Amurao Case Digest: Arce.Cuartero.Grimares.Loredo.Manalili.Marciano.Masculino.Mella.Paralejas.Quitco.Sotto.

Tinsay

ARTICLE 8 DIGESTS Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit a Felony People vs. Abut, ET. Al. G.R. No. 137601 (2003) | Conspiracy FACTS: Winchester Abut, Ritchie Waslo and Gregmar Baliga were in the store and the three ordered a case of red horse beer and had a drinking spree. Also in the store were Maricar Perez, a widow, who was vending chicken barbecue; and the victim, Edgar Galarpe, Maricar's boyfriend; Rosie Pabela and her boyfriend, Al Cailing. At around 2:00 a.m. the following day, Maricar and Edgar and Rosie and Al agreed to take a stroll at the National Forest Park. Upon reaching the park, the two couples sat on the concrete benches facing each other, with a concrete table in between them. The couples placed the two bottles of red horse beer which they brought along with them on the table. After a few minutes, Winchester, Gregmar and Ritchie arrived. Winchester told Maricar that he wanted to get acquainted with Edgar, and asked her permission. Maricar agreed. Edgar introduced himself to Winchester, at the same time, extending his hand towards Winchester for a handshake and said: "I am Edgar." Winchester shook hands with Edgar. When Edgar asked for his name, Winchester curtly responded: "King-king ko, Bay." Edgar was dumbfounded when Winchester yanked his hand and immediately boxed him. Edgar fell to the ground. He tried to stand up but Winchester, Gregmar and Ritchie ganged up on him, kicked and mauled him. Ritchie struck the two bottles of red horse beer against the table and hit Edgar with the broken bottles. Winchester astraddled the victim while Ritchie and Gregmar positioned themselves on each side of the victim. The three continued their assault on the victim and stabbed him. Maricar and Rosie saw Edgar being stabbed by Winchester, Gregmar and Ritchie and tried in vain to stop the assault. Edgar pleaded to his attackers to stop assaulting him telling them that he

had sustained so many stab wounds already. Frantic, Rosie shouted at Ritchie, Gregmar and Winchester: "What have we done to you? Why did you do that to us?" Although mortally wounded, Edgar stood up and staggered towards the direction of the national highway only to fall down near one of the cemented benches in the park. Winchester wanted to run after Edgar but was prevailed upon by Rosie not to. Gregmar and Ritchie ran after Edgar but returned to the park when Edgar fell down. Afraid that he would be the next victim, Al fled from the park towards the national highway with Ritchie and Gregmar in hot pursuit. Al was able to elude his pursuers. Ritchie and Gregmar rejoined Winchester at the park. Gregmar, Ritchie and Winchester then left the park together. Maricar tried to help Edgar up but he was too heavy for her. She then shouted for help. When Al heard the shouts for help of Maricar, he returned to the park and together with the girls, flagged down a truck. They then boarded Edgar in the truck and had him transported to the Initao District Hospital. However, Edgar was already dead on arrival at the hospital. The Medico-Legal Officer of the National Bureau of Investigation conducted an autopsy of the victim's body and stated therein that the accused obtained 18 stab wounds and four of them were fatal Appellants Contention: Gregmar and Winchester denied assaulting and stabbing Edgar. They claimed that it was Ritchie alone who stabbed and killed the victim. The appellants assert that Ritchie alone assaulted and killed the victim. The prosecution failed to prove that the appellants conspired with Ritchie to assault and kill the victim. They did not intend to assault and kill the victim. They and Ritchie proceeded to the park from the store of Rudy Galarpe merely to get acquainted with the victim and Al and not to assault or kill him. Trial Courts Ruling: The Trial Court found both accused guilty of the crime of murder, in conspiracy with each other as principals by direct participation. ISSUE: 13 | P a g e

Amurao Case Digest: Arce.Cuartero.Grimares.Loredo.Manalili.Marciano.Masculino.Mella.Paralejas.Quitco.Sotto.Tinsay

Whether or not Wenchester Abut and Gregmar Baliga conspired with Ritchie Waslo in the crime hey committed against the victim Edgar. HELD: Yes. Although Ritchie alone pursued the victim as he staggered from the situs criminis, however, by then the victim had already been assaulted and repeatedly stabbed by the appellants and Ritchie. The appellants cannot thus argue that Ritchie alone is criminally liable for the death of the victim. As against the collective positive testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution coupled with the physical evidence on record pointing to the appellants and Ritchie as the perpetrators of the crime, the bare denial of the appellants which are merely negative self-serving evidence cannot prevail. Besides, there is no evidence on record that the three witnesses of the prosecution had any ill motives to testify against the appellants and ascribe to them the commission of a heinous crime for which the appellants could be meted reclusion perpetua or even the death penalty. It would run counter to the natural order of events and of human nature and contrary to the presumption of good faith for the prosecution witnesses to falsely testify against the appellants if, indeed, they are innocent. RATIO: A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. To establish conspiracy, direct evidence is not required. It is not even essential that there be proof of the agreement to commit the felony. Proof of concerted action of the accused before, during and after the crime which demonstrates their unity of design and objective is sufficient. The Court had consistently ruled that conspiracy may be inferred when by their acts, two or more persons proceed towards the accomplishment of the same felonious objective, with each doing his act, so that their acts though seemingly independent were in fact connected, showing a closeness of former association and concurrence of sentiment. To hold one as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy it must be shown that he performed an overt act in pursuance of or furtherance of the conspiracy, although the acts performed might have been distinct and separate. This overt act may consist of active participation in the actual

commission of the crime itself, or it may consist of moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the time of the commission of the crime, or by exerting a moral ascendance over the other co-conspirators by moving them to execute or implement the criminal plan. Once conspiracy is established, all the conspirators are answerable as coprincipals regardless of their degree of participation, for in the contemplation of the law, the act of one becomes the act of all.18 It matters not who among the accused inflicted the fatal blow to the victim. People vs Santiago GR No. 129371 | Conspiracy / Article 8 FACTS: On December 18, 1993 at around 8:45 to 9:00 o'clock in the evening, Antonio Dionisio, together with his daughters Mary Ann, Girlie, Maria Paz and Mariel, were on board a blue mini cruiser on their way to attend a party. At the corner of Pitong Gatang Street, their car hit an Enduro motorcycle ridden by the three accused (Romeo Santiago, Solis De Leon and Jaime Illescas). Mary Ann clearly remembered Illescas' face and later identified him as the driver of the motorcycle. After the minor collision, Dionisio dropped off Mary Ann, Maria Paz and Girlie at the party while he and Mariel proceeded to the service station to buy gas for the mini cruiser. Sometime later, Mary Ann learned from a tricycle driver that her father had been shot. Miguel Lopez, a tricycle driver, corroborated Mariel's testimony. He testified that He saw the three accused near the foot of the bridge with two of them aboard the motorcycle while the other one was pushing it, apparently trying to jumpstart the motorcycle. Edgardo Dungao, a jeepney driver, also saw a person on a motorcycle with two other persons running after it. After the two persons caught up with the motorcycle, they all fled.:

14 | P a g e

Amurao Case Digest: Arce.Cuartero.Grimares.Loredo.Manalili.Marciano.Masculino.Mella.Paralejas.Quitco.Sotto.Tinsay

Defendants Contention: Illescas denied his participation in the crime. He claimed he was merely a backrider on the motorcycle together with his brother-in-law, Solis de Leon, and Romeo Santiago and that while trying to set the motorcycle upright, he heard a gunshot. He did not see who fired the shot. Immediately, he left the premises and went home on a tricycle. RTC Ruling: found Jaime Illescas guilty of murder pursuant to Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code because of the attending qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident pre-meditation ISSUE: Whether or not Illescas can be considered a conspirator taking into consideration the facts/evidence presented at the trial. HELD: NO. The SC held that the trial court erred in appreciating the existence of conspiracy among the three (3) accused. It AFFIRMED the decision of RTC but with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant Jaime Illescas is held guilty of homicide and is liable only as an ACCOMPLICE. RATIO: Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. It may be deduced from the manner in which the offense is committed, as when the accused acted in concert to achieve the same objective. In order to hold an accused liable as co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or in furtherance of conspiracy. The overt act may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself or it may consist of moral assistance to his co-conspirators by exerting moral ascendancy over the other co-conspirators by moving them to execute or implement the conspiracy. Mere presence at the scene of the incident, knowledge of the plan or acquiescence thereto are not sufficient grounds to hold a person liable as a conspirator.

As shown by the evidence presented by the prosecution, Illescas was driving the motorcycle in the company of his co-accused immediately prior to and after the shooting incident. Illescas' participation in the crime was limited to driving the motorcycle. As testified to by Mariel, the four-year old daughter of the victim, Illescas was not the triggerman, although he was the one driving the motorcycle. The prosecution failed to adduce sufficient evidence to completely establish the existence of conspiracy among the three accused. The acts of Illescas vis-a-vis those of his co-accused failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the presence of conspiracy. It bears stressing that conspiracy must be proved as convincingly and indubitably as the crime itself. As previously held by SC, where the quantum of proof required to establish conspiracy is lacking, the doubt created as to whether accused acted as principal or accomplice will always be resolved in favor of the milder form of criminal liability, that of a mere accomplice. People v. Rafael G.R. no. 123176 (2000) | Conspiracy FACTS: Alejandra and her daughter-in-law Gloria, were preparing dinner in the kitchen when they heard a commotion outside the house. Appellant and his two sons, Melchor and Mario, barged inside the kitchen. Appellant was unarmed while Melchor and Mario were armed with bolos. Suddenly, Melchor hacked Alejandras left hand, severing it from her body. Alejandra slumped in a corner and pleaded with Melchor not to kill her. Appellant stood in front of the kitchen door watching the grisly incident unfold. After hacking Alejandra, Melchor turned to Gloria and hacked her on the head. Gloria managed to run outside the house but Mario chased her. At this point, Alejandra could no longer see what was happening to Gloria because of the continuous bleeding of her hand. Melchor turned to Alejandra anew and continued to stab her on the different parts of the body. Alejandra feigned death by lying still. Believing that Alejandra was dead, Melchor left her and went 15 | P a g e

Amurao Case Digest: Arce.Cuartero.Grimares.Loredo.Manalili.Marciano.Masculino.Mella.Paralejas.Quitco.Sotto.Tinsay

outside. Alejandra heard appellant telling his two sons in the Pangasinan dialect, Patayin, patayin iran amen! (Kill them all!). The commotion woke Rogelio Rafael. He saw Melchor and Mario chasing his wife Gloria. When Gloria stumbled, Melchor and Mario repeatedly hacked her. Rogelio shouted at them to have mercy on his wife. He frantically rushed downstairs to help her. When he got outside, the assailants had already fled. He tried to run after them but failed. When Rogelio went back to check on his wife and mother, he found his wife, Gloria, dead, and his mother, Alejandra, with her left hand severed. Trial Court rendered a decision finding the appellant guilty of murder and frustrated murder. ISSUE: Whether or not the appellant is a principal to the crime committed by his two sons. HELD: No, the appellant is an accomplice, not a principal, to the crime committed by his two sons. RATIO: The Supreme Court ruled that the appellants participation in the commission of the crime are his presence at the locus criminis and his shouting Patayin patayin iran amen! (Kill them all!) during the later stage of the fatal incident. The prosecution witness did not see him bearing any weapon or using one to inflict any injury on the victims. He did not run away with the two other accused still at large. Thus, we are far from convinced that conspiracy existed between appellant and any of his sons. Conspiracy cannot be logically inferred from the overt acts of herein appellant. When there is doubt as to whether a guilty participant in the killing has committed the role of a principal or that of an accomplice, the court should favour the milder form of responsibility. In order that a person may be considered an accomplice, following requisites must concur: 1. Community of design; that is, knowing the criminal design of the principal by direct participation, he concurs with the latter in his purpose;

2. That he cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts, with th intention of supplying material and moral aid in the execution of the crime in an efficacious way; and 3. That there be a relation between the acts and those attributed to the person charged as an accomplice. In this case, appellants acts of going to Glorias house with his sons and his encouraging shouts clearly demonstrated his concurrence in their aggressive design and lent support to their nefarious intent and afforded moral and material support to their attack against the victims. Hence, we are convinced he must be held liable as a accomplice in the commission of the crimes. People vs. Manlolo GR No. L-40778/169 SCRA394 | Conspiracy / Article 8

FACTS: Severino Perito, Felicito Madiona and Cipriano Manuel went to the local community fiesta. While they were on their way home, upon reaching the corner of Villaruel and Harrision Streets, someone threw a big rock at them. The stone hit Perito on the head and while his companions assisted him, a group of five persons rushed at them. Accused Romulo Garcia stabbed the victim Manuel hitting him on the chest while the others started throwing rocks at the victims. At the same time, victim Perito was stabbed in the right thigh by another person. When Manuel fell, Perito and Mendiona rushed to ride a jeep and saw a police mobile unit. They told them what happened. The police rushed to the scene of the crime where they apprehended some of the accused. Manuel was then rushed to the hospital and was given a 50-50 chance to live by the attending physician. The next day, he died. RTC Ruling: The RTC convicted Manlolo and one of his co-accused, Romulo Garcia, of the crime homicide with two aggravating circumstances of nighttime and band, sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and ordering them to pay the heirs of the deceased Cipriano Manuel the sum of P12,000. Appellants Contention: Manlolo denies conspiracy. According to him, simultaneous action does not of itself demonstrate concurrence of wills 16 | P a g e

Amurao Case Digest: Arce.Cuartero.Grimares.Loredo.Manalili.Marciano.Masculino.Mella.Paralejas.Quitco.Sotto.Tinsay

nor the unity of action and purpose which are the basis of the responsibility of two or more individuals and that it is not enough that the attack be joint and simultaneous, it is necessary that the assailants be animated by one and the same purpose. ISSUE: Whether or not there was a conspiracy between the accused HELD: Yes, there was a conspiracy between the accused. The Supreme Court held that accused-appellant Arcillo Manlolo was guilty of the crime homicide. The Revised Penal Code provides for the penalty of reclusion temporal, considering however the presence of two aggravating circumstances of band and abuse of superior strength, and considering further the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the court imposed an indeterminate sentence of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum, and to indemnify the heirs of the victim the sum of P30,000. RATIO: Though Manlolo denies conspiracy, the evidence establishes that he was one of the five persons who simultaneously rushed and attacked the victim and his companions. Appellant was one of those who stabbed the victim. He and his group followed the victim and his companions when they retreated. They fled together from the scene of the crime after pursuing the victims. When the accused by their acts aimed at the same object, one performing one part and another performing another part so as to complete it, with a view to the attainment of the same object, and their acts, though independent, were in fact concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments, the court will be justified in concluding that said defendants were engaged in conspiracy, wherein the act of one is the act of all. People vs. Salcedo GR. 78774 (1989) | Conspiracy

FACTS:

On March 26, 1981, at about 10:00 pm, a fistfight between Angeles Quingquing, son of Ignacia Quingquing, and accused Dominador Salcedo occured in the vicinity of the barangay chapel. At

about eleven o'clock that same evening, the accused-appellants who were seen dragging the victim, who was bleeding and pleading for mercy outside of her house. Accused Dioscoro Salcedo was holding the victim's arms while Oscar Rabino and Dominador Salcedo were standing by her feet and right side, respectivel. Manaog, the witness of the chain of events that transpired, was then on his way to Quingquing's store to buy some medicine.

Dominador Salcedo ask the victim "Where is Angeles, where is Angeles?," but there was no reply from the victim. Oscar Rabino then told the other accused-appellants "Let's bring her outside," as the victim was already dead. The accused-appellants proceeded to carry the victim's body outside her yard eastward. Dominador Salcedo was armed with a "pana" or "Indian arrow" in a rubber sling and Dioscoro Salcedo and Oscar Rabino had with them bolos tucked in their waists at the time of the crime. When Angeles Quingquing returned home at around one o'clock after attending to his carabao, he found the corpse of his mother on the pathway some fifty meters from their house with an "Indian arrow" embedded on her back. Then he heard Rabino say "Angeles is here already, he will be the next one. We will kill him next. He ran to his sister's house as he feared for his life and, when he got there he told his sister that their mother was dead. Angeles, his sister and his brother-in-law then returned to where their mothers body lay. His brother-in-law reported the matter to the Barangay Captain. The report done by the medical officer after the autopsy states that the doctor found that the victim had a punctured wound near the left armpit which was mortal in nature and could have been the cause of death. They were charged with murder under the information that the accused were armed with a made "Indian Arrow," with intent to kill and with treachery and evident premeditation, conspiring and 17 | P a g e

Amurao Case Digest: Arce.Cuartero.Grimares.Loredo.Manalili.Marciano.Masculino.Mella.Paralejas.Quitco.Sotto.Tinsay

confederating together mutually helping one another, did then and there wilfully unlawfully and feloniously, attack, assault and shot [sic] with the said "Indian Arrow," one IGNACIA QUINGQUING Y CATANGUI" inflicting upon the latter mortal wounds on the different parts of her body, which directly caused the death of said Ignacia Quingquing y Catangui RTC RULING: The trial court rendered the judgment that the accused are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, in addition that they conspired to kill the victim; Accuseds Contention: They were convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence. There were no direct evidence against them; therefore it cannot be proven that they conspired to kill Ignacia Quingquing. ISSUE: Whether or not direct evidence is required to prove conspiracy HELD: The court held that conspiracy need not be proven by direct evidence; it may be inferred from the acts of the accused. RATIO: The conduct of the accused-appellants before, during and after the commission of the crime may be considered to show the existence of a conspiracy. Proof of a previous agreement to commit the crime is not essential to establish a conspiracy. It is sufficient that the accused be shown to have acted in concert pursuant to the same objective. In the instant case, the accused were shown to have acted as one in carrying out their common criminal design. They acted together in dragging the wounded victim from her house, carrying her body away from her yard after she died and lying in wait for Angeles Quingquing to return. The accused were shown to have performed specific acts incidental to the commission of the crime with such closeness

and coordination indicative of a common purpose. The act of one killing the victim becomes the act of all the accused. RULE OF CONSPIRACY Although conspiracy was proven in the instant case, since the case is not treason, coup dtat, rebellion nor sedition. Conspiracy in this case is merely deemed as a preparatory act and their conspiracy is merely a manner of incurring criminal liability, merely making the act of one accused as the act of all the accused. People v. Taaca G.R. No. L-35652 | Conspiracy

FACTS:

On June 29, 1971, Herminio Taaca, accused, together with Regalado Taaca, Juanito Alipio, and Adrian Cabael dropped by at the house of Alfredo Gabuat, victim, at Cagayan. They sat on the benches in front of Gabuats mill and asked for wine and cigarettes. Because of Gabuats store being closed, they asked his son to buy in a nearby store. Caridad Arellano, the wife of the victim, was preparing supper in the kitchen. Before going there, she asked her son, Melvin, to watch over his father because Gabuat just killed a man less than a month ago. Around 6:00 p.m. Alpio and Cabael left while the two Taacas stayed and continued talking with Gabuet. Herminio was carrying at that time a gun which is tucked to his waist with the barrel protruding at the shoulder. Caridad then called her husband for supper but Alfredo told them to go ahead. After supper, Caridad asked her children to bring food to the main house for their father while she was closing the doors and windows. Gabuat and his son, Melvin, went upstairs after the two Taacas left. While Gabuat was opening the main door, Melvin heard a gunshot and saw Herminio at a nearby post pointing a gun at his father while Regalado was hiding in a bathroom. Herminio ran away with Regalado going south. When Caridad heard the gun report, she peeped out of the window and saw the two Taacas running. She immediately called for her husband but she did not receive a reply so she called for help. When her brothers arrived Alfredo was already dead. Melvin, shocked by what 18 | P a g e

Amurao Case Digest: Arce.Cuartero.Grimares.Loredo.Manalili.Marciano.Masculino.Mella.Paralejas.Quitco.Sotto.Tinsay

happened to his father, jumped down from the balcony and ran to his uncles house. On the way he saw the two Taacas running southward. The two Taacas were charged with murder in the Court of First Instance of Cagayan. Both of them tried to appeal but Herminio withdrew his appeal on March 2, 1981. ISSUE: Whether or not the presence of conspiracy has been proven in this case. HELD: The judgement of conviction against Regalado Taaca is reversed and another one is acquitting him on the ground of reasonable doubt. RATIO: A conspiracy in the statutory language exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The objective then on the part of the conspirators is to perform an act or omission punishable by law. What is required is assent to the perpetration of such a misdeed. That must be their intent. Melvin, the sole witness, testified that when Hermino shot his father, Regalado was hiding near their bathroom hence, no evidence of conspiracy may be decuded based on the statements of Melvin. No conspiracy can be deduced where the alleged co-conspirators did not perform any overt act of shooting the victim although they were with the person who fired the gun. In this case, the appellant did not perform any overt act. The only incriminating evidence against appellant is that he was at the scene of the crime. The mere presence of appellant at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission is not by itself, however, sufficient to establish his criminal liability. Existence of conspiracy must be clearly and convincingly proven. People vs Briones GR No. 91319 (1991) / Conspiracy Art. 8

FACTS: On April 23, 1988, Pantaleon Francisco, was tending his sari-sari store in Barangay Dela Paz, San Simon, Pampanga At about 11:30 p.m., appellants Gerardo Javier and Eusebio Allied came to Francisco's store and ordered beer. Appellant Mario Briones later arrived and was offered beer by Javier and Allied. Thereafter, the appellants left the store. When Pantaleon Francisco closed his store, he heard the barking of dogs from the Gutierrez residence which was about 8 meters away from his store. Pantaleon Francisco saw appellants Mario Briones and Gerardo Javier, together with Eusebio Allied, under a lighted electric bulb, mauling Florencia Diaz Gutierrez who was lying prostate on the ground, The three later dragged Florencia Diaz Gutierrez inside her house and closed the door. In the morning of April 24, 1988, Pantaleon Francisco went to the house of the Gutierrez. He found it in disarray, with the spouses sprawled dead on the first floor. Pantaleon Francisco disclosed to the police officers the identity of the perpetrators of the crime on April 25, 1988. Acting on the information supplied by Pantaleon Francisco, Pat. Maniago and his team were able to arrest Mario Briones, and revealed that his two companions in the commission of the crime were Eusebio Allied and Gerardo Javier. In the course of the investigation, Mario Briones also disclosed the place where they hid their loot. RTC ruling: The crime convicted of is robbery with double homicide. Each to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and the accessories of the law and are liable for the indemnification of the heirs of the late Felicisimo Gutierrez and Florencia Diaz Gutierrez in the amount of P4.0,000.00 as moral damages and P20,000.00 as exemplary damages. Appellants contention: The trial court erred in holding that the crime committed is robbery with double homicide despite insufficiency of evidence, in not holding that the evidence obtained against them is inadmissible for violation of their constitutional rights to remain silent, to counsel and against self-incrimination during custodial 19 | P a g e

Amurao Case Digest: Arce.Cuartero.Grimares.Loredo.Manalili.Marciano.Masculino.Mella.Paralejas.Quitco.Sotto.Tinsay

investigation, and in not holding that their guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. They likewise argue that there was no conspiracy and that their arrest was illegal for having been made without a warrant. ISSUE: Whether or not there was conspiracy between the accused HELD: Yes, there was conspiracy. RATIO: The Supreme Court found the alibi of the appellants to be unmeritorious, The Court stated that as a minimum requirement for the theory of alibi to be accepted, the accused must also demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to be in the scene of the crime. The fact that the place of the incident was a walking distance from the place where the appellants allegedly were. Since the appellants and Allied were positively identified by Francisco, and it was not shown that the latter had any evil motive to implicate the former, the defense of alibi cannot be accepted. The Supreme Court likewise affirmed the Trial Courts finding of conspiracy. It ruled that it is undisputed that the appellants and Allied were together in the store of Francisco prior to the incident. It was established that they mauled and manhandled Florencia Gutierrez, and thereafter dragged her inside her house. Their concerted acts in the perpetration of the offense show that conspiracy is present. It has been consistently held that conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence but can be inferred from the acts of the accused showing concerted action and community of design. People v. Dela Cruz GR No. 90907-12 | Conspiracy FACTS: Six persons namely Mayor Johnny Ebes, Paulino Lubos, Pfc. Walsie Bulasao, Rufino Salbino, Pfc. Robert Bakidol and Andres Pilo were inside the Western valley Restaurant when it was suddenly fired upon

from the outside of the restaurant at around 8pm of August 10, 1984. Four of them got killed; Mayor Johnny Ebes, Paulino Lubos, Pfc. Walsie Bulasao and Rufino Salbino. The two others were seriously injured. For the death of the four and the wounding of the two others, Spouses Crisostomo and Crecencia Galaw-ey together with the five soldiers that is CPL. Conrado De La Cruz (Crecencia Galaw-eys brother), CPL. Eduardo Castillo y Fernandez, CPL. Tito Seguin y Soriano, CPL. Zosimo Poquiz y Daligdig and CPL. Fidel Bravo y Torio (All members of the Special Action Company, Philippine Constabulary) were charged in separate Information for 4 counts of murder and 2 counts of frustrated murder. According to the prosecution there was conspiracy among the accused. The motive in the massacre as speculated by the prosecution was the result of the prior occurrence between Crisostomo Galaw-ey and Bakidol (one of the survivor) wherein they had an altercation and before they could talk to patch up things, a stranger suddenly appeared, pulled out a gun and pistol-whipped Crisostomo on the face, causing him injuries, but Crisostomo Galaw-ey denies that there is bad blood between him and Bakidol because whatever misunderstanding they had was settled harmoniously four months before the killings. The five soldiers arrived at Baguio from Bontoc Mt. Province carrying with them their respective Armalite Rifles. Three of them met with the spouses Crisostomo and Cresencia at their residence at Tomay La Trinidad which spouses Galaw-ey did not deny instead avow that the 3 soldiers went to their house to borrow fare money from Cresencia Galaw-ey. Immediately before the shooting incident on August 10 1984, the spouses Crisostomo and Cresencia were seen in the vicinity where the crime happened and found in the jeepney are the armalite rifles as Milo (prosecutors witness) refers to as scrap irons. Before and after gun shots were heard, three men with Armalite rifle were seen near the door of the Western Valley Restaurant and one of them was identified as accused Conrado de la Cruz. In response, Galaw-ey spouses admitted that they were in their Ford Fiera jitney near the crime scene more or less an hour before the shooting incident but only because on their way to meet the vegetables suppliers in Acop, Tublay Benguet,Crisostomo 20 | P a g e

Amurao Case Digest: Arce.Cuartero.Grimares.Loredo.Manalili.Marciano.Masculino.Mella.Paralejas.Quitco.Sotto.Tinsay

realized that he did not have enough gasoline. In the process of making a U-turn, a front wheel of the jeepney got stuck in a canal near the Morris Restaurant. Crisostomo denied that the two teenagers, Milo and Recana, rode with them in his jitney (not having gotten inside the jeepney at all, they could not have stepped on "scrap irons" that turned out to be armalite rifles) Crisostomo also testified that he and his wife were in the market of Baguio City at 4:30 o'clock a.m. on August 11, 1984 and stand that he did not see again the soldier-companions of De la Cruz after he had taken them to Baguio City as it was testified against him that was cut off at the Camp Dangwa Checkpoint on board his jeepney at 4am, August 11, 1984 with 3 armed soldiers aboard. Of all the seven accused, only CPL. De la Cruz and Spouses Crisostomo & Cresencia Galaw-ey were arraigned and tried. The 3 accused shortly after the shooting incident were nowhere to be found in Baguio and La Trinidad for more or less a month which appellants explained their absence shortly after the shooting incident was due to fear for their lives and safety in the wake of rumors and threats of their being salvaged. RTC Ruling: The 3 accused-appellant were charged with 4 counts of murder and 2 counts of frustrated murder by the RTC on September 15, 1989. CA Ruling: The appealed decision of the RTC is reversed and the accused-appellants are acquitted beyond reasonable doubt. Accused-Appellants Contention: The trial court erred in finding that the accused-appellants Spouses Crisostomo and Cresencia Galaw-ey conspired with the perpetrators in committing the crime charged; The lower court erred in not finding the evidence of the prosecution substantially insufficient to establish the guilt of accused-appellant Conrado dela Cruz beyond reasonable doubt in the cases at bar. ISSUE: Whether or not the (3) accused are liable of criminal conspiracy.

HELD: The trial court held that the scarcity of evidence on the criminal conspiracy is glaring. More is required to fully support the prosecution's theory that the three accused-appellants were united in pursuing a common unlawful purpose and that they or any one of them fired the fatal fusillade that killed four victims and seriously wounded two others. RATIO: People v. Saavedra, G.R. No. L-48738, May 18, 1987 - "presence at the scene of the crime, without more, does not imply conspiracy." Therefore the presence of the Galaw-eys and their Ford Fiera jitney near the scene of the crime is not by itself sufficient to establish their criminal liability. Rule of conspiracy presupposes the existence of a pre-conceived plan or agreement and in order to establish the existence of such circumstance, it is not enough that the persons supposedly engaged or connected with the same be present when the crime was perpetrated. There must be a logical relationship between the commission of the crime and the supposed conspirators, evidencing a clear and more intimate connection between and among the latter, such as by their overt acts committed in pursuance of a common design. Neither the fact that one of the soldiers, Conrado, is the younger brother of Cresencia, nor that he and his soldier companions went to her house that afternoon of August 10, 1984, would indicate his and the Galaw-eys' participation in the criminal design. People vs. Manero G.R. Nos. 86883-85 | Conspiracy (Murder, Attempted Murder, and Arson) FACTS: On 11 April 1985, around 10:00 o'clock in the morning, the Manero brothers Norberto Jr., Edilberto and Elpidio, along with Rodrigo Espia, Severino Lines, Rudy Lines, Efren Pleago and Roger Bedao, were inside the eatery of one Reynaldo Diocades at Km. 125, La Esperanza, Tulunan, Cotabato. They were conferring with Arsenio Villamor, Jr., private secretary to the Municipal Mayor of Tulunan, Cotabato, and his two (2) unidentified bodyguards. Plans to liquidate a number of suspected communist sympathizers were discussed. Arsenio Villamor, Jr. 21 | P a g e

Amurao Case Digest: Arce.Cuartero.Grimares.Loredo.Manalili.Marciano.Masculino.Mella.Paralejas.Quitco.Sotto.Tinsay

scribbled on a cigarette wrapper the following "NPA v. NPA, starring Fr. Peter, Domingo Gomez, Bantil, Fred Gapate, Rene alias Tabagac and Villaning." "Fr. Peter" is Fr. Peter Geremias, an Italian priest suspected of having links with the communist movement; "Bantil" is Rufino Robles, a Catholic lay leader who is the complaining witness in the Attempted Murder; Domingo Gomez is another lay leader, while the others are simply "messengers". On the same occasion, the conspirators agreed to Edilberto Manero's proposal that should they fail to kill Fr. Peter Geremias, another Italian priest would be killed in his stead.8 At about 1:00 o'clock that afternoon, Elpidio Manero with two (2) unidentified companions nailed a placard on a street-post beside the eatery of Deocades. The placard bore the same inscriptions as those found on the cigarette wrapper except for the additional phrase "versus Bucay, Edil and Palo." Some two (2) hours later, Elpidio also posted a wooden placard bearing the same message on a street cross-sign close to the eatery. Later, at 4:00 o'clock, the Manero brothers, together with Espia and the four (4) appellants, all with assorted firearms, proceeded to the house of "Bantil", their first intended victim, which was also in the vicinity of Deocades' carinderia. They were met by "Bantil" who confronted them why his name was included in the placards. Edilberto brushed aside the query; instead, he asked "Bantil" if he had any qualms about it, and without any provocation, Edilberto drew his revolver and fired at the forehead of "Bantil". "Bantil" was able to parry the gun, albeit his right finger and the lower portion of his right ear were hit. Then they grappled for its possession until "Bantil" was extricated by his wife from the fray. But, as he was running away, he was again fired upon by Edilberto. Only his trousers were hit. "Bantil" however managed to seek refuge in the house of a certain Domingo Gomez. Norberto, Jr., ordered his men to surround the house and not to allow anyone to get out so that "Bantil" would die of hemorrhage. Then Edilberto went back to the restaurant of Deocades and pistol-whipped him on the face and accused him of being a communist coddler, while appellants and their cohorts relished the unfolding drama.

Moments later, while Deocades was feeding his swine, Edilberto strewed him with a burst of gunfire from his M-14 Armalite. Deocades cowered in fear as he knelt with both hands clenched at the back of his head. This again drew boisterous laughter and ridicule from the dreaded desperados. At 5:00 o'clock, Fr. Tulio Favali arrived at Km. 125 on board his motorcycle. He entered the house of Gomez. While inside, Norberto, Jr., and his co-accused Pleago towed the motorcycle outside to the center of the highway. Norberto, Jr., opened the gasoline tank, spilled some fuel, lit a fire and burned the motorcycle. As the vehicle was ablaze, the felons raved and rejoiced. Upon seeing his motorcycle on fire, Fr. Favali accosted Norberto, Jr. But the latter simply stepped backwards and executed a thumbs-down signal. At this point, Edilberto asked the priest: "Ano ang gusto mo, padre (What is it you want, Father)? Gusto mo, Father, bukon ko ang ulo mo (Do you want me, Father, to break your head)?" Thereafter, in a flash, Edilberto fired at the head of the priest. As Fr. Favali dropped to the ground, his hands clasped against his chest, Norberto, Jr., taunted Edilberto if that was the only way he knew to kill a priest. Slighted over the remark, Edilberto jumped over the prostrate body three (3) times, kicked it twice, and fired anew. The burst of gunfire virtually shattered the head of Fr. Favali, causing his brain to scatter on the road. As Norberto, Jr., flaunted the brain to the terrified onlookers, his brothers danced and sang "Mutya Ka Baleleng" to the delight of their comradesin-arms who now took guarded positions to isolate the victim from possible assistance. RTC Ruling: Norberto Manero, Jr. alias Commander Bucay, Edilberto Manero alias Edil, Elpidio Manero, Severino Lines, Rudy Lines, Rodrigo Espia alias Rudy, Efren Pleago and Roger Bedao are guilty of Murder. Norberto Manero, Jr is guilty of Arson.

22 | P a g e

Amurao Case Digest: Arce.Cuartero.Grimares.Loredo.Manalili.Marciano.Masculino.Mella.Paralejas.Quitco.Sotto.Tinsay

Norberto Manero, Jr., alias Commander Bucay, Edilberto Manero alias Edil, Elpidio Manero, Severino Lines, Rudy Lines, Rodrigo Espia alias Rudy, Efren Pleago and Roger Bedao guilty of Attempted Murder. CA Ruling: (There was no clear indication as to what the CA said about this case. My presumption is that, obviously, CA affirmed the decision of the trial court.) DUH! Defendants Contention: That the trial court erred in disregarding the respective defenses of alibi of the appellants Severino Lines, Rudy Lines, Efren Pleago and Roger Bedao, which, if properly appreciated, would tend to establish that there was no prior agreement to kill. That there was absolutely no showing that appellants cooperated in the shooting of the victim despite their proximity at the time to the gunman, Edilberto Manero. Defendants Alibi: Brothers Severino and Rudy Lines claim that they were harvesting palay the whole day of 11 April 1985 some one kilometer away from the crime scene. Roger Bedao alleges that he was on an errand for the church to buy lumber and nipa in M'lang, Cotabato, that morning of 11 April 1985, taking along his wife and sick child for medical treatment and arrived in La Esperanza, Tulunan, past noontime.

Whether or not the accused-appellants, Severino Lines, Rudy Lines, Efren Pleago and Roger Bedao, conspired with the other accused in killing Fr. Favali and attempting to kill Deocades. HELD: Yes. Since the accused-appellants failed to establish the authenticity of their alibi, the Court held that there is a direct proof to link them to the conspiracy. The judgment appealed from being in accord with law and the evidence is AFFIRMED with the modification that the civil indemnity. RATIO: There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement to commit a crime and decide to commit it. It is not essential that all the accused commit together each and every act constitutive of the offense. It is enough that an accused participates in an act or deed where there is singularity of purpose and unity in its execution is present. Conspiracy or action in concert to achieve a criminal design being sufficiently shown, the act of one is the act of all the other conspirators, and the degree participation of each of them becomes secondary. It is clear that appellants were not merely innocent bystanders but were in fact vital cogs in perpetrating the savage murder of Fr. Favali and the attempted murder of Rufino Robles by the Manero brothers and their militiamen. For sure, appellants all assumed a fighting stance to discourage, if not, prevent any attempt to provide assistance to the fallen priest. They surrounded the house of Domingo Gomez to stop Robles and the other occupants from leaving so that the wounded Robles may die of hemorrhage. Undoubtedly, these were overt acts to ensure success of the commission of the crimes and in furtherance of the aims of the conspiracy. The appellants acted in concert in the murder of Fr. Favali and in the attempted murder of Rufino Robles. While accused-appellants may not have delivered the fatal shots themselves, their collective action showed a common intent to commit the criminal acts. 23 | P a g e

Appellants Contention (People): That it is not enough for the accused-appellants to be at some other place, it must also be physically impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. Thus, the accused-appellants failed to establish the authenticity of their defense of alibi. The defense of alibi is feeble. ISSUE: