People v. Aguilos, G.R. No. 121828.june 27, 2003

BARBADILLO, ANNA DOMINIQUE B. FCL-1B CRIM 1 JUSTICE AMPARO M.
CABOTAJE-TANG
Of the three accused, Lagliba was the first to

[G.R. No. 121828. June 27, 2003] be arrested, tried, and subsequently convicted
of murder. Accused Edmar Aguilos remains at
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. large while Ronnie reportedly died a month
EDMAR AGUILOS, ODILON LAGLIBA Y after the incident. While, appellant, Pilola was
ABREGON and RENE GAYOT PILOLA, accused, arrested and pleaded not guilty to the charge.
RENE GAYOT PILOLA, appellant.
The appellant denied stabbing the victim and
used the defense of alibi. He testified that he
This is an appeal from the conviction of stayed home on the night of the incident since
appellant, Pilola who was charged with murder he was suffering from ulcer. A witness affirmed
and conspiracy. Sentenced to life imprisonment. his testimony.
FACTS The Trial Court found Rene Gayot Pilola,

guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder
On February 5, 1988, at around 11:30 P.M., punished under Article 248 of the Revised Penal
Elisa Rolan was inside their store waiting for her Code, and there being no mitigating nor
husband to arrive. Joselito Capa and Julian Azul, aggravating circumstances, he was sentenced to
Jr. were drinking beer when Edmar Aguilos and reclusion perpetua. He is ordered to indemnify
Odilon Lagliba arrived at the store. Joselito and the heirs of deceased Julian Capa in the amount
Julian invited them to join their drinking of ₱50,000.00 as indemnity for his death, jointly
session, and although already drunk, the two with Odilon who was earlier convicted.
newcomers obliged. While drinking, the
conversation turned into a heated argument. On appeal, Pilola contended that Elisa is not
Elisa pacified the situation and advised them to a credible witness, and her testimony is without
go home as she was already going to close. weight. This is because she contradicted herself
Joselito and Julian were about to leave, when when she testified on direct examination that
Edmar and Odilon returned, blocking their way. Ronnie struck the head of the victim with a
Edmar punched Julian in the face. hollow block. However, on cross-examination,
she stated that it was Edmar who struck the
Joselito tried to pacify the situation, but this victim, thus this inconsistency in Elisa’s
did not sit well with Odilon. He pulled out his testimony impaired her credibility.
knife and placed his left arm around Joselito’s
neck and stabbed him. Ronnie and the Pilola, ISSUES
saw their gangmate Odilon stabbing the victim
and decided to join the fight. They pulled out (1) Whether the trial court erred in concluding
their knives, rushed to the scene and also that there was conspiracy in the incident.
stabbed Joselito. Wounded, the victim fell in the (2) Whether the trial court erred in giving
canal. Odilon and Pilola fled, while Ronnie went credence to inconsistent testimony of
after Julian to try to stab him. Julian stopped prosecution witness Elisa Rolan and in
when he noticed that Ronnie was no longer setting aside evidence offered by accused
running after him and saw Ronnie pick up a (3) Whether the trial court erred in convicting
piece of hollow block and a broken bottle and the accused of murder despite the fact that
bashed Joselito’s head. Joselito died on the his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable
spot. Cause of death was ruled as multiple stab doubt.
wounds.
RULING NO, The Supreme Court regarded the
contentions of Rene Pilola as false.
BARBADILLO, ANNA DOMINIQUE B. FCL-1B CRIM 1 JUSTICE AMPARO M. CABOTAJE-TANG
First. The identity of the person who hit the who fatally stabbed the victim. Also, he could not
victim with a hollow block is of minor have conspired with Odilon as the incident was
importance. The victim died because of multiple only a chance encounter between the victim and
stab wounds. The appellant is charged with the accused. In the absence of a conspiracy, the
murder for the killing of the victim with a knife, appellant cannot be held liable as a principal by
in conspiracy with the other accused. direct participation. He asserts that he is merely
an accomplice and not a principal by direct
Second. The perceived inconsistency in Elisa’s participation.
account of events is a minor detail that does not
affect the substance of her testimony, as it even It is not necessary that each of the separate
strengthens rather than destroy her credibility. injuries is fatal. It is sufficient if the injuries
cooperated in bringing about the victim’s death.
Third. Elisa has been consistent in her Both the offenders are criminally liable for the
testimony that Pilola was one of the men who same crime by reason of their individual overt
stabbed the victim, the others being Ronnie and criminal acts.
Odilon. Elisa’s testimony is supported by the
autopsy report of the medico-legal, Dr. Munoz, Accomplices do not decide whether the crime
and his testimony that the victim sustained 11 should be committed; they merely assent to the
stab wounds and that there were two or more plan of the principal and cooperate in its
assailants because of the different types of accomplishment. However, if one cooperates in
wounds. The physical evidence is a persuasive the commission of the crime by performing
manifestation of the validity of Elisa’s testimony. overt acts which by themselves are acts of
execution, he is a principal by direct
Fourth. Even the appellant himself declared participation.
that he could not think of any reason why Elisa
pointed to him as one of the assailants. It has Odilon all by himself initially decided to stab
been ruled that when there is no improper the victim. Then the three men simultaneously
motive on the part of a witness to testify or stabbed the victim. All the overt acts of Odilon,
implicate falsely against the accused, as in the Ronnie and Pilola before, during, and after the
case at bar, the logical conclusion is that no stabbing incident undoubtedly show that they
improper motive exists, thus the testimony is conspired to kill the victim. Also, there is no
worthy of full faith and credence. evidence that before the arrival of Ronnie and
Pilola that the victim was already dead. Thus, it
Fifth. The trial court gave credence and full cannot be argued that when they joined Odilon
weight to Elisa’s testimony. Case law has it that in the stabbing of the victim, the crime was
the trial court’s calibration of the testimonial already consummated.
evidence of the parties, its assessment of the
credibility of witnesses and the probative weight The Court ruled that Ronnie and Pilola
is given high respect, by the appellate court. conspired with Odilon to kill the victim; hence, all
of them are criminally liable for Joselito’s death.
The appellant argues that the prosecution Pilola is not merely an accomplice but is a
failed to prove that he conspired with Ronnie principal by direct participation.
and Odilon in stabbing the victim to death. He
contends that for one to be a conspirator, his Even assuming that Pilola did not conspire
participation in the crime must either precede or with Ronnie and Odilon to kill the victim, he is
be concurrent with the criminal acts. He asserts still criminally liable as a principal by direct
that even if it were true that he was present at participation, as the stab wounds inflicted by him
the crime and stabbed the victim, it was Odilon
BARBADILLO, ANNA DOMINIQUE B. FCL-1B CRIM 1 JUSTICE AMPARO M. CABOTAJE-TANG
contributed and cooperated in bringing about crime, showing that they had acted with a
and accelerated the death of the victim. common purpose and design, each doing a part
so that their combined acts, though apparently
The trial court correctly overruled the independent of each other, were, in fact,
appellant’s defense of alibi. Pilola claims that at connected and cooperative. There may be
the time of the incident, he was resting in his conspiracy even though he was not in on the
cousin’s house, suffering from stomach pain due scheme from the beginning. One need only to
to ulcer. But Pilola failed to show any medical knowingly contribute his efforts in furtherance
certificate that he was suffering from the of the crime. One who joins a criminal conspiracy
ailment. Moreover, Elisa positively identified in effect adopts as his own the criminal designs
Pilola as one of the men who repeatedly stabbed of his co-conspirators. If conspiracy is
the victim. The appellant’s defense of alibi established, all the conspirators are liable as co-
cannot prevail over the positive and principals regardless of the manner and extent of
straightforward identification by the witness. their participation since in contemplation of law,
the act of one would be the act of all.
Also, the appellant’s defenses crumbled when
he fled from the scene of the crime and later left Even if two or more offenders do not conspire
his house. Appellant’s own witness, Julian to commit homicide or murder, they may be held
Cadion, testified that he had left and was no criminally liable as principals by direct
longer seen after the incident. Pilola’s flight is participation if they perform overt acts which
evidence of guilt from the obtained factual can cause or accelerate the death of the victim,
circumstances. applying Article 4, paragraph 1 of the Revised
Penal Code that provides that criminal liability
Unquestionably, the nature and location of shall be incurred by any person committing a
the wounds showed that the killing was executed felony although the wrongful act done be
in a treacherous manner, that the attack on the different from that which he intended.
unarmed victim was sudden, preventing any
means of defense on the part of the victim.
The decision of RTC Pasig finding appellant

Rene Gayot Pilola GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of murder is AFFIRMED WITH
MODIFICATION. The appellant is directed to pay
to the heirs of the victim Joselito Capa the
amount of ₱50,000 as civil indemnity; ₱50,000
as moral damages; and ₱25,000 as exemplary
damages.
RATIO DECIDENCI
Conspiracy as a mode of incurring criminal

liability must be proved separately from and with
the same quantum of proof as the crime itself.
Conspiracy need not be proven by direct
evidence. After all, secrecy and concealment are
essential features of a successful conspiracy. It
may be inferred from the conduct of the accused
before, during and after the commission of the

People v. Aguilos, G.R. No. 121828.june 27, 2003

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Aguilos, G.R. No. 121828.june 27, 2003

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Aguilos, G.R. No. 121828.june 27, 2003

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BARBADILLO, ANNA DOMINIQUE B. FCL-1B CRIM 1 JUSTICE AMPARO M.

Of the three accused, Lagliba was the first to

FACTS The Trial Court found Rene Gayot Pilola,

The decision of RTC Pasig finding appellant

Conspiracy as a mode of incurring criminal

You might also like