People v. Enojas (G.R. No. 204894)

 

G.R. No. 204894               

March 10, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,

vs.

NOEL ENOJAS y HINGPIT, ARNOLD GOMEZ y FABREGAS, FERNANDO SANTOS y DELANTAR, and ROGER JALANDONI y ARI, Appellants.

Facts:

PO2 Eduardo Gregorio, Jr. and P02 Francisco Pangilinan were patrolling the vicinity of Toyota Alabang and SM Southmall when they spotted a taxi that was suspiciously parked in front of the Aguila Auto Glass. They approached the driver named Enojas and asked for his documents. He asked him to come to the police station and he boarded their car and he left his taxi. They reached the 7-11 convenience store and they stopped and PO2 Pangilinan went down to relieve himself. As he approached the store’s door, he encountered two suspected robbers and PO2 Pangilinan shot one while the other managed to escape. PO2 Pangilinan was shot leading to his death. When PO2 Gregorio heard the shots, he came around and fired at an armed man whom he saw running towards Pilar Village. He saw another man, who came from the Jollibee outlet, who fired at him. He fired back but the man was able to take a taxi and escape. PO2 Gregorio asked for help and for an ambulance. When he returned to his car, Enojas was already gone.

The latter returned fire but the men were able to take a taxi and escape. PO2 Gregorio radioed for help and for an ambulance. On returning to his mobile car, he realized that accused Enojas, the taxi driver they had with them, had fled.

P/Insp. Ferjen Torred and PO2 Teoson Rosarito immediately responded to PO2 Gregorio’s urgent call. They suspected that Enojas was involved so they searched the taxi and they found a mobile phone. They monitored its incoming messages.  PO2 Pangilinan had killed someone named Reynaldo Mendoza who was armed with a .38 caliber revolver. One of the suspects was also found dead in MetroSouth Medical Center.Subsequently, the police were also able to capture accused Enojas and Gomez. The prosecution presented the transcripts of the mobile phone text messages between Enojas and some of his co-accused.

The defense said that they were entitled for an acquittal because they were illegally arrested and the evidence of text messages were inadmissible.

The RTC found them guilty of murder qualified by evident premeditation and use of armed men with the special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearms. It thus sentenced them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Upon Review, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction of the RTC. Hence, this petition.

Issue:

Is there an aggravating circumstance of aid of armed men?

Ruling:

None.  In "aid of armed men," the men act as accomplices only. They must not be acting in the commission of the crime under the same purpose as the principal accused, otherwise they are to be regarded as co-principals or co-conspirators. The use of unlicensed firearm, on the other hand, is a special aggravating circumstance that is not among the circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as qualifying a homicide to murder. Consequently, the accused in this case may be held liable only for homicide, aggravated by the use of unlicensed firearms, a circumstance alleged in the information.