Case Digest (G.R. No. 102596)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Nicasio Enoja @ Nick et al., G.R. No. 102596, December 17, 1999, Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff-appellee is the People of the Philippines; the accused-appellants are Nicasio Enoja @ Nick, Jose Enoja @ Moros, Antonio Galupar @ Tony, Ronnie Enoja @ Bud-oy, and Yolly Armada (other co-accused remained at large).On July 2, 1987, at about 4:30 p.m. in Barangay Caraudan, Janiuay, Iloilo, Siegfred G. Insular (a suspected NPA commander) and his wife Paterna were walking when they encountered Yolly Armada. Armada allegedly fired at Siegfred, who tried to flee; several armed men then arrived and took turns shooting the prostrate victim. Eyewitnesses Teodoro Salamanca and Paterna identified several of the assailants, including Nicasio and Ronnie Enoja. Police recovered multiple empty shells of differing calibers and a short homemade firearm near the victim; autopsy established numerous gunshot wounds as cause of death.
Provincial Fiscal Vicente Aragona filed an Information for murder on March 11, 1988. Appellants pleaded not guilty at arraignment on August 5, 1988. Prosecution witnesses included Salamanca, Paterna, medico-legal officer Dr. Tito D. Doromal, and responding policemen who recovered shells and the firearm. Defenses presented were denial and alibi by most appellants, and self-defense by Armada, who claimed Siegfred shot Antonio first and then attempted to shoot him.
The Regional Trial Court, Iloilo City, Branch 26, rendered judgment on October 31, 1990, convicting the five accused: Nicasio, Jose and Antonio were sentenced to reclusion perpetua; Yolly Armada and Ronnie received indeterminate sentences appropriate to mitigating circumstances, and all were ordered to pay P30,000 as indemnity and P19,200 as actual damages. Appellants appealed to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 102596). During the appeal, appellant Antonio Galupar died, extinguishing his criminal and civil liability; Yolly Armada escaped from prison and his appeal was dismi...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was there sufficient proof of conspiracy among the accused-appellants to hold them criminally liable as co-principals?
- Were the convictions for murder against the appellants (as to those whose appeals remained) supported by the evidence, including the presence of treachery and the proper appreciation of mitigating circumstance of minority for Ronnie?
- Did the doctrine of impossible crime (Art. 4(2) and Art. 59, Revised Penal Code) apply so that, assuming participation, appellants should ha...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)