PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. REYNATO ASUNCION AND LEONARDO AGUINALDO, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

The appellants, Reynato Asuncion, a
policeman, and Leonardo Aguinaldo, a PC sergeant,
were charged with MURDER for the killing of Gregorio Vergara
in Criminal Case No. 933 of the Court of First Instance.  (now Regional Trial
Court) of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya.

As may be gleaned from the People’s brief, the facts are as
follows:

Gregorio Vergara was
a member of the Catalina Intelligence Security Agency (CISA) in Canili, Alfonso Castañeda, Nueva Vizcaya.  On November 6, 1978, he was the officer-in-charge
of CISA.

Reynato Asuncion was a member
of the Integrated National Police (INP) of Pantabangan,
Nueva Vizcaya, and Leonardo
Aguinaldo was a member of the Philippine Constabulary
(PC).  Both of them were assigned with the
183rd PC Company detachment in Canili, Asuncion
as officer-in-charge and Aguinaldo
as a member of the detachment.

CISA provided the security services
at the National Irrigation Administration
(NIA).  The CISA coordinated with the PC
detachment in Canili, on matters concerning the
security, peace, and order within the NIA compound.

At seven o’clock in the
evening of November 6,
1978, one Batungmalaki, property custodian of
the NIA, requested Felomeno Sarmiento,
security guard supervisor of the CISA in Canili, and appellants Asuncion and
Aguinaldo to pacify a NIA security guard Eblacas and Rodolfo Tapat, a
member of the CISA, who were fighting inside the warehouse in Post No. 3 in the
NIA compound.  Batungmalaki,
Sarmiento, Asuncion
and Aguinaldo proceeded to the warehouse. 
Vergara followed them.

They met Eblacas who was
bleeding.  He told them that he had a
fight with Tapat.

The group proceeded to
Post No. 3 to look for Tapat.  The guards there did not know where he
was.  However, the appellants suspected that Vergara
was hiding him.

Except for Batungmalaki
who remained at the main
gate of Post No. 3, the group which included Bayani
Agustin, brother-in-law of Aguinaldo, proceeded to
the Transbasin
Canal within the NIA
compound.  Before reaching the Transbasin Canal,
Aguinaldo ordered the group to stop at a place
covered with tall “talahib” grass.  Aguinaldo ordered Sarmiento and Vergara to bring
out their bullets.  Sarmiento
answered that they had no
bullets.

Aguinaldo ordered them to bring
out their guns.  Vergara
obeyed.

Aguinaldo ordered him to throw
his gun on the ground in front of him. 
After laying down his firearm, Aguinaldo
kicked him.

Asuncion
fired a shot upward.  Aguinaldo
fired at Vergara’s left leg and kicked his bleeding
leg.

Vergara tied his wounded leg
with a handkerchief.  He begged the
appellants:  “Huwag
ninyo akong papatayin.  Maawa kayo sa
mga anak ko” (p. 24, Rollo).  He requested Sarmiento
to get an ambulance so he could be brought to the hospital.

Agustin embraced Sarmiento to stop him
from getting an ambulance.  But Sarmiento was able to extricate himself from Agustin’s
embrace and left the place.  In the
meanwhile, the appellants had their guns pointed at Vergara
who was seated.

Upon reaching Post No. 3 of the NIA compound, Sarmiento asked the guards, Presto and Martinez, to go and
help Vergara, but they refused for fear that they
might be sprayed with bullets.  At that
juncture, Sarmiento, Presto and Martinez
heard a gunshot coming from the place
where he had left the accused and Vergara.

Since the NIA’s ambulance was out of order, Sarmiento
requested Presto and Martinez
to inform Vergara’s wife about the shooting.  Later that evening, Perla
Luz Vergara, accompanied by two (2) security guards
went to the scene of the crime.  They did
not find Vergara at the place where he was shot.  Following a trail of blood, they found him
dead at the edge of a canal.

Vergara sustained two (2)
gunshot wounds:  one on the head (face)
and the other on the left leg.  He died
immediately due to “hemorrhage, severe, secondary to gunshot wound at the
head (face)” (p. 41. Rollo).

The next day, November
7, 1978, the appellants left Canili.  Aguinaldo reported the killing incident to Major Juanito
Flores of the 183rd PC Company at Baloc, Santo
Domingo, Nueva Ecija.
He said:  “Nakabaril
kami ni
Asuncion, hindi ko alam
kung patay” (p. 41, Rollo).  Asuncion
reported the incident to Sgt. Lorenzo
Suelto.

A PC team was dispatched to investigate the crime.  After the investigation, the appellants were
required to surrender their guns to the PC Commander at Baloc,
Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija.

The appellants were
charged with murder in the following information:

“That on or about November 6, 1978, at nighttime, in the Barangay of Canili, Municipality
of Alfonso Castañeda, Province of Nueva
Vizcaya, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the accused Reynato Asuncion
and Leonardo Aguinaldo, Policeman and PC Sergeant,
respectively, both attached to the 183rd PC Company, with abuse of their public
positions as such police
officer and PC Sergeant, with the qualifying circumstances of treachery,
advantage of superior strength and aid of armed men and the generic
circumstances of nocturnity and evident
premeditation, and with intent to kill, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously mortally shoot with their service firearms
(carbines) one Gregorio Vergara, on different parts
of his body which caused his instantaneous death.

“That as a consequence of the criminal act of the said
accused, the heirs of Gregorio Vergara suffered actual,
moral and exemplary damages in the amount of not less that fifty Thousand
Pesos (P50,000.00).” (p. 3, Rollo.)

Upon arraignment, they pleaded “NOT GUILTY” to the charge.

On March
15, 1988, the trial
court rendered judgment convicting both accused of the crime charged.  The dispositive
portion of the decision reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds both of
the accused REYNATO ASUNCION and LEONARDO AGUINALDO guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of MURDER defined and penalized under Article 248, paragraph 1, of
the Revised Penal Code.

“The Court hereby sentences them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua;
to jointly and severally
indemnify the heirs of the late GREGORIO VERGARA the sum of P30,000.00 for his death and the additional sum of P15,000.00 incurred for his burial.

“Each of the accused shall pay his proportionate share of the costs.” (p. 44, Rollo.)

The case was erroneously sent to this Court by the trial court
for automatic review.  Nevertheless, in a
resolution dated April 3, 1989, the Supreme Court’s First Division, exercising
its discretion to entertain appeals notwithstanding defendant’s failure to file
a notice of appeal (Sec. 5, Rule 122, Rules of Court), resolved to review the
case because of the gravity of the offense charged and the fact that appellants
had already filed their brief (pp. 136-137, Rollo).

The appellants alleged that the trial court erred in finding
that:

1.  they
committed the crime charged;

2.  the
crime was qualified by treachery and attended by the aggravating circumstance
of ‘taking advantage of public positions;’ and

3.  the
victim died of gunshot wounds.”

As there was no eyewitness to the killing of Vergara,
the conviction of the accused was based on circumstantial evidence only.  Those circumstances are:

1.  that
the appellants harbored resentment against Vergara
because they suspected him of concealing the erring CISA guard, Tapat;

2.  that
when Aguinaldo disarmed Vergara,
Asuncion positioned himself with
his gun ready to assist Aguinaldo should Vergara resist;

3.  that
Aguinaldo shot Vergara in
the leg and kicked him, while Asuncion
merely watched;

4.  that
the appellants were both armed with guns;

5.  that
when Sarmiento escaped to summon help, the appellants
had their guns pointed at Vergara who was seated on
the ground;

6.  that the security
guards at Post No. 3 refused to intervene because they knew that the appellants
were in a black mood and they (the guards) were afraid of being shot by the
appellants; and

7.  that
Aguinaldo admitted to Major Flores that he and Asuncion
had shot (nakabaril kami)
someone (p. 22, appellants’ brief).

The combination of all the above circumstances is such as to
produce the conviction of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt (Sec. 5, Rule 133,
Rules of Court; People vs. Modesto, 25 SCRA 36; People vs. Pajanustan,
97 SCRA 699).

There is also hardly any
doubt that the appellants had acted in concert and assisted each other in
killing Vergara on the fateful evening of November 6,
1978.  Asuncion acted as “back-up” for Aguinaldo who fired the first shot that disabled their
victim before the final kill.

Conspiracy having been established, the act of one is the act of
both, hence, it is not necessary to ascertain their individual participation in
the final liquidation of Vergara (People vs. Beltran,
138 SCRA 321; People vs. Garcia, 141 SCRA 336).

“A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
agreement to commit a crime and decide to commit it.  While it is desirable that
the conspiracy be proved by direct evidence, like an express
understanding among the plotters affirming their commitment and defining their
respective roles, it may nevertheless be established at times by
circumstantial evidence only.  Thus, to repeat the established doctrine, where the accused move in
concert toward a common purpose, conspiracy may be inferred from their joint
acts and design, without need of direct evidence of the criminal agreement.  We have held in many cases that the conduct of the accused
before, during and after the commission of the crime, are circumstances that
can show whether or not there was a conspiracy among them.” (People
vs. Rojas, 147 SCRA 175; Underscoring supplied.)

The common defense of the
appellants was an alibi, the weakest of defenses.  Asuncion alleged that at the time of the killing, he
was in the store of Villagracia around 10 meters away
from the NIA gate and 100 meters from the scene of the crime (p. 34, Rollo).  For his
part, Aguinaldo alleged that after he had shot Vergara in the leg, he left the place to summon an
ambulance and from there, he heard a gunshot coming from the scene of the crime
(p. 35, Rollo).

This Court has
consistently held that if the defense of alibi is to be believed, it must not only appear that the
accused was at some other place but also that it was physically impossible for
him to be at the scene of the crime
(People vs. Aquino,
133 SCRA 283).

The conflicting stories
of the appellants at the trial, tending to impute responsibility for the crime
on each other, not only proved that both of them are liars, but bolstered the
prosecution’s theory that they were the perpetrators of the felony (p. 22, Appellee’s Brief).

Treachery qualifies the
crime as murder for as held by this Court in the case of People vs. Guardo (156 SCRA 152):

“Although the attack was frontal, the crime committed was
murder, qualified by treachery, as the accused employed means to insure the
commission of the offense without risk to themselves from any defense the
offended party might make.”

We affirm the trial
court’s finding that the aggravating circumstance of “abuse of public
position” (p. 42, Rollo) was present in the
commission of the crime (People vs.
Alegarbes, Jr., 154 SCRA 125), for the
appellants used their authority as members of the police and constabulary to
disarm Vergara before shooting him.  Unarmed and unable to flee because Aguinaldo had shattered his leg, Vergara
was completely defenseless before his attackers.  Treachery was present because his killers had
employed means to insure the commission of the offense with no risk to themselves.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED in toto, with costs against the appellants.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Gancayco, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.