Title
People vs. Nullan y Binlaio
Case
G.R. No. 126303
Decision Date
Apr 14, 1999
Three accused conspired to murder Benito Gotanci in 1995, with treachery and premeditation proven. Convictions upheld; death penalty imposed, damages adjusted.
murder
treachery
conspiracy

Case Summary (G.R. No. 126303)

Factual Background: The Killing of Benito Gotanci

The prosecution’s case relied heavily on the testimony and prior sworn statements of Alden Adona, the eyewitness who operated a store and barbecue stand next door to the victim’s office. Adona narrated that on 25 July 1995, at about 5:00 p.m., four men arrived at his store, ordered beer and soft drinks, and stayed for about two hours until around 7:00 p.m. He claimed that they were strangers and that he observed them because he was familiar with customers in the area. He again saw the same group on 26 July 1995, also around 5:00 p.m., when the accused adopted distinct positions around his barbecue stand and near the corner of Madrid and Lavezares Streets.

Adona described that at about 6:00 p.m., a Hi-Ace van arrived to fetch Gotanci outside the office-store at No. 622 Madrid Street, and shortly thereafter Gotanci emerged. He testified that Edgar Maligaya went to the bench where Alberto Nullan was seated, that the unidentified companion positioned himself on the opposite side of the street, and that Vicente Alagaban stayed at the corner. When Gotanci was about to board his vehicle and had his back turned, Adona stated that Nullan and Maligaya surreptitiously approached from behind, and at practically point-blank range Nullan shot Gotanci twice at the back. Adona said that the bullets found their marks and felled the victim. After the shooting, Nullan and Maligaya ran toward San Nicolas Street, followed by Alagaban and the unidentified companion. Adona said that they carried Gotanci to a vehicle to rush him to the hospital, but he was dead on arrival at the Medical Center of Manila.

Medical Findings

The post-mortem examination conducted by Dr. Manuel Lagonera revealed that the cause of death was two gunshot wounds. One wound had its point of entry at the left posterior lumbar region, with a bullet course directed slightly upwards and forwards that lacerated internal organs including the left psoas muscle, left kidney, mesentery and small intestine, and the abdominal aorta. The second wound had its point of entry at the left inner upper quadrant gluteal region, with a bullet course directed downwards and forwards that lacerated the gluteal muscle, fractured the coccygeal bone, and caused additional internal injuries. The findings thus supported the prosecution’s claim of a close-range assault causing fatal injuries.

Defense Theory: Denial and Alibis

All three accused denied participation and presented separate defenses.

Alberto Nullan claimed he was engaged in the “business of ice delivery.” He testified that on 26 July 1995, he stayed at home in Malate, Manila waiting for customers’ telephone calls for ice delivery orders. He said that after receiving a call around 6:30 p.m., he instructed an employee to deliver ice, and that he did not leave the house thereafter. Nullan also described alleged events surrounding his apprehension, stating that on 08 November 1995 at about 6:00 p.m., he and Vicente Alagaban were apprehended by CIS agent Ismael Fajardo, brought blindfolded to a safehouse, and later detained; he claimed that he was tortured and asked to admit the killing of a foreigner named Gotanci.

Vicente Alagaban denied any participation. He claimed that he was in Barrio Juan in Solsona, Ilocos Norte from 22 January 1995 to 27 October 1995, spending his vacation at the house of a friend and helping on a farm and in piggery. He stated that he left only on 27 October 1995 and returned to work in Malate, Manila.

Edgar Maligaya did not directly deny his location; instead, he presented his activities. He testified that he was a photographer and musician plying his trade inside the Manila City Jail, that he joined a jail community to serve inmates’ spiritual needs, and that on the day before the killing and on the day of the killing he went through a schedule involving interviews of youthful offenders, preparation and attendance in religious activities, classes at SM Megamall at Yamaha School of Music, and mass arrangements at the Lady of Fatima Chapel outside the jail.

Trial Court Convictions and Sentences

The trial court preferred Adona’s eyewitness testimony over the defenses. It found that the acts of the three accused, along with their participation before, during, and after the shooting, established conspiracy. It concluded that the murder was qualified by treachery and that evident premeditation was likewise present. Consequently, the court convicted all three accused of murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, and imposed the supreme penalty of death for each. It also awarded damages: actual damages to the victim’s spouse, death indemnity, loss of earning capacity, and moral damages.

Issues Raised on Appeal

On appeal, Alberto Nullan and Vicente Alagaban challenged the conviction by arguing that the RTC erred in relying solely on Adona’s testimony and that the case should have been dismissed because their arrest without warrant was allegedly illegal. Edgar Maligaya raised additional assignments of error. He argued that (1) the lower court erred in convicting on the witness’s supposedly flawed testimony, (2) the court erred in admitting an alleged extrajudicial confession extracted in violation of constitutional rights, (3) the lower court erred in failing to declare his warrantless arrest illegal, and (4) the lower court erred in ruling that a conspiracy existed.

Appellate Review of Eyewitness Credibility

The Court held that the defense arguments did not warrant a reversal. It recognized that appellate review must defer to the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility when supported by credible evidence. It also rejected the claim that Adona was merely fabricating his account to fit investigators’ theory. The Court observed that the supposed inconsistencies highlighted by the defense did not appear serious or inexplicable enough to discredit the witness. It noted that Adona had executed multiple sworn statements, but the Court treated those ex parte narrations as generally incomplete and subordinate to his testimony in open court.

The Court found that Adona withstood “searching cross-examination” by competent defense counsel and maintained a consistent narrative. The Court stressed the eyewitness’s opportunity to observe the incident: he stood near the scene, with conditions that allowed him to witness the sequence of events. The Court also addressed the defense claim of heavy rain that would allegedly impair visibility. It ruled that the rain did not preclude Adona from witnessing what transpired, and it contrasted Adona’s direct vantage point with the behavior of another person (Alton Guarda, the driver of Gotanci), who could not identify the shooter because he was seated at the driver’s position inside the vehicle.

Warrantless Arrest and the Timing of Objection

On the alleged warrantless arrest, the Court relied on settled doctrine that an objection to arrest must be raised before the accused enters his plea. It held that failure to timely object amounted to a waiver of the right to question the arrest. The Court thus did not grant relief on this ground.

Extrajudicial Confession Issue

With respect to the alleged extrajudicial confession attributed to Maligaya, the Court noted that the confession was not the basis of conviction. It held that the convictions rested on Adona’s eyewitness testimony, not on the confession. Accordingly, any alleged infirmity in the confession did not affect the determination of guilt on the evidentiary basis actually relied upon by the RTC.

Proof of Conspiracy

The Court sustained the finding of conspiracy. It held that proof of a previous agreement to commit the crime was not essential because conspiracy may be inferred from the accused’s coordinated actions. It further stated that conspiracy’s secrecy makes direct proof rare and that courts may infer a community of design from a “complete whole” of acts and circumstances.

Anchoring on the RTC’s fact findings, the Court described five decisive circumstances: first, on 25 July 1995 the accused and the unidentified companion arrived together and stayed for about two hours at the scene, allegedly to survey conditions; second, on 26 July 1995 the same group again arrived together and assumed specific positions; third, Maligaya moved to the bench area and Nullan and Maligaya approached surreptitiously the victim as Gotanci emerged and closed his store; fourth, during the shooting, Maligaya stood behind Nullan acting as back-up; fifth, after the shots, Nullan and Maligaya fled toward San Nicolas Street, followed by Alagaban and the unidentified companion.

The Court concluded that these acts showed a pre-conceived plan and unified purpose. Therefore, once conspiracy was established, each accused was held criminally liable as a co-principal regardless of the degree or character of participation.

Qualification by Treachery and Evident Premeditation

The Court affirmed treachery as the qualifying circumstance. It found that the victim had no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate because the assailants approached unawares and without warning from behind and shot him at practically point blank range. It also found that the means and manner of attack were deliberately adopted to ensure the victim’s death.

As for evident premeditation, the Court held that its requisites were satisfied: the offenders appeared resolved to commit the crime; their continued clinging to that determination was demonstrated by the deliberate actions culminating in the killing; and the time gap between determination and execution allowed reflection. It treated the RTC’s reasoning as persuasive: the accused had previously stayed at the scene on the day before the killing, had returned the following day, and executed the plan only after a sufficient lapse of time for deliberation.

Penalty Under Republic Act No. 7659

The Court applied the statutory rule under Repub

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms