G.R. No.

157221 March 30, 2007 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,

vs.

CESAR GALVEZ, Appellant. D E C I S I O N AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: For review before this Court is the
Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 18255 dated March 30, 2001, which affirmed
the Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Isabela, Basilan finding the accused-appellant Cesar
Galvez (Galvez), guilty of Murder, but modifying the penalty of the RTC from a sentence of "seventeen
(17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day as minimum to twenty (20) years as maximum" to reclusion
perpetua. The facts are as follows: At around 11 o’clock in the evening of July 27, 1991, Danilo Perez,
Rosalio Enojarda, Noel Cugal, Ricardo Francisco and Wilfredo Rellios, took a break from making copra to
eat leftover dinner inside the copra kiln in the farm of Perez in Matarling, Lantawan, Basilan. When
Enojarda stood up from the circle where they were eating to drink water, shots rang out and Enojarda
fell to the ground shouting "Dan ya tupa comigo" (Dan, I am hit). The rest of the group took cover,
crawling to different directions. After the attack, Rellios reported the incident to the barangay captain
and they brought Enojarda’s dead body to his family.3 On May 28, 1992, an Information was filed against
Cesar Galvez (Galvez), a member of the Philippine National Police (PNP) for Murder, which reads: That on
or about the 27th day of July, 1991, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, viz. at Matarling,
Municipality of Lantawan, Province of Basilan, Philippines, the above named accused, armed with an
M16 armalite rifle, with treachery and evident premeditation, and with intent to kill, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack and shoot one Rosalio Enojarda with the said M16
armalite rifle, thereby inflicting gunshot wound on the body of the latter which caused his death.4 The
prosecution presented evidence showing that: after Enojarda fell, the rest of the group took cover and
Rellios while in a crawling position, saw Galvez about 5 meters away holding an armalite rifle and firing
at their direction; Rellios also saw that Galvez had companions but did not recognize them as well as the
firearms they carried because they were approximately nine meters away;5 Perez, also crawled and hid
in the bushes about 5 meters away; when the firing stopped, one of the attackers passed by about two
meters from where Perez was hiding and because the moon was bright, he recognized Galvez, his cousin,
who was wearing a fatigue uniform and armed with an armalite rifle; he also saw that Galvez had three
armed companions but did not recognize them nor the firearms they were carrying because they were
about nine meters from Galvez.6 Galvez put up denial and alibi as his defenses. He testified that he was
staying at his father-in-law’s house on July 27, 1991 and drank tuba at around 10:30 p.m. at a nearby
store. He went home and slept with his wife soon after.7 To corroborate his testimony, he presented
SPO2 Danilo Ramillano, a visitor at his father-in-law’s house and Wilhelmina Espinosa, a sari-sari store
owner. 8 He also presented Athena Elisa Anderson, Document Examiner and Forensic Analyst of the PNP
Crime Laboratory of Region 9, Zamboanga City, who testified that the paraffin test conducted on both his
hands showed that there was no nitrate present;9 and Police Inspector Lemuel Caser, Ballistic Examiner,
who testified that the shells found at the scene of the crime were not fired from the firearm issued to
Galvez.10 After trial, the RTC rendered its Decision dated February 27, 1995 with the following findings:
From the foregoing facts as well as from the records of this case, this Court finds the following facts to be
undisputable, to wit: 1) That at the late night of July 27, 1991, Rosalio Enojarda, while making copra in
the coconut land of Danilo Perez at Matarling, Lantawan, Basilan, was shot to death by one of the four
(4) men. How many gunshot wounds he suffered and what part of his body was hit by the gunfire, the
evidence is found wanting. 2) That a day before the incident and on the date of the incident which was
July 27, 1991, the accused Cesar Galvez has not fired any firearms. x x x 3) That the five (5) empty shells
of armalite rifle…allegedly found by Barangay Captain Inocente Manicap from the scene of the crime and
later turned over to PFC Samuel Omoso, the Police Investigator of this case, did not come from the M16
armalite rifle with Serial No. 117460, the gun issued to the accused Cesar Galvez. (citations omitted).11
Further, the trial court found that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, Rellios and Perez, were
credible and trustworthy as there was no motive to perjure themselves; that the testimony of defense
witness SPO2 Ramillano was full of loopholes; and that the testimony of the store owner was insufficient
to disprove the presence of the accused at the scene of the crime.12 The RTC concluded: xxx since this
accused, Cesar Galvez, has not fired his M16 armalite rifle on that night of July 27, 1991, and those five
(5) empty shells were not fired from his armalite, then xxx the bullet that hit and instantly killed Rosalio
Enojarda on that night of July 27, 1991 at the copra kiln of Danilo Perez came from the gun fired by any
of the three (3) unidentified persons who were the companions of the accused, Cesar Galvez at the night
of the incident xxx.13 (emphasis supplied) Despite the fact that the Information failed to allege
conspiracy and the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and armed band, the RTC still convicted
Galvez of murder based on conspiracy since Galvez was seen by two witnesses at the scene of the crime
carrying a firearm together with his unidentified armed companions.14 The trial court also held that the
offer of Galvez to have the case settled out of court is an indication of his guilt.15 The RTC then disposed
of the case as follows: WHEREFORE, all factual and circumstantial matters surrounding the commission
of the crime, being carefully and meticulously examined and studied, this Court finds the accused SPO2
Cesar Galvez, a member of the Philippine National Police GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as principal in
committing the crime of Murder as alleged in the Information and which crime is defined and penalized
under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code, but considering his good military records after the commission
of the crime, hereby sentences him to suffer an imprisonment of SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS, FOUR (4)
MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY as minimum, to TWENTY (20) YEARS as maximum, which is the minimum
period of Reclusion Temporal in its maximum period to death. And to indemnify the heirs of the late
Rosalio Enojarda, the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages and to pay the Court the amount of
P500.00 as judicial costs and other accessory penalties attached to the penalty of Reclusion Temporal.
And further this accused is hereby stripped of all the military ranks he now hold [sic] in the Armed Forces
of the Philippines. And upon the promulgation of this decision, the accused shall immediately be
committed to the Provincial Jail where the Provincial Warden is directed to immediately transfer him to
the National Penitentiary at San Ramon Penal Colony at Zamboanga City for commitment thereat. And
the property bail bond he has posted for his provisional liberty is hereby ordered cancelled and its
pertinent papers returned, upon receipt to the bondsman.16 Galvez appealed the case to the CA,
docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 18255, which rendered its Decision on March 30, 2001 affirming his guilt but
modifying the penalty to be imposed, thus: WHEREFORE, with the MODIFICATION that appellant CESAR
GALVEZ is hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED in all
other respects.17 The CA held that the RTC erred in holding Galvez criminally liable based on conspiracy
when such fact was not alleged in the Information. However, it still found Galvez guilty of Murder.18 The
CA reasoned that: the negative results of the paraffin and ballistic tests do not negate the possibility that
Galvez used another gun in shooting the victim; the eyewitnesses of the prosecution identified Galvez as
the perpetrator if not one of the perpetrators of the crime; alibi, which was offered by Galvez, is the
weakest of all defenses and cannot prevail over positive identification; the offer of Galvez to the wife of
the victim to have the case settled is also a strong indication of Galvez’s culpability; and treachery was
adequately established as the attack was sudden, unexpected and did not accord the victim an
opportunity to defend himself.19 The CA further held that since there was no mitigating circumstance,
the proper penalty should be reclusion perpetua.20 Galvez filed a Motion for Reconsideration21 which
the CA denied in its Resolution dated August 21, 2001, stating that it was a mere rehash of the
arguments already addressed in the decision.22 The entire records of the case were forwarded to this
Court pursuant to Section 13, Rule 124 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. On April 8, 2003, the Court
issued a Resolution23 accepting the case; committing the accused to the Davao Prison and Penal Farm;
and informing the accused and the Solicitor General that they may file additional briefs with this
Court.24 In his Appellant’s Brief, Galvez argued that the trial court erred: I … IN HOLDING THAT (HE) THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT IS LIABLE FOR MURDER FOR THE DEATH OF ROSALIO ENOJARDA ON JULY 27, 1991
DESPITE ITS EXPRESS FINDINGS THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DID NOT FIRE HIS RIFLE ON THAT FATAL
NIGHT AND THAT THE BULLET THAT HIT AND KILLED ROSALIO ENOJARDA COULD HAVE BEEN FIRED
FROM ANY OF THE GUNS OR RIFLES BELONGING TO ANY OF THE THREE UNIDENTIFIED PERSONS WHO
WERE NOT CHARGED NOR INDICTED TOGETHER WITH THE ACCUSED IN THE SAME CRIMINAL
INFORMATION IN QUESTION. II … IN HOLDING THAT DANILO PEREZ AND WILFREDO RELLIOS, WHILE IN
CRAWLING POSITION WHOSE CHESTS WERE ALMOST TOUCHING THE GROUND AND UNDER
CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BY THEM, HAD SEEN THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT ARMED WITH M16 ARMALITE
RIFLE IN THE NIGHTIME, OF 27 JULY 1991 DESPITE DANILO PEREZ’ [sic] POSITIVE ASSERTION THAT IT WAS
IMPOSSIBLE OF HIS (SIC) TO IDENTIFY THE ACCUSED WHEN ASKED TO DEMONSTRATE IN OPEN COURT IN
THE MANNER AND CIRCUMSTANCE NARRATED BY HIM.25 In his Supplemental Appellant’s Brief, Galvez
further claims that it was seriously erroneous: I. …TO CONCLUDE THAT THERE WAS CONSPIRACY
BETWEEN ACCUSED-APPELLANT AND THE OTHER MALEFACTORS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PRESENT CASE.
II. …TO BE SELECTIVE IN APPRECIATING MATTERS NOT INCLUDED IN THE INFORMATION, MORE SO THE
THEORY OF CONSPIRACY AGAINST ACCUSED-APPELLANT, THERE BEING NO OTHER PERSONS CHARGED
IN THE PRESENT CASE. III.