People v. Enojas, et al., G.R. No. 204894, March 10, 2014

FACTS

On the night of August 29, 2006, police officers PO2 Eduardo Gregorio Jr. and PO2 Francisco Pangilinan were patrolling near the Aguila Auto Glass shop in Las Piñas City when they approached a suspiciously parked taxi driven by accused Noel Enojas. Upon checking his documents and finding them questionable, the officers asked Enojas to accompany them to the station for further verification, leaving his vehicle behind.

En route, they stopped by a 7-11 convenience store where PO2 Pangilinan encountered suspected robbers and exchanged gunfire. PO2 Pangilinan was killed, while another suspect died and one escaped. In the commotion, Enojas fled the patrol vehicle. Responding officers found his mobile phone in the abandoned taxi and used it to impersonate him in text conversations that led to the arrest of co-accused Arnold Gomez, Fernando Santos, and Roger Jalandoni.

The police linked the group to the shootout through circumstantial evidence, particularly the content of the intercepted messages referencing the incident and the identities of other group members. At trial, the accused opted not to present evidence and instead claimed their arrest was illegal and the text messages were inadmissible. The RTC convicted them of murder; the CA affirmed the conviction but ruled out evident premeditation. They appealed to the Supreme Court.

The accused contended that the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt; the aggravating circumstance of “aid of armed men” was improperly appreciated; and the text messages were inadmissible for lack of proper authentication and due to their alleged unlawful procurement.

On the other hand, the prosecution argued that their circumstantial evidence met the threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt; the accused acted in concert and armed, showing group coordination during the attack; and the text messages were admissible under the Rules on Electronic Evidence, as they were authenticated by a police officer who personally received and sent them during the entrapment operation.

ISSUES

1. Whether or not there is proof beyond reasonable doubt of the accused’s guilt.
2. Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of “aid of armed men” is present.
3. Whether or not the text messages are admissible in evidence.

RULING

1. YES, there is proof beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused.

The defense points out that the prosecution failed to present direct evidence that the accused Enojas, Gomez, Santos, or Jalandoni took part in shooting PO2 Pangilinan dead. This may be true but the prosecution could prove their liability by circumstantial evidence that meets the evidentiary standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. It has been held that circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: 1) there is more than one circumstance; 2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and 3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

Here the totality of the circumstantial evidence the prosecution presented sufficiently provides basis for the conviction of all the accused. Thus:

1. PO2 Gregorio positively identified accused Enojas as the driver of the taxicab suspiciously parked in front of the Aguila Auto Glass shop. The officers were bringing him with them to the police station because of the questionable documents he showed upon query. Subsequent inspection of the taxicab yielded Enojas’ mobile phone that contained messages which led to the entrapment and capture of the other accused who were also taxicab drivers.
2. Enojas fled during the commotion rather than remain in the cab to go to the police station where he was about to be taken for questioning, tending to show that he had something to hide. He certainly did not go to the police afterwards to clear up the matter and claim his taxi.
3. PO2 Gregorio positively identified accused Gomez as one of the men he saw running away from the scene of the shooting.
4. The text messages identified “Kua Justin” as one of those who engaged PO2 Pangilinan in the shootout; the messages also referred to “Kua Justin” as the one who was hit in such shootout and later died in a hospital in Bacoor, Cavite. These messages linked the other accused.
5. During the follow-up operations, the police investigators succeeded in entrapping accused Santos, Jalandoni, Enojas, and Gomez, who were all named in the text messages.
6. The text messages sent to the phone recovered from the taxi driven by Enojas clearly made references to the 7-11 shootout and to the wounding of “Kua Justin,” one of the gunmen, and his subsequent death.
7. The context of the messages showed that the accused were members of an organized group of taxicab drivers engaged in illegal activities.
8. Upon the arrest of the accused, they were found in possession of mobile phones with call numbers that corresponded to the senders of the messages received on the mobile phone that accused Enojas left in his taxicab.

2. NO, the aggravating circumstance of “aid of armed men” is NOT present.

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.

3. YES, the text messages are admissible in evidence.

Text messages are to be proved by the testimony of a person who was a party to the same or has personal knowledge of them. Here, PO3 Cambi, posing as the accused Enojas, exchanged text messages with the other accused in order to identify and entrap them. As the recipient of those messages sent from and to the mobile phone in his possession, PO3 Cambi had personal knowledge of such messages and was competent to testify on them.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION

WHEREFORE, the Court MODIFIES the Court of Appeals Decision of June 14, 2012 in CA-G.R. CR-HC 03377. The Court instead FINDS accused-appellants Noel Enojas y Hingpit, Arnold Gomez y Fabregas, Fernando Santos y Delantar, and Roger Jalandoni y Ari GUILTY of the lesser crime of HOMICIDE with the special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearms. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court SENTENCES each of them to 12 years of prision mayor, as minimum, to 20 years of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The Court also MODIFIES the award of exemplary damages by increasing it to ₱30,000.00, with an additional ₱50,000.00 for civil indemnity.

SO ORDERED.

Full text of People v. Enojas, et al., G.R. No. 204894, March 10, 2014.