G.R. No. 102596 - People vs. Enoja

On July 2, 1987, in Barangay Caraudan, Janiuay, Iloilo, a shooting incident occurred involving the victim, Siegfred G. Insular, and multiple assailants.
The victim, suspected to be a commander of the New People’s Army (NPA), was ambushed while returning from the market with his wife, Paterna Insular.
Prior occurrences in the community included alleged NPA attacks on the Enoja family residences, which set a tense background for the incident.

The accused are interrelated, with familial ties and connections (e.g., brothers, cousins, and a kumpadre).
Three additional accused (Joel Enoja alias “Mike”, Melvin Castor, and Antonio Enoja) remained at-large during the proceedings.

In the afternoon, as the Insular couple traversed a ricefield near their home, they encountered Yolly Armada, who was seen carrying a long firearm.
After an initial greeting between the victim and Armada, the latter blocked the couple near the ricemill of Teodoro Salamanca and suddenly fired his weapon at Siegfred Insular.
As the victim turned to flee, Armada discharged successive shots, and almost simultaneously, other accused appeared and took turns shooting the victim, resulting in multiple gunshot wounds.
Testimonies indicated that:

The assailants shot the victim repeatedly, including shots to the head, neck, thoraco-abdominal region, and extremities.
Following the shooting, the accused attempted to control the movement of Paterna Insular and Teodoro Salamanca by confining them in a nearby house.

Several empty shells from firearms of different calibers.
A short, homemade firearm with an empty shell recovered near the victim, which was determined not to have been used by the victim.

On March 11, 1988, Provincial Fiscal Vicente E. Aragona filed an Information charging the accused with murder, emphasizing elements such as conspiracy, treachery, and abuse of superior strength.
The prosecution’s witnesses included:

Teodoro Salamanca, an eyewitness to the incident.
Paterna Insular, the victim’s widow, who provided an account of the shooting and subsequent events.
Dr. Tito D. Doromal, the medico-legal officer, who testified regarding the multiple gunshot wounds and cause of death.
Integrated National Police officers who corroborated the recovery of evidence and documented the incident.

During trial, the accused (except for Armada) interposed defenses of denial and alibi, while Armada additionally claimed self-defense, asserting that he acted upon encountering a situation where the victim allegedly shot Antonio Galupar.
Testimonies and physical evidence (such as the recovered cartridges and planted firearm) played a pivotal role in establishing the sequence of events and the participation of each accused.

On October 31, 1990, the Regional Trial Court rendered a decision convicting the accused for murder, specifying different penalties:

Nicasio Enoja, Jose Enoja, and Antonio Galupar were sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
Ronnie Enoja received an indeterminate prison sentence (minimum of prision mayor and maximum of reclusion temporal).
Yolly Armada was sentenced to an indeterminate prison term ranging from prision mayor to reclusion temporal.

The trial court also ordered the accused to jointly and severally pay indemnity to the heirs of the deceased and imposed accessory penalties.
Subsequent events included:

The death of appellant Antonio Galupar pending appeal, which extinguished his criminal and civil liabilities.
The escape of appellant Yolly Armada from the New Bilibid Prison, resulting in the dismissal of his appeal.
The departure of appellant Jose Enoja by jumping bail, leading to dismissal of his appeal.

The appeal thus proceeded only for appellants Nicasio Enoja and Ronnie Enoja, who were detained at the New Bilibid Prison.

Whether the trial court erred in finding a conspiracy among the accused-appellants, based on the cumulative evidence and the manner in which the shooting was executed.
Whether, assuming the accused were involved, the trial court committed an error in convicting the accused-appellants for the crime of murder, particularly with respect to the disputed elements of the offense (e.g., self-defense claim of Armada, alibi, and inconsistencies in witness testimonies).
Whether the trial court erred in not finding that, except for appellant Yolly Armada, the offense committed by the remaining accused-appellants was an impossible crime, given their contention that the killing was already effected by Armada’s shots.