Title
Supreme Court
People vs. Enoja
Case
G.R. No. 102596
Decision Date
Dec 17, 1999
Farmers, accused of conspiring to murder an NPA commander, were convicted based on eyewitness testimonies, affirmed by the Supreme Court despite claims of self-defense and alibi.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 102596)

Facts of the Case

The facts are not in dispute and are based on the findings of the Regional Trial Court. On July 2, 1987, around 4:30 PM, while Insular and his wife were walking home from the market, they encountered Yolly Armada, who was armed. After a brief interaction, Armada shot Insular, prompting several others, including the accused-appellants, to join in the assault with their firearms. Insular was hit multiple times before the group attempted to turn the scene to create a justification for the shooting. The accused allegedly kept Insular's wife and a bystander captive nearby to suppress any immediate reporting to authorities.

Indictment and Trial Proceedings

On March 11, 1988, the Provincial Fiscal filed an Information for murder against the appellants. During the trial, eyewitness accounts were presented, including testimony from the victim's wife and a bystander, which corroborated the sequence of events and the actions of the appellants. The prosecution described how Insular suffered multiple gunshot wounds leading to his death, establishing a clear cause of death as attributable to the assault.

Defense Arguments

The defense presented alibi and denial as key arguments. They contended that they were not at the crime scene and offered contradictory evidence to assert their innocence. Yolly Armada claimed self-defense, arguing that he acted in response to a perceived threat from Insular. However, testimonies from witnesses and the recovered evidence did not support their claims, and the trial court deemed the self-defense claim implausible.

Decision of the Trial Court

On October 31, 1990, the trial court found the accused-appellants guilty of murder. The court held that conspiracy among the appellants was established, recognizing that their collective actions indicated a common design to kill Insular. Furthermore, the court rejected the claim of self-defense and concluded that the killing was committed with treachery and abuse of superior strength, warranting the penalties imposed.

Appeals and Judicial Review

The appellants appealed, raising several errors, especially concerning the trial court's findings on conspiracy and treachery. While some co-accused escaped or failed to appeal, the case continued for Nicasio Enoja and Ronnie Enoja. The appellate court upheld the trial court's conclusions, affirming the guilty verdict based on the overwhelming evidence indicating a coordinated attack on Insular.

Sentencing

Nicasio Eno

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.