Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-19069 October 29, 1968
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
M!EO PERLT, ET L., defendants,
N!RES FCTOR, LEONR!O !OSL, NGEL PRUMOG, M!EO
PERLT, FLORENCIO LUN "#$ GER%SIO LRIT, defendants-review.
Assistant Solicitors General Vicente A. Torres and Antonio Ibarra for plaintiff-appellee.
J. R. Nuguid for defendants-review.
PER CURIM&
In the decision in criinal case !!"# of the Court of $irst Instance of Ri%al,sub&ect of the present
autoatic review, Amadeo eralta! Andres "actora! #eonardo $osal! Angel arumog! Gervasio
#arita and "lorencio #una 'si( aon) the twent*-two defendants
+
char)ed therein with ultiple
urder, were pronounced )uilt*, and all sentenced to death, to indenif* &ointl* and severall*
the heirs of each of the victis, nael*, Jose %arriego! &ugenio 'arbosa and Santos %ru(, in the
su of P-,""", and each to pa* his correspondin) share of the costs.
.he inforation recites/
.hat on or about the +-th da* of $ebruar*, +0#1, in the unicipalit* of Muntin)lupa,
province of Ri%al, Philippines, and within the &urisdiction of this 2onorable Court, the
abovenaed accused, who are convicts confined in the New Bilibid Prisons b* virtue of
final &ud)ents, conspirin), confederatin) and utuall* helpin) and aidin) one another,
with evident preeditation and treacher*, all ared with deadl* weapons, did, then and
there, willfull*, unlawfull* and feloniousl* 3ill 4ose Carrie)o, Eu)enio Barbosa and
5antos Cru%, also convicts confined in the sae institution, b* hittin), stabbin) and
stri3in) the with ice pic3s, clubs and other iprovised weapons, pointed and6or
sharpened, thereb* inflictin) upon the victis ultiple serious in&uries which directl*
caused their deaths.
.hat the a))ravatin) circustance of )uasi-recidivism is present in the coission of the
crie in that the crie was coitted after the accused have been convicted b* final
&ud)ents and while the* are servin) the said &ud)ents in the New Bilibid Prisons.
Contrar* to law with the followin) a))ravatin) circustances/
+. .hat the crie was coitted with insult to public authorities7
8. .hat the crie was coitted b* a band7
9. .hat the crie was coitted b* ared en or persons who insure or afford
ipunit*7
:. .hat use of superior stren)th or eans was eplo*ed to wea3en the defense7
#. .hat as a eans to the coission of the crie doors and windows have been bro3en7
-. .hat eans was eplo*ed which add i)noin* to the natural effects of the act7
!. .hat the crie was coitted where public authorities were en)a)ed in the dischar)e
of their duties.
;pon otion of the provincial fiscal before trial, the lower court disissed the char)e a)ainst
one of the accused
8
for lac3 of evidence. After the prosecution had rested its case, the char)es
a)ainst si( of the accused
9
were disissed for failure of the prosecution to establish a prima
facie case a)ainst the. <ne of the defendants died
:
durin) the pendenc* of the case. After trial,
the court a )uo ac=uitted ei)ht
#
of the reainin) defendants.
As earl* as in +0#-, a )reat nuber of inates confined in the national penitentiar* at
Muntin)lupa arra*ed theselves into two warrin) )an)s, the >5i)ue-5i)ue> and the ><?<>, the
forer coposed predoinantl* of .a)alo) inates, the latter coprised ainl* of prisoners
fro the @isa*as and Mindanao. 5ince then the prison copound has been roc3ed tie and tie
a)ain b* blood* riots resultin) in the death of an* of their ebers and suspected
s*pathi%ers. In an effort to avert violent clashes between the contendin) )roups, prison officials
se)rerated 3nown ebers of the >5i)ue-5i)ue> fro those of the ><?<>. Buildin) + housed
>5i)ue-5i)ue> ebers, while a a&orit* of the prisoners confined in Bld). : belon)ed to the
><?<>. Even in Bld). :, which is coposed of four bri)ades, nael*, :-A and :-B 'upper floor,
and :-C and :-A 'first floor,, inates fro @isa*as and Mindanao, fro who the ><?<> drew
ost of its ebers, were confined in :-A.
It was at about !/"" a.. on $ebruar* +-, +0#1, while the inates of the penitentiar* were
preparin) to attend 5unda* ass, that a fi)ht between two rival ebers of the >5i)ue-5i)ue>
and ><?<> )an)s occurred in the pla%a where the prisoners were assebled, causin) a bi)
cootion. .he fi)ht was, however, =uelled, and those involved were led awa* for
investi)ation, while the rest of the prisoners were ordered to return to their respective =uarters.
2ardl* had conditions returned to noral when a riot bro3e out in Bld). +, a 3nown lair of the
>5i)ue-5i)ue>. .he inates thereof tried to invade Bld). :, where an* ebers and
s*pathi%ers of the ><?<> )an) were confined. .he tiel* arrival of the )uards forced the
invadin) inates to retreat and return to Bld). +. Moents later, another riot erupted in Bld). :,
as the inates of bri)ade :-A destro*ed the loc3 of their door and then rapa)ed fro one
bri)ade to another. .he invadin) prisoners fro :-A, ostl* ><?<> ebers and s*pathi%ers,
clubbed and stabbed to death 4ose Carrie)o, an inate of :-B. Afterwards, the* forcibl* opened
the door of :-C and 3illed two ore inates, nael*, Eu)enio Barbosa and 5antos Cru%.
.he three victis sustained in&uries which swiftl* resulted in their death B before the* could be
brou)ht to the hospital.
Jose %arriego/ 'a, lacerated wound on the lower lip, # c. in len)th and 9 c.in depth7 'b,
contusion and heatoa of the bac3 of the nec3, about 8 inches in diaeter7 and 'c, five
punctured wounds in the chest, penetratin) the lun)s. Cause of death/ internal heorrha)e fro
ultiple fatal wounds in the chest.
&ugenio 'arbosa/ 'a, lacerated wound in the occipital re)ion, 9 inches in len)th and + c. in
depth7 'b, two penetratin) wounds in the abdoen, puncturin) the intestines7 'c, lacerated
wounds on the ri)ht o(illa, 9 c. in len)th and 8 c. in depth7 and 'd, several bruises at the ri)ht
and left lower e(treities. Cause of death/ shoc3, secondar* to internal herorrha)e in the
abdoen.
Santos %ru(/ 'a, lacerated wound on the head, 8 inches in len)th7 'b, fractured s3ull7 'c, wound
on the upper lip cuttin) the lip in two7 'd, seven punctured wounds in the chest, two of which
were penetratin)7 'e, heatoa on the ri)ht hand7 and 'f, three punctured wounds on the left
hand. Cause of death/ fractured s3ull.
Roeo Pineda, an inate and first =uarter-in-char)e of bri)ade :-B, testified that while he was
ta3in) his brea3fast with 4ose Carrie)o, who was at the tie the representative of the prisoners
confined in :-B to the inate carcel, he >suddenl* heard cootion> near the door of their
bri)ade7 that his fellow prisoners started shoutin) >pinapaso3 na ta*o,> as the invadin) inates
fro bri)ade :-A stapeded into :-B7 that he and Carrie)o too3 hold of their clubs and stood at
the end of the passa)ewa*7 that he saw Carrie)o surrender his club to Andres $actora, an ><?<>
eber fro :-A7 that as Carrie)o started to wal3 awa*, $actora clubbed Carrie)o on the nape
causin) the latter to fall7 that $actora turned up the face of his fallen victi and struc3 hi a)ain
in the face7 that while Carrie)o was in this prostrate position, Aadeo Peralta and Ceonardo
Aosal, copanions of $actora, repeatedl* stabbed hi.
.he testion* of Pineda was corroborated in all its aterial points b* 4uanito Mara*oc and
Avelino 5au%a, both inates of :-B. .hese two prosecution witnesses identified $actora, Peralta
and Aosal as the assailants of Carrie)o.
$ro :-B, the invadin) inates of :-A went down and forcibl* entered :-C. Accordin) to <scar
$ontillas, an inate of :-C, he saw the prisoners fro :-A rushin) toward their bri)ade7 that
aon) the invadin) inates who forced open the door of :-C, with help fro the inside
provided b* @isa*an prisoners confined in :-C, were $actora, Aosal, An)el Paruo), Dervacio
Carita, Ernesto $ernande% and 4ose .arian7 that he saw $actora, Carita and $ernande% 3ill
Barbosa, while the rest of their copanies instructed the @isa*ans to leave their cell and ordered
the >Manila bo*s> '.a)alo)s, to reain. Antonio Pabarlan, another inate of :-C, declared that
he saw Peralta stab Barbosa, as Aosal, Carita, $lorencio Cuna, Paruo) and $actora clubbed the
hapless victi. Another inate of :-C, 4ose 2alili, not onl* corroborated the testion* of
$ontillas and Pabarlan but as well added )ri details. 2e declared that while Barbosa was tr*in)
to hide under a cot, he was beaten and stabbed to death b* Aosal, Paruo), $actora and
$ernande%, with Cuna, Carita, Pedro Co)ol and Eilel .u)a*a standin) )uard, ared with clubs
and sharp instruents, in readiness to repel an* intervention fro the .a)alo) inates. Carlos
Espino, also confined in :-C, declared that he saw Paruo), Peralta $actora and Carita assault
and 3ill Barbosa.
.he sae witnesses for the prosecution testifies that after 3illin) Barbosa, the invadin) ><?<>
ebers and s*pathi%ers proceeded to hunt for 5antos Cru%, another .a)alo) li3e Carrie)o
and Barbosa. 2alili testified, that he saw Peralta, Carita, Co)ol and .u)a*a ta3e 5antos Cru% to
:-A fro :-C7 that 5antos Cru% 3nelt down and pleaded for his life, sa*in), >Maawa 3a*o sa
a3in. Marai a3on) ana37> that Cuna and Peralta were unoved as the* stabbed 5antos Cru% to
death. Pabarlan declared that after the death of Barbosa, 5antos Cru% was brou)ht to :-A b* the
invadin) inates but Cru% was able to slip bac3 to his cell onl* to be recaptured b* $actora,
Aosal and Cuna and brou)ht to near the fire escape where he was clubbed and stabbed to death
b* Paruo), Aosal, $actora and Peralta. $ontillas and Espino corroborated the declarations of
2alili and Pabarlan with respect to the 3illin) of 5antos Cru%, and both entioned Carita as one
of the assailants of Cru%.
.he trial &ud)e suari%ed the evidence for the prosecution, thus/
>... it clearl* appears that the three 3illin)s in =uestion were an offshoot of the rivalr*
between the two or)ani%ations. All those who were 3illed, nael*, Barbosa, Carrie)o and
5antos Cru%, were .a)alo)s and well 3nown as ebers if not s*pathi%ers of the 5i)ue
5i)ue, while the accused so char)ed with their 3illin) were ostl* ebers if not
s*pathi%ers of the <(o or)ani%ation. .hese three 3illin)s were spar3ed b* the
cootion that happened in the pla%a between 1/"" and 0/"" in the ornin), while the
prisoners were preparin) to )o the ass ... It was evident that the clash that occurred in
the pla%a produced a chain reaction aon) the ebers and followers of the two
or)ani%ations. .he inates of Buildin) No. +, 3nown lair of the 5i)ue 5i)ues bolted the
door of their cells and tried to invade Buildin) No. : where a bi) nuber of the <(o
ebers and their s*pathi%ers were confined, but, however, were forced to retreat b*
the tiel* arrival of the )uards who sent the bac3 to their buildin). Ehen the ebers
of the <(o in Buildin) No. : learned about this, the* went on a rapa)e loo3in) for
ebers of the 5i)ue 5i)ue or their s*pathi%ers who were confined with the in the
sae buildin). As the evidence of the prosecution shows, the accused who were confined
in Bri)ade :-A of Buildin) No. : led the attac3. .he* destro*ed the loc3 of their
doritories and with the help of their copanions succeeded in boltin) the door of the
different bri)ades, and once the* succeeded in boltin) the doors of the different bri)ades,
the* went inside and tried to se)re)ate the .a)alo)s fro their )roup7 that as soon as the*
discovered their eneies the* clubbed and stabbed the to death ...
Adittin) that he was one aon) several who 3illed 4ose Carrie)o, Peralta nevertheless clais
self-defense. 2e testified that on the ornin) of the riot he was attac3ed b* Carrie)o and 4uan
Estrella near the door of :-A while he was returnin) to his bri)ade fro the chapel with soe
copanions7 that Carrie)o clubbed hi on the head7 that he was able to parr* the second blow of
Carrie)o and then succeeded in s=uee%in) Carrie)oFs head with his hands7 that forthwith he
whipped out an iprovised ice pic3 and stabbed Carrie)o several ties7 that when he 'Peralta,
was alread* di%%* due to the head wound he sustained fro the clubbin), Carrie)o ana)ed to
slip awa*7 that he then becae unconscious, and when he re)ained consciousness he found
hiself on a tarima with his head banda)ed.
PeraltaFs declarations do not inspire belief. .he ipressive arra* of prosecution witnesses who
saw hi activel* participate in the 3illin) of the three victis pointed to hi as the a))ressor,
not the a))rieved. Pineda, Mara*oc and 5au%a positivel* identified hi as one of the assailants
of Carrie)o. Contrar* to the pretensions of Peralta, Carrie)o an alle)ed >5i)ue-5i)ue> eber,
would not have attac3ed hi, 3nowin) full* well that Buildin) No. : was an ><?<> lair where
the >5i)ue-5i)ue> ebers were outnubered. Anent the 3illin) of Barbosa and 5antos Cru%,
Peralta failed to offer an* e(plicit defense to rebut the inculpator* declarations of prosecution
witnesses Pabarlan and Espino who saw hi participate in the 3illin) of Barbosa and those of
2alili, $ontillas and Espino who identified hi as one of the urderers of 5antos Cru%.
$or his part, Ceonardo Aosal stated that he 3illed 5antos Cru%, but also clais self-defense in
e(culpation. 2e declared that 5antos Cru%, 4ose Carrie)o, 4uanita Espino, Carlos Espino and
<scar $ontillas invaded :-A where he was confined7 that a free-for-all forthwith ensued7 that he
then heard 5antos Cru% call Carlos Espino, and advise the latter to )o awa* as >I will be the one
to 3ill that person 'Aosal,7> that with a sharp instruent, Cru% hit hi on the head and then on
the nose7 that as Cru% was about to hit hi a)ain, he )ot hold of his ice pic3 and stabbed Cru%
repeatedl* until the latter fell.
AosalFs avowal is clearl* belied b* the positive testionies of Pabarlan, 2alili and Espino who
saw hi participate in the 3illin) of 5antos Cru%. If it is true that Aosal 3illed 5antos Cru% in
self-defense when the latter to)ether with his copanions supposedl* invaded AosalFs bri)ade
':-A,, wh* is it that the bod* of 5antos Cru% was found at the fire escape near the pasillo
between :-C and :-A of the first floor of Bld). + instead of in :-A which is located in the upper
floorG Moreover, Aosal failed to e(plain wh* he was seen in :-C, which he does not den*, since
he was an inate of :-A where he was alle)edl* attac3ed. Eith respect to the urder of
Carrie)o and Barbosa with which Aosal was also char)ed, he did not offer an* evidence in his
behalf. 2ence, the testionies of Pineda, Mara*oc and 5au%a identif*in) hi as one of the
3illers of Carrie)o and those of Pabarlan, 2alili and Espino iplicatin) hi in the death of
5antos Cru%, stand unrebutted.
Andres $actora declared that he clubbed Carrie)o and 5antos Cru% under copulsion of his co-
accused who threatened to 3ill hi if he disobe*ed their order7 that he did not hit Barbosa
an*ore because the latter was alread* dead7 that it was his co-accused who actuall* 3illed the
three victis. A)ain, the declarations of the prosecution witnesses, which were accorded full
credence b* the trial court, e(pose the )uilt of $actora be*ond reasonable doubt. In fact,
accordin) to Pineda, whose testion* was corroborated b* Mara*oc, it was $actora who started
the ass assault b* clubbin) Carrie)o treacherousl*. $ontillas, 2alili, Pabarlan and Espino
pointed to $actora as one of the 3illers of Barbosa, while at least three prosecution witnesses,
nael*, Pabarlan, $ontillas and Espino, saw $actora participate in the sla*in) of 5antos Cru%.
.he active participation of $actora in the 3illin), which is clear inde( of voluntariness, thus
ne)ates his clai of copulsion and fear alle)edl* en)endered b* his co-accused.
An)el Paruo), Dervasio Carita and $lorencio Cuna ta3e refu)e in the e(culpator* device of
alibi. Paruo) testified that he did not participate in the 3illin) of the three inates because he
sta*ed durin) that entire hapless da* in the office of the trustees for investi)ation after the fi)ht
in the pla(a7 that he was iplicated in the 3illin) b* the prosecution witnesses because of his
refusal to accede to their re=uest to testif* a)ainst his co-accused7 that he is not a @isa*an but a
.a)alo) fro Nueva Eci&a. Carita clais that he did not 3now about the 3illin) until he was
infored that three inates had died7 that on the da* in =uestion he was brou)ht to the police
trustee bri)ade for investi)ation after the incident in the pla(a7 that he was escorted bac3 to his
bri)ade onl* in the afternoon. Cuna li3ewise disclais an* 3nowled)e of the 3illin) and asserts
that for the entire duration of the riot he reained in his cell 'bri)ade :-A,.
.he alibis of Paruo), Carita and Cuna erit no credence when set a)ainst the positive
testionies of prosecution witness identif*in) the as participants in the 3illin) of Barbosa and
5antos Cru%. Pabarlan, Espino and $ontillas declared that Carita was one of the 3illers of
Barbosa7 Espino and $ontillas declared that the* saw Carita 3ill 5antos Cru%7 Pabarlan, 2alili
and Espino testified that the* saw Paruo) participate in the urder of Barbosa7 Espino,
$ontillas and Pabarlan stated that Paruo) too3 part in the 3illin) of 5antos Cru%. Pabarlan and
2alili declared that Cuna participated in the fatal assault on Barbosa and 5antos Cru%.
.he alibis of the accused are thus sufficientl* overcoe b* stron) evidence to the contrar*. .he
defense of alibi is )enerall* wea3 since it is eas* to concoct. $or this reason, courts view it with
no sall aount of caution, and accept it onl* when proved b* positive, clear and satisfactor*
evidence.
-
In the case at bar, if Paruo) and Carita were reall* confined in the police trustee
bri)ade for investi)ation on the da* of the incident, there should have been a record of the
alle)ed investi)ation. But none was presented. .he testion* of Cuna that throu)hout the riot he
sta*ed in his cell is =uite unnatural. 2e clais that he did not even help his cellates barricade
their bri)ade with tarimas in order to dela* if not prevent the entr* of the invadin) inates.
Accordin) to hi, he >&ust waited in one corner.>
.he rule is settled that the defense of alibi is worthless in the face of positive identification b*
prosecution witnesses pointin) to the accused as particeps criminis.
!
Moreover, the defense of
alibi is an issue of fact the resolution of which depends alost entirel* on the credibilit* of
witnesses who see3 to establish it. In this respect the relative wei)ht which the trial &ud)e
accords to the testion* of the witnesses ust, unless patentl* inconsistent without evidence on
record, be accepted.
1
In the case at bar, the trial court, in disissin) the alibis of Paruo), Carita
and Cuna, said that >their ere denial cannot prevail over the positive testion* of the witnesses
who saw the participate directl* in the e(ecution of the conspirac*to 3ill Barbosa, Carrie)o and
5antos Cru%.>
.he 3illin) of Carrie)o constitutes the offense of urder because of the presence of treacher* as
a =ualif*in) circustance/ Carrie)o was clubbed b* $actora fro behind, and as he la* prostrate
and defenseless, Peralta and Aosal stabbed hi repeatedl* on the chest. .he blow on the nape
and the penetratin) chest wounds were all fatal, accordin) to Ar. Bartoloe Miraflor. Abuse of
superior stren)th =ualified the 3illin) of Barbosa and 5antos Cru% to the cate)or* of urder. .he
victis, who were attac3ed individuall* were copletel* overwheled b* their assailantsF
superiorit* in nuber and weapons and had absolutel* no chance at all to repel or elude the
attac3. All the attac3ers were ared with clubs or sharp instruents while the victis were
unared, as so found b* the trial court. In fact, 2alili testified that Barbosa was clubbed and
stabbed to death while he was tr*in) to hide under a cot, and 5antos Cru% was 3illed while he
was on his 3nees pleadin) for his life.
.he essential issue that ne(t confronts us is whether conspirac* attended the coission of the
urders. .he resolution of this issue is of ar3ed iportance because upon it depends the
=uantit* and =ualit* of the penalties that ust be iposed upon each of the appellants.
$or this purpose, it is not aiss to briefl* restate the doctrine on conspirac*, with particular
ephasis on the facets relatin) to its nature, the =uantu of proof re=uired, the scope and e(tent
of the criinal liabilit* of the conspirators, and the penalties iposable b* andate of applicable
law.
$octrine. A conspirac* e(ists when two or ore persons coe to an a)reeent concernin) the
coission of a felon* and decide to coit it.
0
Denerall*, conspirac* is not a crie e(cept
when the law specificall* provides a penalt* therefor as in treason,
+"
rebellion
++
and sedition.
+8

.he crie of conspirac* 3nown to the coon law is not an indictable offense in the
Philippines.
+9
An a)reeent to coit a crie is a reprehensible act fro the view-point of
oralit*, but as lon) as the conspirators do not perfor overt acts in furtherance of their
alevolent desi)n, the soverei)nt* of the 5tate is not outra)ed and the tran=uilit* of the public
reains undisturbed. 2owever, when in resolute e(ecution of a coon schee, a felon* is
coitted b* two or ore alefactors, the e(istence of a conspirac* assues pivotal iportance
in the deterination of the liabilit* of the perpetrators. In stressin) the si)nificance of conspirac*
in criinal law, this Court in *.S. vs. Infante and 'arreto
+:
opined that
Ehile it is true that the penalties cannot be iposed for the ere act of conspirin) to
coit a crie unless the statute specificall* prescribes a penalt* therefor, nevertheless
the e(istence of a conspirac* to coit a crie is in an* cases a fact of vital
iportance, when considered to)ether with the other evidence of record, in establishin)
the e(istence, of the consuated crie and its coission b* the conspirators.
<nce an e(press or iplied conspirac* is proved, all of the conspirators are liable as co-
principals re)ardless of the e(tent and character of their respective active participation in the
coission of the crie or cries perpetrated in furtherance of the conspirac* because in
conteplation of law t+e act of one is t+e act of all.
+#
.he fore)oin) rule is anchored on the
sound principle that >when two or ore persons unite to accoplish a criinal ob&ect, whether
throu)h the ph*sical volition of one, or all, proceedin) severall* or collectivel*, each individual
whose evil will activel* contributes to the wron)-doin) is in law responsible for the whole, the
sae as thou)h perfored b* hiself alone.>
+-
Althou)h it is a(ioatic that no one is liable for
acts other than his own, >when two or ore persons a)ree or conspire to coit a crie, each is
responsible for all the acts of the others, done in furtherance of the a)reeent or conspirac*.>
+!

.he iposition of collective liabilit* upon the conspirators is clearl* e(plained in one case
+1

where this Court held that
... it is ipossible to )raduate the separate liabilit* of each 'conspirator, without ta3in)
into consideration the close and inseparable relation of each of the with the criinal
act, for the coission of which the* all acted b* coon a)reeent ... .he crie ust
therefore in view of the solidarit* of the act and intent which e(isted between the ...
accused, be re)arded as the act of the band or part* created b* the, and the* are all
e=uall* responsible ...
@eril*, the oent it is established that the alefactors conspired and confederated in the
coission of the felon* proved, collective liabilit* of the accused conspirators attaches b*
reason of the conspirac*, and the court shall not speculate nor even investi)ate as to the actual
de)ree of participation of each of the perpetrators present at the scene of the crie. <f course, as
to an* conspirator who was reote fro the situs of a))ression, he could be drawn within the
envelopin) abit of the conspirac* if it be proved that throu)h his oral ascendanc* over the
rest of the conspirators the latter were oved or ipelled to carr* out the conspirac*.
In fine, the conver)ence of the wills of the conspirators in the schein) and e(ecution of the
crie apl* &ustifies the iputation to all of the the act of an* one of the. It is in this li)ht
that conspirac* is )enerall* viewed not as a separate indictable offense, but a rule for
collectivi%in) criinal liabilit*.
.he ensnarin) nature of conspirac* is pro&ected in bold relief in the cases of alversation and
rape coitted in furtherance of a coon desi)n.
.he crie of alversation is )enerall* coitted b* an accountable public officer who
isappropriates public funds or public propert* under his trust.
+0
2owever, in the classic case of
eople vs. onte
8"
this Court une=uivocall* held that a &anitor and five unicipal policeen, all
of who were not accountable public officers, who conspired and aided a unicipal treasurer in
the alversation of public funds under the latterFs custod*, were principall* liable with the said
unicipal treasurer for the crie of alversation. B* reason of conspirac*, the felonious act of
the accountable public officer was iputable to his co-conspirators, althou)h the latter were not
siilarl* situated with the forer in relation to the ob&ect of the crie coitted. $urtherore,
in the words of Droi%ard, >the private part* does not act independentl* fro the public officer7
rather, he 3nows that the funds of which he wishes to )et possession are in the latterFs char)e,
and instead of tr*in) to abstract the b* circuventin) the otherFs vi)ilance he resorts to
corruption, and in the officerFs unfaithfulness see3s and finds the ost reprehensible eans of
accoplishin) a deed which b* havin) a public officer as its oral instruent assues the
character of a social crie.>
8+
In an earlier case
88
a non-accountable officer of the Philippine
Constabular* who conspired with his superior, a ilitar* suppl* officer, in the alversation of
public funds was ad&ud)ed )uilt* as co-principal in the crie of alversation, althou)h it was
not alle)ed, and in fact it clearl* appeared, that the funds isappropriated were not in his custod*
but were under the trust of his superior, an accountable public officer.
In rape, a conspirator is )uilt* not onl* of the se(ual assault he personall* coits but also of
the separate and distinct cries of rape perpetrated b* his co-conspirators. 2e a* have had
carnal 3nowled)e of the offended woan onl* once but his liabilit* includes that pertainin) to
all the rapes coitted in furtherance of the conspirac*. .hus, in eople vs. Villa,
89
this Court
held that
... fro the acts perfored b* the defendants front the tie the* arrived at ConsolacionFs
house to the consuation of the offense of rape on her person b* each and ever*one of
the, it clearl* appears that the* conspired to)ether to rape their victi, and therefore
each one is responsible not onl* for the rape coitted personall* b* hi, but also that
coitted b* the others, because each se(ual intercourse had, throu)h force, b* each one
of the defendants with the offended was consuated separatel* and independentl* fro
that had b* the others, for which each and ever* one is also responsible because of the
conspirac*.
.he rule enunciated in eople vs. Villa was reiterated in eople vs. ,uitain
8:
where the appellant
.eofilo Anchita was convicted of forcible abduction with double rape for havin) conspired and
cooperated in the se(ual assault of the a))rieved woan, althou)h he hiself did not actuall*
rape the victi. .his Court observed/
Ee have no doubt all in all that .eofilo Anchita too3 part in the se(ual assault ... the
accused inserted his fin)ers in the woanFs or)an, and widened it. Ehether he acted out
of lewdness or to help his brother-in-law consuate the act, is iaterial7 it was both
a*be. Het, surel*, b* his conduct, this prisoner conspired and cooperated, and is )uilt*.
Eith respect to robber* in band, the law presues the attendance of conspirac* so uch so that
>an* eber of a band who is present at the coission of a robber* b* the band, shall be
punished as principal of an* of the assaults coitted b* the band, unless it be shown that he
attepted to prevent the sae.>
8#
In this instance, conspirac* need not be proved, as lon) as the
e(istence of a band is clearl* established. Nevertheless, the liabilit* of a eber of the band for
the assaults coitted b* his )roup is li3ewise anchored on the rule that the act of one is the act
of all.
roof of conspirac-. Ehile conspirac* to coit a crie ust be established b* positive
evidence,
8-
direct proof is not essential to show conspirac*.
8!
5ince b* it nature, conspirac* is
planned in utost secrec*, it can seldo be proved b* direct evidence.
81
Conse=uentl*,
copetent and convincin) circustantial evidence will suffice to establish conspirac*.
Accordin) to eople vs. %abrera,
80
conspiracies are )enerall* proved b* a nuber of indefinite
acts, conditions, and circustances which var* accordin) to the purposes to be accoplished. If
it be proved that the defendants pursued b* their acts the sae ob&ect, one perforin) one part
and another another part of the sae, so as to coplete it, with a view to the attainent of the
sae ob&ect, one will be &ustified in the conclusion that the* were en)a)ed in a conspirac* to
effect the ob&ect.> <r as elucidated in eople vs. %arbonel
9"
the presence of the concurrence of
inds which is involved in conspirac* a* be inferred fro >proofs of facts and circustances
which, ta3en to)ether, apparentl* indicate that the* are erel* parts of soe coplete whole. If
it is proved that two or ore persons aied b* their acts towards the accoplishent of the
sae unlawful ob&ect, each doin) a part so that their acts, thou)h apparentl* independent, were
in fact connected and cooperative, indicatin) a closeness of personal association and a
concurrence of sentient, a conspirac* a* be inferred thou)h no actual eetin) aon) to
concert eans is proved ...> In two recent cases,
9+
this Court ruled that where the acts of the
accused, collectivel* and individuall*, clearl* deonstrate the e(istence of a coon desi)n
toward the accoplishent of the sae unlawful purpose, conspirac* is evident.
Conspirac* presupposes the e(istence of a preconceived plan or a)reeent7 however, to establish
conspirac*, >it is not essential that there be proof as to previous a)reeent to coit a crie, it
bein) sufficient that the alefactors coitted shall have acted in concert pursuant to the sae
ob&ective.>
98
2ence, conspirac* is proved if there is convincin) evidence to sustain a findin) that
the alefactors coitted an offense in furtherance of a coon ob&ective pursued in concert.
#iabilit- of conspirators. A tie-honored rule in the corpus of our &urisprudence is that once
conspirac* is proved, all of the conspirators who acted in furtherance of the coon desi)n are
liable as co-principals.
99
.his rule of collective criinal liabilit* eanates fro the ensnarin)
nature of conspirac*. .he concerted action of the conspirators in consuatin) their coon
purpose is a patent displa* of their evil partnership, and for the conse=uences of such criinal
enterprise the* ust be held solidarit* liable.
2owever, in order to hold an accused )uilt* as co-principal b* reason of conspirac*, it ust be
established that he perfored an overt act in furtherance of the conspirac*, either b* activel*
participatin) in the actual coission of the crie, or b* lendin) oral assistance to his co-
conspirators b* bein) present at the scene of the crie, or b* e(ertin) oral ascendanc* over the
rest of the conspirators as to ove the to e(ecutin) the conspirac*. .he difference between an
accused who is a principal under an* of the three cate)ories enuerated in Art. +! of the Revised
Penal Code and a co-conspirator who is also a principal is that while the forerFs criinal
liabilit* is liited to his own acts, as a )eneral rule, the latterFs responsibilit* includes the acts of
his fellow conspirators.
In eople vs. I(on! et al.,
9:
this Court ac=uitted appellant $rancisco Robles, 4r., who was
convicted b* the trial court of robber* with hoicide as a conspirator, on the )round that
althou)h he a* have been present when the conspirac* to rob was proposed and ade, >Robles
uttered not a word either of approval or disapproval. .here are authorities to the effect that ere
presence at the discussion of a conspirac*, even approval of it, without an* active participation in
the sae, is not enou)h for purposes of conviction.> In a ore recent case,
9#
this Court, in
e(oneratin) one of the appellants, said/
.here is aple and positive evidence on record that appellant 4ose Duico was absent not
onl* fro the second eetin) but li3ewise fro the robber* itself. .o be sure, not even
the decision under appeal deterined otherwise. Conse=uentl*, even if DuicoFs
participation in the first eetin) sufficientl* involved hi with the conspirac* 'as he was
the one who e(plained the location of the house to be robbed in relation to the
surroundin) streets and the points thereof throu)h which entrance and e(it should be
effected,, such participation and involveent, however, would be inade=uate to render
hi criinall* liable as a conspirator. Conspirac* alone, without the e(ecution of its
purpose, is not a crie punishable b* law, e(cept in special instances 'Article 1, Revised
Penal Code, which, however, do not include robber*.
Imposition of multiple penalties w+ere conspirators commit more t+an one offense. 5ince in
conspirac*, the act of one is the act of all, then, perforce, each of the conspirators is liable for all
of the cries coitted in furtherance of the conspirac*. Conse=uentl*, if the conspirators
coit three separate and distinct cries of urder in effectin) their coon desi)n and
purpose, each of the is )uilt* of three urders and shall suffer the correspondin) penalt* for
each offense. .hus in eople vs. .asin,
9-
this Court held/
... it bein) alle)ed in the inforation that three cries were coitted not
siultaneousl* indeed but successivel*, inasuch as there was, at least, solution of
continuit* between each other, t+e accused /seven in all0 s+ould be +eld responsible for
said crimes. .his court holds that the cries are urder ... In view of all these
circustances and of the fre=uentl* reiterated doctrine that once conspirac* is proven
each and ever* one of the conspirators ust answer for the acts of the others, provided
said acts are the result of the coon plan or purpose ... it would see evident that t+e
penalt- t+at s+ould be imposed upon eac+ of t+e appellants for eac+ of t+eir crimes
s+ould be t+e same, and this is the death penalt* ... 'ephasis supplied,.
In the aforesaid case, however, the pro&ected iposition of three death penalties upon each of the
conspirators for the three urders coitted was not carried out due to the lac3 of the then
re=uisite unaniit* in the iposition of the capital penalt*.
In another case,
9!
this Court, after findin) that conspirac* attended the coission of eleven
urders, said throu)h Mr. 4ustice .uason/
5oe ebers of this Court opine that the proper penalt* is death, under the
circustances of the case, but the* fall short of the re=uired nuber for the iposition of
this punishent. .he sentence conse=uentl* is reclusion perpetua7 but eac+ appellant is
guilt- of as man- crimes of murder as t+ere were deat+s /eleven0 and s+ould be
sentenced to life imprisonment for eac+ crime, althou)h this a* be a useless foralit*
for in no case can iprisonent e(ceed fort* *ears. 'Ephasis supplied.,
In eople vs. .asani,
91
the decision of the trial court iposin) onl* one life iprisonent for
each of the accused was odified b* this Court on appeal on the )round that >inasuch as their
'the conspiratorsF, cobined attac3 resulted in the 3illin) of three persons, the* should be
sentenced to suffer said penalt* 'reclusion perpetua, for eac+ of t+e t+ree victims 'cries,.>
'Ephasis supplied.,
It is si)nificant to note that in the aboveentioned cases, this Court consistentl* stressed that
once conspirac* is ascertained, the culpabilit* of the conspirators is not onl* solidar* 'all co-
principals, but also ultiple in relation to the nuber of felonies coitted in furtherance of the
conspirac*. It can also be said that had there been a unanious Court in the .asin and .acaso
cases, ultiple death penalties would have been iposed upon all the conspirators.
#egalit- and practicalit- of imposing multiple deat+ penalties upon conspirators. An accused
who was char)ed with three distinct cries of urder in a sin)le inforation was sentenced to
two death penalties for two urders,
90
and another accused to thirteen '+9, separate death
penalties for the +9 3illin)s he perpetrated.
:"
.herefore there appears to be no le)al reason wh*
conspirators a* not be sentenced to ultiple death penalties correspondin) to the nature and
nuber of cries the* coit in furtherance of a conspirac*. 5ince it is the settled rule that once
conspirac* is established, the act of one conspirator is attributable to all, then each conspirator
ust be held liable for each of the felonious acts coitted as a result of the conspirac*,
re)ardless of the nature and severit* of the appropriate penalties prescribed b* law.
.he rule on the iposition of ultiple penalties where the accused is found )uilt* of two or ore
separate and distinct cries char)ed in one inforation, the accused not havin) interposed an*
ob&ection to the ultiplicit* of the char)es, was enunciated in the leadin) case of *.S. vs.
'alaba,
:+
thus/ ;pon conviction of two or ore offenses char)ed in the coplaint or
inforation, the prescribed penalties for each and all of such offenses a* be iposed, to be
e(ecuted in conforit* with the provisions of article 1! of the Penal Code Inow article !" of the
Revised Penal CodeJ. In other words, all the penalties correspondin) to the several violations of
law should be iposed. Conviction for ultiple felonies deands the iposition of ultiple
penalties.
.he two conceptual e(ceptions to the fore)oin) rule, are the cople( crie under article :1 of
the Revised Penal Code and the special cople( crie 'li3e robber* with hoicide,. Anent an
ordinar* cople( crie fallin) under article :1, re)ardless of the ultiplicit* of offenses
coitted, there is onl* one iposable penalt* B the penalt* for the ost serious offense
applied in its a(iu period. 5iilarl*, in special cople( cries, there is but a sin)le penalt*
prescribed b* law notwithstandin) the nuber of separate felonies coitted. $or instance, in
the special cople( crie of robber* with hoicide the iposible penalt* is reclusion
perpetua to death
:8
irrespective of the nuber of hoicides perpetrated b* reason or on occasion
of the robber*.
In 'alaba, the inforation char)ed the accused with triple urder. .he accused went to trial
without ob&ection to the said inforation which char)ed hi with ore than one offense. .he
trial court found the accused )uilt* of two urders and one hoicide but it iposed onl* one
death penalt*. In its review en consulta, this Court odified the &ud)ent b* iposin) separate
penalties for each of the three offenses coitted. .he Court, thru Mr. 4ustice Carson 'with Mr.
4ustice Malcol dissentin) with respect to the iposition of two death penalties,, held/
.he trial &ud)e was erroneousl* of the opinion that the prescribed penalties for the
offenses of which the accused was convicted should be iposed in accord with the
provisions of article 10 of the Penal Code. .hat article is onl* applicable to cases wherein
a sin)le act constitutes two or ore cries, or when one offense is a necessar* eans for
coittin) the other. ';.5. vs. $errer, + Phil. Rep., #-,
It becoes our dut*, therefore, to deterine what penalt* or penalties should have been
iposed upon the accused upon conviction of the accused of three separate felonies
char)ed in the inforation.
.here can be no reasonable doubt as to the )uilt of the convict of two separate cries of
asesinato 'urder, ar3ed with the )eneric a))ravatin) circustances entioned in the
decision of the trial &ud)e ... It follows that the death penalt* ust and should be iposed
for each of these offenses ...
;nless the accused should be ac=uitted hereafter on appeal of one or both the asesinatos
with which he is char)ed in the inforation, it would see to be a useless foralit* to
ipose separate penalties for each of the offenses of which he was convicted, in view of
the nature of the principal penalt*7 but havin) in ind the possibilit* that the Chief
E(ecutive a* dee it proper to )rant a pardon for one or ore of the offenses without
ta3in) action on the others7 and havin) in ind also the e(press provisions of the above
cited article 1! of the Penal Code, we dee it proper to odif* the &ud)ent entered in
the court below b* substitutin) for the penalt* iposed b* the trial &ud)e under the
provisions of article 10 of the Code, t+e deat+ penalt- prescribed b- law for eac+ of t+e
two separate asesinatos of w+ic+ +e stands convicted, and the penalt* of +: *ears, 1
onths and + da* of reclusion temporal 'for the separate crie of hoicide, ... these
separate penalties to be e(ecuted in accord with the provisions of article 1! of the Penal
Code. 'Ephasis supplied.,
.he doctrine in 'alaba was reiterated in *.S. vs. Jamad
:9
where a unanious Court, spea3in)
a)ain thru Mr. 4ustice Carson 'with Mr. 4ustice Malcol concurrin) in the result in view of the
'alaba rulin),, opined/
$or all the offenses of which the accused were convicted in the court below, the trial
&ud)e iposed the death penalt*, that is to sa* the penalt* prescribed for the ost serious
crie coitted, in its a(iu de)ree, and for this purpose ade use of the provisions
of article 10 of the Penal Code Inow article :1 of the Revised Penal CodeJ. But as
indicated in the case of the *nited States vs. 'alaba, recentl* decided wherein the
controllin) facts were substantiall* siilar to those in the case at bar, >all of the penalties
correspondin) to the several violations of law> should have been iposed under the
e(press provisions of article 1! Inow en)rafted in article !" of the Revised Penal CodeJ
and under the rulin) in that case, the trial court erred in appl*in) the provision of article
10 of the code.
Ee conclude that the &ud)ent entered in the court below should be reversed, ... and that
the followin) separate penalties should be iposed upon hi Ithe accused 4aadJ, to be
e(ecuted in accordance with article 1! of the Penal Code/ '+, .he penalt* of death for the
parricide of his wife Arin)7 '8, the penalt* of life iprisonent for the urder of
Cabonete7 '9, the penalt* of life iprisonent for the urder of .orres7 ':, the penalt* of
+8 *ears and one da* of cadena temporal for the frustrated urder of .aclind ...
.he doctrine in 'alaba was reechoed in eople vs. Gu(man,
::
which applied the pertinent
provisions of the Revised Penal Code, where this Court, after findin) the accused liable as co-
principals because the* acted in conspirac*, proceeded to stress that where an >inforation
char)es the defendants with the coission of several cries of urder and frustrated urder,
as the* failed to ob&ect to the ultiplicit* of the char)es ade in the inforation, t+e- can be
found guilt- t+ereof and sentenced accordingl- for as man- crimes t+e information c+arges
t+em, provided that the* are dul* established and proved b* the evidence on record.> 'Ephasis
supplied.,
.he le)al and statutor* &ustification advanced b* the a&orit* in 'alaba for iposin) all the
penalties 'two deaths and one life iprisonent, correspondin) to the offense char)ed and
proved was article 1! of the old Penal Code which provided/
Ehen a person is found )uilt* of two or ore felonies or isdeeanors, all the penalties
correspondin) to the several violations of law shall be iposed, the sae to be
siultaneousl* served, if possible, accordin) to the nature and effects of such penalties.
in relation to article 11 of the old Code which read/
Ehen all or an* of the penalties correspondin) to the several violations of the law can not
be siultaneousl* e(ecuted, the followin) rules shall be observed with re)ard thereto/
+. In the iposition of the penalties, the order of their respective severit* shall be
followed so that the* a* be e(ecuted successivel* or as nearl* as a* be possible,
should a pardon have been )ranted as to the penalt* or penalties first iposed, or should
the* have been served out.
.he essence and lan)ua)e, with soe alterations in for and in the words used b* reason of
st*le, of the above-cited provisions have been preserved in article !" of the Revised Penal Code
which is the product of the er)er of articles 1! and 11 of the old Penal Code. Article !"
provides/
Ehen the culprit has to serve two or ore penalties, he shall serve the siultaneousl* if
the nature of the penalties will so perit7 otherwise, the followin) rules shall be
observed/
In the iposition of the penalties, the order of their respective severit* shall be followed
so that the* a* be e(ecuted successivel* or as nearl* as a* be possible, should a
pardon have been )ranted as to the penalt* or penalties first iposed, or should the* have
been served out.
Althou)h article !" does not specificall* coand, as the forer article 1! clearl* did, that >all
the penalties correspondin) to the several violations of law shall be iposed,> it is unista3able,
however, that article !" presupposes that courts have the power to ipose ultiple penalties,
which ultiple penal sanctions should be served either siultaneousl* or successivel*. .his
presuption of the e(istence of &udicial power to ipose all the penalties correspondin) to the
nuber and nature of the offenses char)ed and proved is anifest in the openin) sentence of
article !"/ >1+en t+e culprit +as to serve two or more penalties, he shall serve the
siultaneousl* if the nature of the penalties will so perit ...> 'Ephasis supplied., <bviousl*,
the two or ore penalties which the culprit has to serve are those le)all* iposed b* the proper
court. Another reference to the said &udicial prero)ative is found in the second para)raph of
article !" which provides that >in the imposition of the penalties, the order of their respective
severit* shall be followed ...> Even without the authorit* provided b* article !", courts can still
ipose as an* penalties as there are separate and distinct offenses coitted, since for ever*
individual crie coitted, a correspondin) penalt* is prescribed b* law. Each sin)le crie is
an outra)e a)ainst the 5tate for which the latter, thru the courts of&ustice, has the power to
ipose the appropriate penal sanctions.
Eith respect to the iposition of ultiple death penalties, there is no statutor* prohibition or
&urisprudential in&unction a)ainst it. <n the contrar*, article !" of the Revised Penal Code
presues that courts have the power to ete out ultiple penalties without distinction as to the
nature and severit* of the penalties. Moreover, our &urisprudence supports the iposition of
ultiple death penalties as initiall* advocated in 'alaba and thunderousl* reechoed in Sala(ar
where the accused was sentenced on appeal to thirteen '+9, death penalties. 5i)nificantl*, the
Court in 'alaba iposed upon the sin)le accused i(ed ultiple penalties of two deaths and
one life iprisonent.
.he iposition of ultiple death penalties is decried b* soe as a useless foralit*, an e(ercise
in futilit*. It is contended, undeniabl* enou)h, that a death convict li3e all ortals, has onl* one
life to forfeit. And because of this ph*siolo)ical and biolo)ical attribute of an, it is reasoned
that the iposition of ultiple death penalties is ipractical and futile because after the service
of one capital penalt*, the e(ecution of the rest of the death penalties will naturall* be rendered
ipossible. .he fore)oin) opposition to the ultiple iposition of death penalties suffers fro
four basic flaws/ '+, it fails to consider the le)alit* of iposin) ultiple capital penalties7 '8, it
fails to distin)uish between iposition of penalt* and service of sentence7 '9, it i)nores the fact
that ultiple death sentences could be served siultaneousl*7 and ':, it overloo3s the practical
erits of iposin) ultiple death penalties.
.he imposition of a penalt- and the service of sentence are two distinct, thou)h related, concepts.
.he iposition of the proper penalt* or penalties is deterined b* the nature, )ravit* and
nuber of offenses char)ed and, proved, whereas service of sentence is deterined b* the
severit* and character of the penalt* or penalties iposed. In the iposition of the proper penalt*
or penalties, the court does not concern itself with the possibilit* or practicalit* of the service of
the sentence, since actual service is a contin)enc* sub&ect to varied factors li3e successful escape
of the convict, )rant of e(ecutive cleenc* or natural death of the prisoner. All that )o into the
iposition of the proper penalt* or penalties, to reiterate, are the nature, )ravit* and nuber of
the offenses char)ed and proved and the correspondin) penalties prescribed b* law.
Multiple death penalties are not ipossible to serve because the* will have to be e(ecuted
siultaneousl*. A cursor* readin) of article !" will show that there are onl* two odes of
servin) two or ore 'ultiple, penalties/ simultaneousl- or successivel-. .he first rule is that
two or ore penalties shall be served siultaneousl* if the nature of the penalties will so perit.
In the case of ultiple capital penalties, the nature of said penal sanctions does not onl* perit
but actuall* necessitates siultaneous service.
.he iposition of ultiple death penalties, far fro bein) a useless foralit*, has practical
iportance. .he sentencin) of an accused to several capital penalties is an indelible bad)e of his
e(tree criinal perversit*, which a* not be accuratel* pro&ected b* the iposition of onl*
one death sentence irrespective of the nuber of capital felonies for which he is liable. 5howin)
thus the reprehensible character of the convict in its real diensions, the possibilit* of a )rant of
e(ecutive cleenc* is &ustifiabl* reduced in no sall easure. 2ence, the iposition of ultiple
death penalties could effectivel* serve as a deterrent to an iprovident )rant of pardon or
coutation. $aced with the utter delin=uenc* of such a convict, the proper penitentiar*
authorities would e(ercise &udicious restraint in recoendin) cleenc* or lenienc* in his
behalf.
Drantin), however, that the Chief E(ecutive, in the e(ercise of his constitutional power to pardon
'one of the presidential prero)atives which is alost absolute, dees it proper to coute the
ultiple death penalties to ultiple life iprisonents, then the practical effect is that the
convict has to serve the a(iu of fort* ':", *ears of ultiple life sentences. If onl* one death
penalt* is iposed, and then is couted to life iprisonent, the convict will have to serve a
a(iu of onl* thirt* *ears correspondin) to a sin)le life sentence.
Reverting now to t+e case at bar, it is our considered view that the trial court correctl* ruled that
conspirac* attended the coission of the urders. Ee =uote with approval the followin)
incisive observations of the court a )uo in this respect/
Althou)h, there is no direct evidence of conspirac*, the Court can safel* sa* that there
are several circustances to show that the crie coitted b* the accused was planned.
.he followin) circustances show be*ond an* doubt the acts of conspirac*/ "irst, all
those who were 3illed, Barbosa, 5antos Cru% and Carrie)o, were .a)alo)s. Althou)h
there were an* .a)alo)s li3e the confined in Buildin) :, these three were sin)led out
and 3illed thereb* showin) that their 3illin) has been planned. Second, the accused were
all ared with iprovised weapons showin) that the* reall* prepared for the occasion.
T+ird! t+e accused accomplis+ed t+e 2illing wit+ team wor2 precision going from one
brigade to anot+er and attac2ing t+e same men w+om t+e- +ave previousl- mar2ed for
li)uidation and lastl-! almost t+e same people too2 part in t+e 2illing of %arriego!
'arbosa and Santos %ru(.
It is also iportant to note that all the accused were inates of bri)ade :-A7 that all were fro
either the @isa*as or Mindanao e(cept Peralta who is fro Masbate and Paruo) who hails
fro Nueva Eci&a7 that all were either ><?<> ebers or s*pathi%ers7 and that all the victis
were ebers of the >5i)ue-5i)ue> )an).
.he evidence on record proves be*ond peradventure that the accused acted in concert fro the
oent the* bolted their coon bri)ade, up until the tie the* 3illed their last victi, 5antos
Cru%. Ehile it is true that Paruo), Carita and Cuna did not participate in the actual 3illin) of
Carrie)o, nonetheless, as co-conspirators the* are e=uall* )uilt* and collectivel* liable for in
conspirac* the act of one is the act of all. It is not indispensable that a co-conspirator should ta3e
a direct part in ever* act and should 3now the part which the others have to perfor. Conspirac*
is the coon desi)n to coit a felon*7 it is not participation in all the details of the e(ecution
of the crie. All those who in one wa* or another help and cooperate in the consuation of a
felon* previousl* planned are co-principals.
:#
2ence, all of the si( accused are )uilt* of the
slau)hter of Carrie)o, Barbosa and 5antos Cru% B each is )uilt* of three separate and distinct
cries of urder.
Ee cannot a)ree, however, with the trial court that evident preeditation was also present. .he
facts on record and the established &urisprudence on the atter do not support the conclusion of
the court a )uo that evident preeditation >is alwa*s present and inherent in ever* conspirac*.>
Evident preeditation is not inherent in conspirac* as the absence of the forer does not
necessaril* ne)ate the e(istence of the latter.
:-
;nli3e in evident preeditation where a sufficient
period of tie ust elapse to afford full opportunit* for editation and reflection for the
perpetrator to deliberate on the conse=uences of his intended deed, conspirac* arises at the ver*
instant the plotters a)ree, e(pressl* or ipliedl*, to coit the felon* and forthwith decide to
coit it.
:!
.his view finds added support in eople vs. %ustodia,
:1
wherein this Court stated/
;nder noral conditions, where the act of conspirac* is directl* established, with proof
of the attendant deliberation and selection of the ethod, tie and eans of e(ecutin)
the crie, the e(istence of evident preeditation can be ta3en for )ranted. In the case
before us, however, no such evidence e(ists7 the conspirac* is erel* inferred fro the
acts of the accused in the perpetration of the crie. .here is no proof how and when the
plan to 3ill Melanio Balancio was hatched, or what tie elapsed before it was carried out7
we are, therefore, unable to deterine if the appellants en&o*ed >sufficient tie between
its inception and its fulfillent dispassionatel* to consider and accept the conse=uences.>
'cf. People vs. Ban)u), #8 Phil. 0+., In other words, there is no showin) of the
opportunit* of reflection and the persistence in the criinal intent that characteri%e the
a))ravatin) circustance of evident preeditation 'People vs. Mendo%a, 0+ Phil. #17
People vs. Iturria)a, :! <ff. Da%., I5upp to No. +8J +--7 People vs. Cesada !" Phil., #8#.,
Not a sin)le e(tenuatin) circustance could be appreciated in favor of an* of the si( accused, as
the* did neither alle)e nor prove an*.
In view of the attendance of the special a))ravatin) circustance of )uasi-recidivism, as all of
the si( accused at the tie of the coission of the offenses were servin) sentences
:0
in the New
Bilibid Prison at Muntinlupa b* virtue of convictions b* final &ud)ents the penalt* for each
offense ust be iposed in its a(iu period, which is the andate of the first para)raph of
article +-" of the Revised Penal Code. @iada observes, in apposition, that the severe penalt*
iposed on a )uasi-recidivist is &ustified because of his perversit* and incorri)ibilit*.
#"
ACC<RAINDCH, the &ud)ent a )uo is hereb* odified as follows/ Aadeo Peralta, Andres
$actora, Ceonardo Aosal, An)el Paruo), Dervasio Carita and $lorencio Cuna are each
pronounced )uilt* of three separate and distinct cries of urder, and are each sentenced to
three death penalties7 all of the shall, &ointl* and severall*, indenif* the heirs of each of the
three deceased victis in the su of P+8,"""7
#+
each will pa* one-si(th of the costs.
%oncepcion! %.J.! Re-es! J.'.#.! $i(on! .a2alintal! Sanc+e(! %astro! Angeles! "ernando and
%apistrano! JJ.! concur.
3aldivar! J.! is on leave.