COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JAIRO ALEXANDER GUERRERO-BAUTISTA
No. 827 MDA 2024
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
FILED SEPTEMBER 02, 2025
J-S26033-25; NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37; CP-06-CR-0004058-2021
BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., OLSON, J., and BECK, J.
MEMORANDUM BY BECK, J.:
Jairo Alexander Guerrero-Bautista (“Guerrero-Bautista“) appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed by the Berks County Court of Common Pleas (“trial court“) following his convictions of three counts each of first-degree murder and aggravated assault, and one count each of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit aggravated assault.1 On appeal, Guerrero-Bautista challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder. We affirm.
On December 12, 2018, police were dispatched to a shooting on the 600 block of Moss Street in Reading, Pennsylvania. Upon arriving at the scene,
Law enforcement began their investigation of the neighborhood and encountered Gabriel Olivencia (“Olivencia“). Olivencia stated that he saw Harris and Cintron standing outside of his home on Moss Street in the evening hours of December 12, 2018. Olivencia went inside his home and heard approximately seven or eight gunshots, a few seconds’ break, and then eight more gunshots. Olivencia ran outside where he encountered Harris crying out and Cintron‘s legs sticking out of an alleyway.
Police further canvassed the area and gathered video evidence from locations near the 600 block of Moss Street. Police also collected twenty-four cartridge casings and several bullet fragments. Upon examination, it was determined that three separate firearms were used at the scene, and that none of the cartridge casings came from the gun located near Alonso‘s body.
The video footage obtained showed four individuals arriving together in a 2010 Acura TL and walking together to the 600 block of Moss Street.
Police also noted that one of the individuals in the video footage was wearing a distinctive jacket that had fluorescent stripes on the shoulders and sleeves. Police obtained a search warrant for Guerrero-Bautista‘s Facebook account and found photos of him wearing the distinctive jacket. Further, police discovered rap lyrics, sent by Guerrero-Bautista, in which he described details of the murders. Additionally, two videos showed Guerrero-Bautista wearing the jacket on December 10, 2018, two days before the murders, and on January 8, 2019, approximately one month after the murders.
Police obtained an arrest warrant in September 2021, and Guerrero-Bautista turned himself in. The Commonwealth charged him with the above-mentioned crimes. Notably, he was sixteen years old at the time of the murders. The case proceeded to a jury trial, after which the jury found Guerrero-Bautista guilty.2 On April 9, 2024, he was sentenced to serve three
On April 10, 2024, Guerrero-Bautista filed a post-sentence motion for a judgment of acquittal. On April 23, 2024, the trial court, sua sponte, amended one sentence for first-degree murder from thirty-five years to life to twenty to forty years of incarceration. On May 9, 2024, the trial court denied his post-sentence motion. Guerrero-Bautista filed a timely notice of appeal.
Guerrero-Bautista raises the following questions for our review:
- Whether the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions for counts 1, 2, 3, and 4, murders of the first degree and conspiracy to commit murder of the first degree because [Guerrero-Bautista] was insufficiently identified as one of the several actors present at the crime scene or scenes?
- Whether the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for counts 1, 2, and 3, murders of the first degree because, even if [Guerrero-Bautista] was present at the scene or scenes of the shootings, there is no evidence that [Guerrero-Bautista] actually participated in any of the three shootings in any particular way?
Guerrero-Bautista‘s Brief at 5.
As Guerrero-Bautista‘s claims are interrelated, we will address them together. Guerrero-Bautista contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder. Id. at 21-22. He argues that the Commonwealth failed to identify him as one of the perpetrators at the scene, and even if he was present at the scene, there was no evidence showing that he participated in the murders. Id. at 21-22, 25. He relies on the trial court‘s finding that the
We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence according to the following standard:
Because a determination of evidentiary sufficiency presents a question of law, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we must determine whether the evidence admitted at trial and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, were sufficient to prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. [T]he facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. It is within the province of the [factfinder] to determine the weight to be accorded to each witness‘s testimony and to believe all, part, or none of the evidence. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, as an appellate court, we may not re-weigh evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the [factfinder].
Commonwealth v. Rosario, 307 A.3d 759, 764-65 (Pa. Super. 2023) (citation omitted).
Our Supreme Court has identified the elements of first-degree murder as follows: “(1) a human being was unlawfully killed; (2) the defendant was responsible for the killing; and (3) the defendant acted with malice and a specific intent to kill.” Commonwealth v. Martin, 101 A.3d 706, 718 (Pa. 2014) (citing
“To sustain a conviction for criminal conspiracy, the Commonwealth must establish that the defendant (1) entered into an agreement to commit or aid in an unlawful act with another person or persons, (2) with a shared criminal intent and (3) an overt act was done in furtherance of the conspiracy.”
The essence of a criminal conspiracy is a common understanding, no matter how it came into being, that a particular criminal objective be accomplished. An explicit or formal agreement can seldom, if ever, be proved and it need not be, for proof of a criminal partnership is almost invariably extracted from the circumstances that attend its activities. Thus, a conspiracy may be inferred where it is demonstrated that the relation, conduct, or circumstances of the parties, and the overt acts of the co-conspirators sufficiently prove the formation of a criminal confederation. The conduct of the parties and the circumstances surrounding their conduct may create a web of evidence linking the accused to the alleged conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if the conspirator did not act as a principal in committing the underlying crime, he is still criminally liable for the actions of his co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Commonwealth v. McCall, 911 A.2d 992, 996-97 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted).
As it pertains to identification evidence, the law is clear that “evidence of identification need not be positive and certain to sustain a conviction.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 255 A.3d 565, 579 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citation omitted). Further, “[a]lthough common items of clothing and general physical characteristics are usually insufficient to support a conviction, such evidence can be considered to establish identity in conjunction with other circumstances and identification testimony.” Id.
The Commonwealth presented several different pieces of evidence linking Guerrero-Bautista to the crime scene. On December 12, 2018, approximately nine hours and forty-five minutes before the murders, Dionalis
Upon searching Guerrero-Bautista‘s Facebook account, police located an image of him wearing a jacket with distinct fluorescent stripes on the
A search of Guerrero-Bautista‘s Facebook account revealed rap lyrics that he sent to friends on January 7, 2019, which described and bragged about the murders:
Northside n**** with a 30 clip walk down your block with them glocks shooting up the strip. All my n***** heartless they don‘t care shoot you and your bitch n***** know my body yea they know that I move them sticks. But let me tell you now that GZ about flipping all these packs chase the bag ion chase the clout, shoot you and yo man‘s survive wow he telling now, caught em slipping he start acting tuff gotta blow em down. Topopp GZ is valid anywhere I pulled up with ock he gon flock on gang yea he don‘t care we got them mops we got them chops we gonna pull up where you at and we‘re sending shots on moss block. Yeah we
caught them lacking gotta lay him back stuck in the trenches let that sh*t behind it was me and Narg gripping on the nines.
N.T., 3/5/2024, at 344-45. Guerrero-Bautista admitted to writing these lyrics. Id. at 341. Further, “Topopp GZ” was Guerrero-Bautista‘s screenname on Facebook. N.T., 3/6/2024, at 468-69. On January 9, 2019, the lyrics were sent to another individual with the addition of the following line: “If the feds ask we gon tell them n***** that we blind if a opp pull up the whole gang shooting at his spine.” N.T., 3/5/2024, at 347.
The Commonwealth also introduced voice messages from the Facebook account of Jahlik Colon, a friend of Guerrero-Bautista, celebrating the murders, and Guerrero-Bautista‘s voice can be heard in the background. N.T., 3/6/2025, at 476; see also N.T., 3/5/2024, at 326-27 (Guerrero-Bautista initially denied knowing Colon, but then admitted he knew Colon).
Facebook records from Guerrero-Bautista‘s account showed that on December 12, 2018, at around 8:30 p.m., Guerrero-Bautista received a screenshot from his girlfriend that contained a threat from a “rival gang member” regarding the murders, to which he responded, “I‘m not scared.” N.T., 3/6/2025, at 477. Facebook records also showed a conversation between Guerrero-Bautista and one of his friends, Salvador Vializ, which occurred on December 22, 2018. Id. at 377-78; Commonwealth‘s Exhibit 152. Vializ asked Guerrero-Bautista where he was going, to which he responded “town,” which meant out of state. Id.; Commonwealth‘s Exhibit 152. Guerrero-Bautista stated that he did not know how long he would be out
Evidence was presented that indicated that there was a rivalry between the Northside and Eastside gangs. N.T., 3/5/2024, at 284. Guerrero-Bautista was a member of the Northside gang, while Alonso was a member of the Eastside gang. Id. at 275, 325. Guerrero-Bautista admitted in his police interview that he and some of his friends were having issues with Alonso. Id. at 349. Further, Dionalis Gomez testified that she heard Guerrero-Bautista make threats toward Alonso‘s brother, Deuri Alonso, prior to the murders. Id. at 281-282.
Viewing the evidence, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, the record supports the finding that Guerrero-Bautista was sufficiently identified as one of the actors at the scene and that he participated in the perpetration of the murders. Guerrero-Bautista was identified at the scene by his distinctive jacket. See Commonwealth v. Strafford, 194 A.3d 168, 176 (Pa. Super. 2018) (stating that a defendant may be identified as the perpetrator based on circumstantial evidence). Additionally, though no video evidence showed the commission of the crime, Guerrero-Bautista was seen arriving at the scene with three other individuals at 6:59 p.m. and fleeing the scene at 7:03 PM
Further, there is sufficient evidence of a conspiracy between Guerrero-Bautista and the other three individuals because they arrived at and fled from the scene together, he was present at the scene during the murders, and he had knowledge of the crime as demonstrated through his rap lyrics and Facebook messages. See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 719 A.2d 778, 785 (Pa. Super. 1998) (“The conduct of the parties and the circumstances surrounding their conduct may create ‘a web of evidence’ linking the accused to the alleged conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.“); see also Commonwealth v. Jordan, 212 A.3d 91, 98 (Pa. Super. 2019) (finding a conspiracy may be inferred where the defendant was with the shooter shortly before and shortly after the shooting).
Finally, we wholly disagree that the evidence required the jury to guess at “two equally and mutually inconsistent inferences.” The circumstantial evidence clearly establishes that Guerrero-Bautista participated in the shooting; there is no support in the record for a finding that he was not a member of the conspiracy to commit the murders in question. Indeed, even if Guerrero-Bautista was not one of the shooters, he is still guilty of first-degree murder. See Commonwealth v. Lambert, 795 A.2d 1010, 1016 (Pa. Super. 2002) (stating that a conspirator is criminally liable for the actions
Guerrero-Bautista‘s claims are without merit. No relief is due.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 09/02/2025