G.R. No. 130597 - People vs. Bolivar y Moyco

On March 13, 1995, at around 1:00 a.m. in Sitio Kawit, Barangay Camandag, Looc, Romblon, Rudy de Juan was attacked and killed.
The Information alleged that the accused—Elmer Bolivar y Moyco, Rolando Malinao y Llenas, and Jaime Malinao y Gabuna—conspired and mutually aided each other with intent to kill.
The killing involved treachery, as the accused attacked Rudy with the advantage of superior strength and surprise, using firearms and a bolo (“talibong”).

Prior to the incident, Rudy attended a dance party at the local dance hall.
After leaving the dance hall with his wife Marilou and accompanied by Herminia (and her granddaughter Marilyn), Rudy was on his way home.
Near the home of Rolando Malinao Sr., the accused—Rolando Sr., accompanied by his sons (Rolando Jr. and Jaime) and Elmer—positioned themselves at the fence.

Rolando Sr. directed his flashlight at Rudy’s group.
Rolando Jr. left the fence and brandished a short gun; he warned Rudy, indicating that “You were the one advancing.”
Following the warning, Elmer and Jaime fired their guns at Rudy, resulting in gunshot wounds.
After Rudy fell, Jaime used a bolo to stab him, causing fatal injuries.

Testimonies from prosecution witnesses (Herminia, Marilou, and Johnny Mariano) consistently identified the accused and detailed their roles in the attack.
Physical evidence at the scene included spent shells, a live shell from an armalite, a shotgun shell, and a blood-stained bolo found near the residence of Rolando Sr.
An autopsy conducted by Dr. Leticia Formilleza confirmed that Rudy sustained multiple gunshot wounds and hack wounds, which were immediately fatal.

She accompanied Rudy and his wife for part of the journey home.
She observed Rolando Sr. flashing his flashlight on them from inside the fence, followed by the armed movement of the accused.

She confirmed that after the flashlight incident, the group was blocked and then attacked.
She identified that both Elmer and Jaime used long firearms and that Jaime also carried a bolo.

Johnny Mariano, Rudy’s brother-in-law, also witnessed the killing from a nearby rice paddy and provided similar details about the positions and actions of the accused.
The physical evidence, including the position of the weapons and remnants found at the scene, further corroborated the eyewitness testimonies.

She claimed that Rolando Jr. was fired upon at their family home after being roused by a large explosion.
According to her, Rudy de Juan, accompanied by other relatives, had a confrontation with Rolando Jr. which escalated when Edgar de Juan and Diosdado de Juan intervened.
In this account, Rolando Jr. grappled with Rudy, was then shot and stabbed, and other family members became involved.

The defense argued that the accused were at their employer’s fishpond (located about 500 meters from the crime scene) at the time of the incident, asserting an alibi.
The trial court, however, rejected this version, noting inconsistencies and finding the prosecution witnesses’ positive identification of the accused persuasive.

The accused were arrested based on arrest warrants issued by the trial court.
Motions for bail and to quash the warrant were filed by the accused but were denied by the trial court.
At arraignment and pre-trial, the accused pleaded not guilty.
The Regional Trial Court of Odiongan, Romblon, Branch 82, rendered a decision on May 9, 1997, convicting the accused of murder.
The appeal was subsequently filed, and the Supreme Court reviewed the trial court’s findings.

Whether the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies, which identified the accused and detailed the attack, were correctly given credence.
Whether the trial court appropriately evaluated the credibility of the witnesses in light of the evidence.

Whether the accused successfully proved that they were at the fishpond and not at the scene of the crime.
Whether the defense met the requirement to establish the physical impossibility of being at two places simultaneously.

Whether the trial court correctly found treachery as a qualifying circumstance for murder.
Whether there is sufficient evidence to establish that the accused acted in conspiracy, sharing a common design in the commission of the crime.

Whether the trial court correctly applied the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority to Jaime Malinao, given his age at the time of the crime.
Whether the modification in the penalty imposed on Jaime Malinao, due to his status as a minor and in view of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, was proper.