introduced evidence (including testimonies from Judge Jose L. Uy and other officers) to support a claim of duress; however, these explanations were deemed unconvincing by the trial court.

Whether it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to reopen the trial to allow Nenito Alincastre to testify after his earlier plea of guilty and in the absence of counsel.
Whether permitting Nenito to testify, thereby potentially incriminating his co-accused, violated their rights.

Whether Nenito’s testimony should be given weight in convicting the appellants in view of his earlier statement and subsequent voluntary admission.
Whether the defense’s contention that his testimony was self-incriminatory and should be disregarded holds merit.

Whether the evidence, particularly from Nenito, sufficiently demonstrated the existence of a conspiracy involving all the accused.
Whether the co-defendants are equally liable for the murder committed by Nenito even if they did not directly undertake the killing.

Whether the trial court erred in considering the grave aggravating circumstances (treachery, evident premeditation, price or reward, and disregard for the mayor’s rank) against the appellants.
Whether the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, particularly asserted by Mamerto Lorenzo, should have been given greater weight to offset the aggravating factors.

Whether Rogelio Lorenzo’s active participation and planning in the conspiracy should render him liable as a principal rather than as merely an accomplice.
The legitimacy of convicting him to the extreme penalty given his comprehensive involvement in the conspiracy.