Criminal law 1 Conspiracy
G.R. No. 113708 October 26, 1999 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
ARQUILLOS TABUSO y SISTER @ BULAG, accused-appellant. PURISIMA, J.:
Facts: That on or about July 29, 1992, in the City of Manila, Philippine Philippines, s, the said accused, accused, conspirin conspiring g and confeder confederating ating with three three others others whose whose true names, identities identities and present present whereabo whereabouts uts are still still unknown, and helping one another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and felon feloniou iously sly,, with with intent intent to kill kill and with with treac treacher hery y and evide evident nt premed premedita itatio tion, n, attack attack,, assaul assaultt and use person personal al violen violence ce upon upon one ROBERTO BUGARIN Y PIGAR by shooting the latter with a gun hitting him on the right armpit and right shoulder, thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal gunshot wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his death thereafter. Issue: whether or not the presence of the person in the scene of the crime make him a co-conspirator, Held: Mendoza and appellant Tabuso are cousins. However, sole relationship does not necessarily make them conspirators, absent proof beyond reasonable doubt. Tabuso was in the scene of the crime. Finally, the prosecution further theorized that appellant acted as a lookou lookoutt during during the commiss commission ion of the felony. felony. But such a theory theory is incredible because Tabuso is known in Sevilla Street, Tondo, as "Bulag" or blind blind becaus because e of an eye eye defect defect.. Consid Consideri ering ng his deform deformity ity,, which which is undisputed, the Court entertains great doubts over his ability or efficacy to perform the role of a supposed lookout. Absent Absent enough enough evidence evidence to establish establish conspiracy, conspiracy, acquittal acquittal of accused-ap accused-appella pellant nt is in order since since his guilt has not been established established beyond reasonable doubt. G.R. No. 117267-117310 August 22, 1996 GENEROSO N. SUBAYCO, ALFREDO T. ALCALDE, and ELEUTERIO O. IBAÑEZ, petitioners, vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. PUNO, J.:p
Facts: The year was 1985, the month, September. The Marcos government was fast sliding into its sunset days. Yet, it was again set to celebrate with pomp, September 21, the day it proclaimed martial law
some thirteen (13) years ago. The people, however, were not in the mood to be joyous. They planned massive public protests in different parts of the country. One of the biggest protest rallies was blueprinted as a Welga ng Bayan at Escalante, Negros Occidental. It ended in tragedy which will not easily recede in the mist of our history. Twenty (20) demonstrators were shot dead and twenty-four (24) others were wounded by the military and para-military forces of the Marcos government. Of several persons charged with various counts of murder and frustrated murder, only three (3) were convicted convicted — Generoso Generoso N. Subayco, Subayco, Alfredo Alfredo T. Alcalde Alcalde and Eleuteri Eleuterio o O. Ibañez were convicted by the respondentSandiganbayan. They now come to this Court insisting on their innocence and pleading to be set free. We deny their petition and we warn our military and police authorities that they cannot cannot shoot shoot people people who are exercisin exercising g their their right to peacefull peacefully y assemble and petition the government for redress of grievance. 1 As aforestated, twenty (20) demonstrators were killed and twentyfour (24) others were seriously wounded by gunshots during the Welga ng Bayan Bayan held on Septembe Septemberr 20, 1985 at Escalante Escalante,, Negros Negros Occidenta Occidental. l. Twenty (20) counts of Murder and twenty-four (24) counts of Frustrated Murder 2 were filed with respondent Sandiganbayanagainst Sandiganbayanagainst those allegedly responsible for the death and i njuries of the victims. Charged were several civilian government officials, personnel from the Philippine Constabulary and the Integrat Integrated ed National National Police, and from the para-milit para-military ary group Civilian Home Defense Force (CHDF), Issue: Whether respondent Sandiganbayan committed serious error of law in convicting the petitioners based merely on alleged implied conspiracy to perpetrate the crimes charged and not on clear, positive and convincing proof of conspiracy. Held: It was the thesis of the prosecution that the whole dispersal operation was an unlawful conspiracy, that the firing at the crowd was part of the dispersal operation, and that all those who took part in the dispersal operat operation ion should should be held held liable liable for each death death and each injury injury that resulted therefrom. On the basis of the evidence adduced and following its theory of implied conspiracy, the respondent Court held petitioners liable for the deaths deaths and injuries injuries of all the victims. victims. 12 It is this finding finding of implied implied conspiracy that petitioners assail in the petition at bar. Cons Conspi pira racy cy exis exists ts when when two two or more more pers person ons s come come to an agreement concerning concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. It may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was committ committed. ed. The concerted concerted acts of the petitioners petitioners to achieve achieve the same objective signify conspiracy. In the case of People vs.Guevarra, 14 we enunciated the doctrine of implied conspiracy as follows:
The act was impulsively done on the spur of the moment. It sprang from the turn of events, thereby uniting the criminal design of the slayer immediately before the commission of the offense . That is termed as implied conspiracy. The appellant's voluntary and indispensable cooperation was a concurrence of the criminal act to be executed. Consequently, he is a co-conspirator by indispensable cooperation, although the common desire or purpose was never bottled up by previous undertaking. This common purpose was pursued by the petitioners and their companions who used firepower against the rallyists. As proved, the plan to disperse the demonstrators did not include the use of guns, yet, petitioners and their cohorts did. At the first crack of gunfire coming from CHDF Alfredo Quinatagcan (a.k.a. Pidong Bagis), petitioners and their companions commenced firing at the demonstrators, as if on signal. They fired indiscriminately toward the demonstrators who were then already lying prone on the ground. There was no imminent danger to their safety. Not just one or a few shots were fired but several. The firing lasted a few minutes and cost the lives and limbs of the demonstrators. We agree with the respondent court that the collective acts of the petitioners and their companions clearly show the existence of a common design toward the accomplishment of a united purpose. They were therefore properly convicted for all the crimes they were charged with.
G.R. No. L-62359 November 14, 1991 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , plaintiff-appellee, vs.
RODOLFO BRAGAES, NESTOR NUMERON and GEMINA FESTIN, defendant-appellants. FERNAN, C.J.:p Facts: The information for murder filed with the lower court on January 26, 1981 states that in the poblacion of the municipality of Calatrava, province of Romblon, Bragaes alias Dupong, Numeron alias Mindanao Boy and Gemina Festin all conspired to kill Gabriel Fetalino and at 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon of February 24, 1980, with treachery and evident premeditation they assaulted him with a knife locally known as a "balisong" thereby inflicting on him a mortal wound which directly and immediately caused his untimely death. the prosecution established that Bragaes was employed in Numeron's operation of a "peryahan" gambling called "pula-puti" or "indian target." He lived in the house Numeron shared with his common-law wife Gemina in Calatrava. Fetalino, 59 years old, postmaster and community leader, was brought to the Romblon Provincial Hospital where he expired at around
12:30 in the early hour of February 25, 1980. His death certificate shows that he died of massive hemorrhage resulting from a stab wound at the right side of his back. 21 Issue : whether or not germina festin conspired with Numeron and Bragaes in the killing of Fetalino. Held: After trial, the court rendered the aforementioned decision convicting the three accused for the crime of murder.Citing People vs. Lanza it ruled out the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation in view of the incident preceding the stabbing and the absence of persistence of criminal intent. However, the trial court found that treachery was proven beyond reasonable doubt because Fetalino, who was unarmed, was suddenly and unexpectedly attacked from behind with a deadly weapon. Although the trial court ruled that there was conspiracy among the three accused, on the strength of the ruling in People vs. Nierra, it considered Gemina as only an accomplice ruling that her role in the perpetration of the crime was "of a minor character." Treachery was correctly considered by the trial court as a circumstance which attended the killing. As Fetalino was totally unprepared for the unexpected attack from his back and having no weapon to resist it, the stabbing cannot but be considered as treacherous. 56 The presence of treachery qualified the killing of Fetalino to murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. There is no proof that Gemina handed Bragaes the death weapon before the commission of the crime. The uncorroborated testimony of Cecilia Servañez that as Bragaes gave Gemina the knife, he said "Ito na ang ibinigay mo sa akin kanina, itago mo" may not be considered as proof beyond reasonable doubt that Gemina in fact gave Bragaes the knife to be used in stabbing Fetalino. We are not blind to the fact that it was Gemina's boisterous quarrel with Fetalino which triggered the chain of events leading to Fetalino's murder. However, the evidence at hand are simply not adequate to overcome the presumption that Gemina was innocent of the crime charged. Insofar as Rodolfo Bragaes is concerned the decision of the lower court imposing the penalty ofreclusion perpetua is hereby AFFIRMED subject to the modification that he shall indemnify the heirs of Gabriel Fetalino in the amount of P50,000 instead of P12,000. For lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt that she conspired with Rodolfo Bragaes and Nestor Numeron in the murder of Gabriel Fetalino, Gemina Faner-Festin is hereby ACQUITTED. No costs.
G.R. No. 130502-03 May 24, 2001 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
EMMANUEL TIGUMAN, MELECIA PAÑA, ROBERT BAYAN, JOHN DOE, and EFREN PAÑA (ACQUITTED), accused, EMMANUEL TIGUMAN and MELECIA PAÑA , accused–appellants. BUENA, J.:
Facts: On December 10, 1993, Jose Juanite, Sr. and his son Jose Juanite, Jr. were in their residence in San Pedro, Alegria, Surigao del Norte conversing with members of their family. When someone knocked on the door, ten-year old Teotimo Questo, Jr. opened it. Upon opening the door, a man suddenly burst in and fired at Jose Juanite, Sr. His son, Jose Juanite, Jr., rushed towards the door it close it but he was shot from the window by another man. The gunshot wounds sustained by both father and son caused their instantaneous deaths. In summary, insofar as the accused Melecia Paña is concerned. there is proof beyond reasonable doubt that, as a result exists on the part of said accused to caused the killing of Jose Juanieta, Sr. and Jose Juanieta, Jr.; that, on November 25, 1993, the accused Melecia Paña procured pictures of the said victims from prosecution witness Elena Siaboc; that, in the evening of December 8, 1993, the accused Melecia Paña, Emmanuel (Manny) Tiguman, Jose Bilboro Pomoy, Jr. a.k.a. Robert Bayan, and a certain Glen and Nonoy met in the Paña residence and there, they planned, the killing of the Juanites, during which occasion the accused Melecia Paña instructed Manny Tiguman and Robert Bayan, thus:'; that is all, ha? You will kill Jose Juanite, Sr. and Jose Juanite, Jr.; that the accused Melicia Paña handed the money to Manny Tiguman, saying: here is the money. This is one half of the total price, 'bahala na nimo' (it is up to you); and that, on January 2, 1994, the accused Melecia Paña and her husband, Efren Paña , invited prosecution witness Gemma Bacor to the formers residence and there, the Paña spouses convinced the latter to execute an affidavit that would declare that the persons, whom Gemma Bacor saw passing by her residence in the evening of December 10, 1993, after she learned gunshots, were children and not adults, contrary to what Gemma Bacor had actually seen. "From the facts thus proven, there is no doubt that the accused Melicia Paña induced her co-accused Emmanuel [Manny] Tiguman and Jose Bilboro Pomoy, Jr. (Robert Bayan) to kill Jose Juanite, Sr. and Jose Juanite, Jr. in the evening of December 10, 1993, at San Pedro, Alegria, Surigao del Norte."18 Issue: whether or not conspiracy is a joint act, there is nothing irregular if the supposed co-conspirator is acquitted and others convicted
Held: The trial court ruled that the crime committed was murder after finding that the killing were attended by treachery, evident premeditation, dwelling and price or reward. Only one aggravating circumstance is enough to qualify the killing to murder, the rest constitute generic aggravating circumstances. We agree with the trial court that treachery was proven since the "attack was sudden, unexpected, without warning, and without giving victims an opportunity to deafened themselves or repel the aggression, as in fact the deceased did not sense any danger that they would be shot by the assailants as there was no grudge and misunderstanding between them."19 Dwelling is also aggravating considering that the assailants were in the sanctity of their own home – which is perhaps the last bulwark of their safety. An unsuspecting knock on the door betrayed that trust of peace in the family who were only conversing. Dwelling, or morada, is aggravating when crime is committed in the dwelling of the offended party20 and the latter has not given provocation.21 Provocation in dwelling must be: (a) given by the offended party, (b) sufficient, and (c) immediate to the commission of the crime.22 no such provocation concurs herein. With respect to evident premeditation, the hiring of Tiguman to kill the victims for a price, providing the victims' picture and meeting to carry out the killing provide more than sufficient evidence to appreciate the same. As to the circumstance of price or reward, it can only be appreciated against appellant Tiguman since it was he who committed the felonious act for money. the same evidence on price established conspiracy between the appellants. Consequently the act of one is the act of all. The fact that the husband of appellant Paña, one of the alleged conspirators or induces in the killing, was acquitted of the charges does not put to doubt appellant's culpability. Thought conspiracy is a joint act, there is nothing irregular if the supposed co-conspirator is acquitted and others convicted. Generally, conspiracy is only a means by which a crime is committed as the mere act of conspiring is not by it self punishable. Hence, it does not follow that one person alone cannot be convicted when there is conspiracy. As long as the acquittal of a co-conspirator does not remove the basis of a charge of conspiracy, one defendant may be guilty of the offense.
G.R. No. 126168 March 7, 2001 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
ANTONIO SAMUDIO Y LORESTO, GERRY LUCERO, SENEN REAZON, and AUGUSTO BADORIA** , accused, ANTONIO SAMUDIO Y LORESTO, GERRY LUCERO and SENEN REAZON, accused-appellants. DE LEON, JR., J.: Facts:
