THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. APOLONIO ENOMAR, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

People versus Enomar

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in two consolidated cases: the People of the Philippines against Apolonio Enomar and his sons for the killing of Paulino Aballe, and the People against Apolonio Enomar alone for illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition. The killing arose from a family quarrel over a stray carabao, and the central question is whether the father and brothers conspired with the son who struck the fatal blow. The case matters because it is a compact lesson on the proof of conspiracy: presence at the scene, family relationship, and even suspicious conduct are not enough where the evidence leaves room for an innocent explanation, and reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.

Procedural History

Two informations were filed before the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental: one for murder against Leon, Apolonio, Raymundo, Pablo and Basilio Enomar, and one for illegal possession of firearm and ammunition against Apolonio Enomar. After trial, the court convicted all five of murder and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, ordered them to indemnify the heirs of Paulino Aballe, and convicted Apolonio of illegal possession, imposing an indeterminate penalty and forfeiting the revolver and the live ammunition in favor of the Government. The accused appealed. After both parties filed their briefs, Leon Enomar moved to withdraw his appeal, and the motion was granted. The appeal therefore proceeded only as to Apolonio, Raymundo, Pablo and Basilio Enomar, and the case reached the Supreme Court by ordinary appeal.

Facts

On July 22, 1964, Paulino Aballe rebuked his nephew Leon Enomar because Leon's carabao had strayed and eaten young corn plants on Paulino's land in Pisa-an, Bonifacio, Misamis Occidental. Leon denied it, and Paulino, angered that Leon talked too much, demanded damages. When Leon refused, Paulino told him to leave and never show his face again.

Three days later, on the night of July 25, 1964, a fund-raising dance was held at the multipurpose center of Pisa-an. Apolonio Enomar's radio-phonograph, amplifier and loudspeaker were being used and operated by his sons, and his daughters and daughters-in-law were helping. Paulino attended with his daughters Alicia and Encamacion. At about eleven in the evening Paulino decided to go home and left, followed by his daughters. Barely ten meters away, Leon Enomar met him and stabbed him with a ten-inch hunting knife below the left nipple, causing a wound five inches deep. Paulino died soon after from hemorrhage.

Leon did not deny the killing. He surrendered at the police station before dawn the next day and turned over the knife, and at trial he claimed self-defense. The prosecution, however, painted a conspiracy: that the father and brothers waited under trees near the road, that Raymundo focused a flashlight on Paulino's face to blind him, that Apolonio aimed an unlicensed revolver at Paulino, and that Pablo and Basilio tried to stab Panfilo Aballe when he grappled with Apolonio to disarm him. The defense denied all of this and gave a different account, in which Apolonio drew his gun in fear of retaliation and the brothers acted only to defend their father.

Issues

• Whether or not conspiracy was proven beyond reasonable doubt among Apolonio, Raymundo, Pablo and Basilio Enomar in the killing of Paulino Aballe.
• Whether or not Apolonio Enomar is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of the unlicensed firearm and ammunition taken from him.

Applicable Provisions

The murder charge was brought under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as alleged in the information:

Contrary to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code with the qualifying circumstance of treachery and the generic aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, superiority of strength and night time.

This is the provision under which the trial court convicted all the accused of murder, and which the Supreme Court re-examined as to the appellants.

The illegal possession charge rests on the information's allegation of unlicensed possession:

That on or about the 25th day of July, 1964, in barrio Pisa-an, municipality of Bonifacio, province of Misamis Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the said accused, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control one revolver with Serial No. 122880 and with lettering on its barrel which reads: "Colt U.S.A. 22 Cal." and five live ammunitions of 22 caliber, without first having obtained the proper license therefor from the corresponding authorities.

The absence of a license is the element that makes the possession criminal, and the Court found that element clearly established against Apolonio.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that conspiracy was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. It began with the settled rule that conspiracy must be established by proof as clear as the crime itself, and it found the prosecution's evidence too weak. The witnesses who placed the accused under the trees were inside the dance hall and could not have seen clearly in the dark, and mere presence together does not establish conspiracy, since it is not unusual for Filipino families to stay together at social gatherings. The Court also noted that the accused had every reason to fear retaliation from the Aballes after Leon's quarrel with Paulino, so Apolonio's drawing of his gun and the brothers' intervention to defend their father were open to an innocent explanation. It listed telling circumstances: the accused did not send their womenfolk away, as conspirators would have; Apolonio sought refuge with the barrio captain and learned only from him that Leon had done the stabbing; and the brothers hid in a neighbor's house out of fear of reprisal. On the whole, the charge of murder against the appellants was not established beyond reasonable doubt.

On the second issue, the Court held that the gun wrested from Apolonio was unlicensed and that he was therefore guilty of illegal possession of the firearm and the ammunition it contained. The appealed decision on this charge was in accordance with the facts and the law.

Doctrine

Conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, by evidence as clear as the crime itself; it cannot be inferred from mere presence at the scene, from family relationship, or from conduct that admits of an innocent explanation. Where the prosecution's evidence leaves room for a reasonable doubt, the accused must be acquitted. Illegal possession of a firearm is complete upon the unlicensed possession of the weapon and ammunition, and the absence of a license is the element that the prosecution must establish.

Disposition

The Court reversed the murder conviction of Apolonio, Raymundo, Pablo and Basilio Enomar and acquitted them, with costs de oficio, but affirmed the conviction of Apolonio Enomar for illegal possession of firearm and ammunition, with costs against him.

Remember This

Remember the line that conspiracy must be proven as clearly as the crime itself, and that presence at the scene plus family ties is not proof of it. Examiners use this case to test the quantum of proof for conspiracy and the elements of illegal possession of a firearm.