Article 8 (Conspiracy)

FERNAN JR. VS. PEOPLE (G.R. NO. 145927 AUGUST 24, 2007)
“CONSPIRACY: INFAMOUS 86 MILLION HIGHWAY SCAM”

Facts:
COA Regional Director solicited for the authentication and report on the sub-allotment advises issued to highway
engineering districts in Cebu particularly Cebu City, Cebu 1st, Cebu 2nd and Mandaue City Highway Engineering Districts.
Apparently, the two sets of Letters of Advice of Allotments (LAA) were received by the districts. One set consists of regular
LAA’s in authenticated and normally processed manner while the other set consists of fake LAA’s all of these were
approved for the Finance Officer by Chief Accountant Rolando Mangubat. Mangubat, however, had no authority to
approve them because he had already been detailed to the MPH Central Office. It was found out that the practice of using
fake LAA’s had been going on for years.

Four of the accused hatched an ingenious plan to siphon off large sums of money from the government coffers using fake
LAA’s, vouchers and other documents to conceal the traces.

The anti-graft court has found the case has merit and that Fernan Jr. and Expedito Torrevilas along with the other accused
guilty as co-principals in the crime of Estafa through falsification of Public Documents as defined and penalized in
Articles 318 and 171, in relation to Article 48 of the Revised Penal code, and there being no modifying circumstances in
attendance, sentenced each of them to imprisonment and payment of the penalties.

Issue:
Whether or not the honourable sandigan bayan erred in convicting petitioners as co-conspirators despite
the prosecution’s failure to specifically prove beyond reasonable doubt the facts and circumstances that would implicate
them as co-conspirators and justify their conviction.

Ruling:
No. The Sandigan Bayan has accurately ruled on conviction of the petitioners as co-conspirators in spite of the
prosecution’s failure to prove such. The court explained why direct proof of prior agreement is not necessary: “Secrecy
and concealment are essential features of a successful conspiracy. It may be inferred from the conduct of the accused
before, during and after the commission of the crime, showing that they had acted with a common purpose and design.
Conspiracy may be implied if it is proved that two or more persons aimed their acts toward the accomplishment of the
same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their combined acts, though apparently independent of each other, were
in fact, connected and cooperative, which indicates closeness of personal association and concurrence of sentiment. To
hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he must have shown to have performed a concerted act
to the furtherance of the common design and purpose.

Article 10

GO-TAN V. SPOUSES TAN, G.R. No. 168852

Applicability of the doctrine of conspiracy under the Revised Penal Code to R.A. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women
and Children Act of 2004)

Facts:
On April 18, 1999, Sharica Mari Go-Tan and Steven Tan were married. Out of this union, two female children were born,
Kyra Danielle and Kristen Denise. On January 12, 2005, barely six years into the marriage, petitioner Go-Tan filed a petition
with prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Protective Order (TPO) against Steven, in conspiracy with respondents, were
causing verbal, psychological, and economic abuses upon her in violation of Section 5, paragraphs (e) (2) (3) (4), (h) (5)
and (i) of Republic Act No. 9262.
Issue: Whether or not respondents-spouses, Perfecto and Juanita, parents-in-law of Sharica, may be included in the
petition for the issuance of a protective order, in accordance with RA 9262.

Held:
Yes, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner. While the provisions of RA 9262 provides that the offender be related or
connected to the victim by marriage, former marriage, or a sexual or dating relationship, it does not preclude the
application of the principle of conspiracy under the RPC. In Section 47 of RA 9262, it has expressly provides for the
suppletory application of the RPC. Hence, legal principles developed from the Penal Code may be applied in a
supplementary capacity to crimes punished under special laws, such as RA 9262 in which the special law is silent on a
particular matter.

Article 11

SELF DEFENSE

PEOPLE VS ABRAZALDO

FACTS: In July 1995, at about 10:00 in the evening, accused-appellant Abrazaldo, then intoxicated, attempted to hack his
uncle, Bernabe Quinto, but instead, hit the post of the latter’s house. The incident was reported to the barangay
authorities, prompting barangay tanods victim Guban, Fajardo, and Loceste to rush to the scene. Upon reaching the place,
Fajardo heard accused-appellant shouting at his uncle, ”I will kill you!”

Thereafter, he saw accused-appellant coming out of Quintos house with blood oozing from his forehead. At that time, the
place was well lighted by a fluorescent lamp. Guban tried to assist accused-appellant. However, for unknown reason,
accused-appellant and Guban shouted at each other and grappled face to face. Accused-appellant pulled out his knife,
stabbed Guban at the abdomen and ran away. Guban was rushed to the hospital but died after a few hours. The victim’s
father, testified that he was the one who spent for his sons funeral expenses.

On trial, the accused appellant invoked self defense saying that it was Guban who, armed with a knife, was the one who
attacked him. According to him, it was Guban who accidentally stabbed himself. However, accused-appellants very own
sister testified against him. The trial court appreciated treachery in the event and consequently found Abrazaldo guilty of
murder with the aggravating circumstances that the crime was committed while the public authorities were engaged in
the discharge of their duties and was committed at night-time. He was sentenced to suffer death and pay the heirs of
Guban their actual expenses.

ISSUE: Whether or not self-defense can be invoked by the accused-appellant

HELD: NO, Ingrained in jurisprudence is the doctrine that the plea of self-defense cannot be justifiably entertained where
it is not only uncorroborated by any separate competent evidence but in itself is extremely doubtful. In the present case,
accused-appellant’s showed ambivalence in invoking a melange of defenses. While he admitted the commission of the
crime in order to preserve his own life, he maintained that Guban accidentally stabbed himself. Certainly, the justifying
circumstance of self-defense or the exempting circumstance of accident cannot be appreciated considering accused-
appellants flight from the crime scene and his failure to inform the authorities of the incident. Furthermore, that he did
not surrender the knife to the authorities is inconsistent with a clean conscience and, instead, indicates his culpability of
the crime charged.