PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MARCELINO NAVA Y DELA CRUZ @ MARCING, GERALD QUILIZA Y ORCILLA @ JAY AND ANGELITO QUILIZA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

People versus Nava

The Case

This is a criminal case in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Marcelino Nava and the brothers Gerald and Angelito Quiliza for the killing of Emilio Ico in Dagupan City on the night of November 9, 1992. The amended information charged murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, alleging that Nava was armed with a bolo while the two Quiliza brothers were armed with pieces of wood, and that they took advantage of superior strength and confederated to kill the victim. The case matters to the reviewee for two reasons: it is a clean illustration of how conspiracy is proved by inference from the acts of the accused rather than by direct evidence of a prior agreement, and it shows how the Supreme Court treats minor inconsistencies between eyewitnesses who saw different portions of one continuous event.

Procedural History

The case began in the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City, Branch 44. On arraignment, Nava and Gerald Quiliza pleaded not guilty; Angelito Quiliza remained at large. After trial, the court rendered its decision on May 22, 1995, convicting Nava and Gerald Quiliza of murder beyond reasonable doubt. Nava was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Gerald Quiliza, because of the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority under Article 68, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, offset by voluntary surrender and an aggravating circumstance of nighttime, was sentenced to an indeterminate prison term. Both were ordered to pay an indemnity of 50,000 pesos and 13,797 pesos in actual expenses to the heirs of the deceased, with costs.

Nava appealed to the Supreme Court. Gerald Quiliza later manifested his intention to withdraw his appeal, and the Court granted that withdrawal in a resolution dated December 3, 1997, upon a showing that it was voluntary. The appeal of Nava alone was thus resolved on the merits.

Facts

At about eight o'clock in the evening of November 9, 1992, in Pantal East, Dagupan City, Emilio Ico told Josefina Francisco, who was watching television at a nearby house, that someone was throwing stones at his house. She trailed him toward his home. Suddenly Angelito Quiliza struck the victim with a piece of wood until he fell. Nava then clambered on top of the fallen man and hacked him with a bolo, while Gerald Quiliza stood beside them brandishing a longer piece of wood.

Rodrigo Ico, the victim's nephew, rushed out of his house upon hearing a scuffle. He saw Nava on top of the prostrate victim while the Quiliza brothers repeatedly clubbed him with a piece of wood. Rodrigo pleaded with Angelito to stop, and Angelito heeded, releasing the weapon and walking away. When Rodrigo called Nava's attention, Nava stood up and tried to stab him with a bolo. Rodrigo fled and sought the help of a barangay officer, but by the time they returned all the accused had disappeared. The victim was brought to the Pangasinan Medical Center, where he expired.

Dr. Tomas Cornel, the Assistant City Health Officer, conducted the autopsy and testified that the victim sustained several wounds probably caused by dull or blunt instruments, such as a piece of wood, a lead pipe, or even a bolo without a blade. He concluded that death was caused by massive intracranial hemorrhage due to trauma. The defense presented Nava and Gerald Quiliza, whose accounts placed the deceased in a drunken rage, wielding a bolo and charging at Nava, and who claimed that Gerald was elsewhere and later surrendered to deny involvement.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution established the existence of conspiracy among the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in finding that Nava hacked the victim with a bolo, given the autopsy finding that the wounds were caused by a blunt instrument.
• Whether or not the differences between the testimonies of the two prosecution eyewitnesses destroyed their credibility.

Applicable Provisions

Article 8, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code defines conspiracy:

Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony, and decide to commit it.

This is the provision the Court construes, holding that the agreement need not be proved directly but may be inferred from acts showing a concurrence of wills.

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code is the provision under which the accused were charged, defining and penalizing the crime of murder, which the trial court found proved.

Article 68, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code is the provision applied to Gerald Quiliza, granting the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, which lowered the penalty imposed on him.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that conspiracy was beyond dispute. Direct proof of a previous agreement is not necessary; conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused which clearly manifest a concurrence of wills, a common intent or design to commit a crime. The series of acts here, the fist blows by Nava and the clubbing by the Quiliza brothers, resulting in the death of the victim, suggested unity of purpose, and each contributing act, without any semblance of desistance, reflected their resolution to commit the crime.

On the second issue, the Court held that the nature of the wounds did not preclude the possibility that a bolo caused them, since Dr. Cornel himself testified that a bolo without a blade could have produced them. The distinction was further negated by the positive testimonies of Rodrigo Ico and Josefina Francisco identifying Nava as one of those responsible.

On the third issue, the Court held that the differences in the eyewitness accounts did not affect their veracity, because the two witnesses did not see the incident at exactly the same time: Josefina saw how it began, and Rodrigo arrived when the victim was already on the ground. The law does not demand an identical narration where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and in the positive identification of the assailant. Absent evidence of improper motive, the presumption is that the prosecution witness was not so moved and that his testimony is entitled to full faith and credit.

Doctrine

Conspiracy, under Article 8, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, is proved not only by direct evidence of a prior agreement but also by inference from the acts of the accused showing a concurrence of wills, a common intent or design to commit a crime. It is unnecessary for the prosecution to show a previous agreement to take advantage of numerical superiority. Where the accused act in concert, each performing his part without desistance, each is liable for the crime as a co-conspirator. Likewise, minor inconsistencies between eyewitnesses who observed different portions of one continuous event do not impair their credibility, so long as they are consistent on the principal occurrence and on the positive identification of the assailant.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed Nava's appeal and affirmed the trial court's decision in full, with costs against the appellants.

Remember This

Memorize this line: conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence of a prior agreement; it may be inferred from acts that clearly manifest a concurrence of wills, a common intent or design to commit a crime. Examiners use this case to test conspiracy by inference and the rule that inconsistencies between witnesses who saw different parts of one event do not destroy credibility.