In a Resolution dated 15 January 2014, the Department of Justice Panel of Prosecutors', resolved the complaint for two counts of frustrated murder with treachery, evident premeditation, and use of illegal firearms filed by then Deputy Director for Technical Services (now Deputy Director for Intelligence Services) of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Ally. Reynaldo Esmeralda (Art y. ESMERALDA) and his brother, P03 Nilo 0. Esmeralda, in connection with the shooting incident that anspired on 21 February 2012 at the vicinity of Lucban Bridge along Apacible Street in Paco, Manila. The complainants sustained wounds as a result of the shots fired upon them. The Panelrecommended the llowing actions:
A. The filing of two Informations for attempted murder against:
1. TYRONE N. ONG;
2. PERFECTO H. VILLANUEVA, a.k.a. “Chief” and/or “Sarge Pekto", formerly a police officer assigned at the Police Security Protection Group;
3. RONNIE R. ONG, a.k.a. "Eboy";
4. RAMOSO B. RAMOS;
5. AL17REDO B. COMPOC, a.k.a. "Jackliner"
6. TEODORO ABENDAÑO, a.k.a. "Teddy";
7. RICKY DACILLO;
8. GERRY FARILLON;
9. JOSE P. MAGLALANG, JR., a.k.a. "Jun Demonyo", a confidential agent;
10.JUN L. MONTICLAROS; and
11. ALVIN MONTICLAROS.
B. For lack of probable cause, the dismissal of the complaints against ATTY. MAGTANGGOL GATDULA (former NBI Director) and GINO EUSTAQUIO.
As to the crime committed, the Panel disposed that in the present case, "the use of high powered firearm and the number of shots fired upon the complainants (around ten shots were fired) leaves no doubt that the complainants were shot with the intention of killing them"; that "consequently, as treachery and evident premeditation accompanied the intent to kill, the crime committed is murder"; that "since there were two victims, murder was committed twice"; that treachery was shown to exist since the "complainants had just left the NBI and were stopped by traffic when they were fired upon without any warning or provocation on their part"; that the circumstance of evident premeditation was also present because "the respondents even tested the firearms to be used in the crime and had met several times specifically to plan the crime"; and that "while complainants claimed that the firearm used in the crime was unlicensed, no evidence was submitted to prove the same".
Relative to the stage of commission of the offense, the Panel resolved that "while, there was intent to kill in the case, there is no evidence to show that the injuries inflicted upon the complainants were fatal or would have resulted in their deaths"; and that it is settled that when nothing in the evidence shows that the wound would be fatal without medical intervention, the doubt created by the lack of evidence should be resolved in favor of the person charged. Thus, the Panel ruled that the crime committed is merely attempted, and not frustrated, murder.
As to the persons liable, the Panel observed that the admissions of Respondents ABENDAÑO, VILLANUEVA, RAMOS, ALJUN and ALVIN MONTICLAROS, MAGLALANG, and COMPOC of their respective participation in the crime constitute direct proof that they committed the crime; that statements of the above-mentioned Respondents were consistent in stating that they had planned the commission of the crime and had actually performed overt acts in furtherance of the plan; that conspiracy being present, each of them is equally liable for the crime committed; that their statements also point to the participation of Respondents RONNIE ONG, DACILLO, FARILLON, and TYRONE ONG in the conspiracy through the performance of overt acts; that according to Respondent ABENDAÑO, and as corroborated by Respondents VILLANUEVA, RAMOS, ALJUN and ALVIN MONTICLAROS, MAGLALANG, and COMPOC, Respondent RONNIE ONG organized the group and actively took part in the planning of the crime; that it was RONNIE ONG who informed Respondents ABENDAÑO and RAMOS of the location of Complainant Atty. ESMERALDA, thereby facilitating the commission of the crime; that Respondent ABENDAÑO identified Respondent DACILLO as the driver of the motorcycle used in the shooting of the complainants; that Respondent FARILLON, pursuant to the conspiracy, was part of those who planned the crime; that Respondent VILLANUEVA stated that Respondent TYRONE ONG was his superior, and that he directed him to find a hitman to kill Complainant Ally. ESMERALDA; and that Respondent TYRONE ONG supplied the money that facilitated the commission of the crime.
However, according to the Panel, in the case of Respondent GATDULA, there is no showing that he had performed any overt act in pursuance or in furtherance of the conspiracy; that there is no other evidence that would corroborate the statement of Respondent VILLANUEVA with respect to the participation of Respondent GATDULA. As to Respondent EUSTAQUIO, while he may have handed money to Respondent VILLANUEVA to purchase the firearms, there is no evidence that Respondent EUSTAQUIO was even aware what the money was for.