G.R. No. 98468 - People vs. Villanueva

The case involves two accused, Armando Villanueva and Rogino Villanueva (also known as “Digoy”), charged with the murder of Joselito Itona y Nonato.
The murder was allegedly committed on or about November 15, 1986, in the Municipality of Cauayan, Negros Occidental, Philippines.
The crime was characterized by elements of premeditation, treachery, and, as argued later, abuse of superior strength.
The indictment charged that the accused, by conspiring and mutually assisting each other, attacked and shot the victim using a homemade shotgun (pugakhang), thereby causing his death.

On November 15, 1986, at around 6:30 in the evening, witnesses observed events near Joselito Itona’s house at Sitio Mabua, Cauayan.

Venancio Tabobo and Joselito Itona were conversing in front of the victim’s house.
The Villanueva brothers had been drinking tuba since the morning at Armando’s residence.

Rogino Villanueva was seen approaching the scene while carrying a homemade shotgun tucked under his armpit.
At a point, Armando reportedly lagged behind as Rogino pressed onward towards the victims.
Rogino suddenly appeared from behind Joselito Itona’s house and fired a shot at close range, striking the victim in the back.

The immediate reaction of Venancio Tabobo attempting to apprehend the fleeing suspect.
Ismael Banson assisting in retrieving the victim from the scene after noticing his injuries.

An autopsy revealed multiple shotgun and bullet wounds on the victim’s posterior left thoracic region, neck, and scapular area, confirming that the injuries were immediately fatal.

Following the shooting, law enforcement apprehended Armando Villanueva the next day, while Rogino Villanueva was arrested on November 19, 1986.
During trial, the prosecution relied on documentary evidence, medical findings, and witness testimonies, notably those of Venancio Tabobo and Ismael Banson.
The trial court found that:

The testimonies and physical evidence demonstrated the presence of both accused at the scene.
The act was committed with treachery, as the victim was caught off guard and unable to defend himself.

Accused Rogino Villanueva raised the defense of alibi, claiming that at the time of the incident he was engaged in his routine work as a tuba gatherer, located approximately two kilometers away at Cambugsoc, Cauayan.
He testified that his occupation required him to climb coconut trees from early morning until noon and then again in the afternoon until 6:30 P.M.
The defense relied solely on his assertion of being elsewhere without presenting corroborative evidence, resulting in its rejection by the trial court.

The trial court acquitted Armando Villanueva, citing insufficient evidence linking him to the conspiracy and the treacherous act.
In contrast, accused Rogino Villanueva was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, specifically for:

The court imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua on Rogino, along with the order to indemnify the heirs of the victim initially at P30,000.00, later increased to P50,000.00 by the appellate court.

Whether the evidence presented, including eyewitness testimonies and forensic reports, sufficiently established that accused Rogino Villanueva committed murder beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the identification of the accused by the witnesses was conclusive, given the circumstances of the incident.

Whether the alibi presented by accused Rogino Villanueva, based solely on his testimony of being engaged in tuba gathering at a distant location, meets the necessary standard of clear, positive, and convincing proof.
Whether the defense could be bolstered by demonstrating the impossibility of the accused’s presence at the scene of the crime.

Whether the trial court correctly identified and applied the qualifying circumstance of treachery in the commission of the murder.
Whether the alleged additional aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength should have been separately considered or was inherently absorbed by the finding of treachery.

Whether the factual findings of the trial court, particularly regarding the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, warrant deference and should be upheld by the appellate court.
Whether any oversight, misunderstanding, or misapplication of critical facts occurred that would justify the reversal or modification of the judgment.