1) People vs.
Larranaga Bus Terminal where they met Alberto and Ariel, and
421 SCRA 530 February 3, 2004
FACTS:
On the rainy night of July 16, 1997, Marijoy and Jacqueline
Chiong, sisters, failed to come home on the expected time.
Two days after, a young woman was found dead at the foot
of a cliff in Tan-awan, Carcar Cebu. Her pants were torn,
her t-shirt was raised up to her breast and her bra was
pulled down. Her face and neck were covered with
masking tape, and attached to her left wrist was a
handcuff. The woman was identified as Marijoy. After
almost ten months, accused Davidson Rusia surfaced and
admitted before the police having participated in the
abduction of the sisters. He identified appellants Francisco
Juan Larrañaga, Josman Aznar, Rowen Adlawan, Alberto
Caño, Ariel Balansag, James Anthony Uy, and James
Andrew Uy as co-perpetrators in the crime. Rusia provided
the following before the trial court:
1. that he met Rowen and Josman at Ayala Mall at
10:30 in the evening of July 16, 1997, who told him to
ride with them in a white car. Following them were
Larrañaga, James Anthony and James Andrew, who
were in a red car. Josman stopped in front of the
waiting shed where Marijoy and Jacqueline were
standing, and were then forced to ride the car. Rusia
taped their mouths while Rowen handcuffed them
jointly,
2. that after stopping by a safehouse at Guadalupe,
Cebu City, the group thereafter headed to the South
hired the white van driven by the former. They
traveled towards Tan-awan, leaving the red car at the
South Bus Terminal,
3. that after parking their vehicles near a precipice, they
drank and had a pot session. Later, they started to
rape Marijoy inside the vehicle, and thereafter raped
Jacqueline,
4. that Josman instructed Rowen and Ariel to bring
Marijoy to the cliff and push her into the ravine, and
5. that they made fun of Jacqueline, who was made to
run while being followed by the group while boarding
the van; and was beaten until she passed out.
In his defense, Larrañaga, through his witnesses, claimed
the following:
1. that on July 16, 1997, he was at Quezon City taking
his mid-term examinations at the Center for Culinary
Arts,
2. that he also attended his teacher’s lecture in Applied
Mathematics,
3. that in the evening of that day until 3:00 in the morning
of July 17, 1997, he was with his friends at the R & R
Bar and Restaurant, Quezon City,
4. that representatives of four airline companies plying
the route of Manila-Cebu-Manila presented proofs
showing that Larrañaga does not appear in their
records from July 15 to July 17, 1997, and
5. that his neighbors at Loyola Heights Condominium,
Quezon City, including the security guard saw him in
his condo unit in the evening of July 16, 1997.
The brothers James Anthony and James Andrew claimed
that they were at their home in Cebu City, celebrating their
father’s 50th birthday, which ended at 11:30 in the evening.
Alberto and Ariel claimed that they had the van’s aircon
repaired in the evening of July 16, 1997, accompanied by
the former’s wife and the owners of the van. The repair
shop was only able to finish the work at 10:00 the following
morning.
Josman claimed that he was at his house together with his
friends about 8:00 in the evening of July 16, 1997, ate
dinner and drank, and thereafter went to BAI Disco,
transferred to DTM Bar, and went home at 3:00 the
following morning.
Rusia was discharged as an accused and became a state
witness. Still, the body of Jacqueline was never found. The
trial court found the other appellants guilty of two crimes of
kidnapping and serious illegal detention and sentenced
each of them to suffer the penalties of two (2) reclusiones
perpetua. The appellants assailed the said decision,
arguing inter alia, that court erred in finding that there was
consipiracy. James Anthony was also claimed to be only
16 years old when the crimes were committed.
ISSUES:
1) Whether there was conspiracy.
2) Whether the trial court erred in characterizing the crime.
3) Whether the trial court erred in imposing the correct
penalty.
HELD:
1) Yes. Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and
manner by which the offense was perpetrated, or may be
inferred from the acts of the accused themselves, when
such point to a joint design and community of interest. The
appellants’ actions showed that they had the same
objective to kidnap and detain the Chiong sisters. The
Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that the appellants
indeed conspired in the commission of the crimes charged.
2) Yes. The rule is that when the law provides a single
penalty for two or more component offenses, the resulting
crime is called a special complex crime. Article 267 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 8 of R.A.
7659, provides that in the crime of kidnapping and serious
illegal detention, when the victim is killed or dies as a
consequence of the detention, or is raped or is subjected
to torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall
be imposed. Thus, the resulting crime will change from
complex crime to special complex crime. In the present
case, the victims were raped and subjected to
dehumanizing acts. Thus, the Court held that all the
appellants were guilty of the special complex crime of
kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide and
rape in the case where Marijoy is the victim; and simple
kidnapping and serious illegal detention in the case of
Jacqueline.
3) Yes. Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code provides that
by reason of minority, the imposable penalty to the
offender is one degree lower than the statutory penalty.
James Anthony was only 16 years old when the crimes
were committed. As penalty for the special complex crime
of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide
and rape is death, the correct penalty to be imposed should
be reclusion perpetua. On the other hand, the penalty for
simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention is reclusion
perpetua to death. One degree lower from the said penalty
is reclusion temporal. There being no aggravating and
mitigating circumstance, the penalty to be imposed on him
should be reclusion temporal in its medium period.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he should be
sentenced to suffer the penalty of twelve (12) years of
prision mayor in its maximum period, as minimum, to
seventeen (17) years of reclusion temporal in its medium
period, as maximum. With regard to the rest of the
appellants, the statutory penalty as provided above should
be imposed. Therefore, trial court erred in merely imposing
“two (2) reclusiones perpetua”.
2) People vs. Garchitorena
597 SCRA 420 August 28, 2009
Facts:
• September 22, 1995, at around 9:00 in the evening,
Dulce Borero along with his brother Mauro Biay y
Almarinez was selling “balut” at Sta. Inez Almeda
Subdivision, Brgy. Dela Paz, Biñan, Laguna.
• Dulce Borero was about seven (7) arms length away
from her brother Mauro Biay.
• Accused Jessie Garcia called Mauro Biay and as Mauro
Biay approached Jessie, the latter twisted the hand of
Mauro and Jessie’s companions (co-accused) Arnold
Garchitorena and Joey Pamplona began stabbing Mauro
repeatedly with a shiny bladed instrument. Witness saw
her brother Mauro struggling to free himself while being
stabbed by the (3) accused, until her brother slumped
face down on the ground.
• Arnold instructed his two co-accused to run away.
• Borero claims she wanted to shout but nothing came out
from her mouth.
• Witness went home to call for her elder brother Teodoro
Biay, but when they return to the scene the victim was no
longer there as he had been brought to the Perpetual
Help Hospital.
• Trial Court: Guilty, Court of appeals: Affirmed, Supreme
Court: Affirmed and Modifications
Defense:
Joey Pamplona – denied that he participated in the
stabbing
Jessie Garcia – defense of alibi
Arnold Garchitorena – defense of insanity
Issue/s:
Is there conspiracy shown in the case? (Art. 8 RPC)
Held:
Yes, accuse appellants were together in performing
the concerted acts in pursuit of their common objective.
Jessie Garcia grabbed the victim’s hands and twisted his
arms; in turn, Joey Pamplona, together with Arnold
Garchitorena, strangled Mauro Biay and straddled the
Mauro Biay on the ground, then stabbed him.
3) People vs. Carandang Likewise, finding the accused Restituto Carandang, Henry
Milan and Jackman Chua guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of frustrated murder, described and penalized
GR 175926 August 28, 2009 under Article 249 in relation to Article 6, paragraph 2,
having acted in conspiracy with each other... he Court of
Facts: Appeals rendered the assailed Decision modifying the
Decision of the trial court
Reinforcements came at around 4:30 p.m. upon the arrival
Issues:
of P/Sr. Insp. Calaro, Chief Operations Officer of the La
The court a quo erred in holding that there was conspiracy
Loma Police Station 1, and P/Supt. Roxas, the Deputy
among the appellants in the case at bar
Station Commander of Police Station 1 at the time of the
incident. [9] SPO1
Ruling:
Montecalvo was brought to the Chinese General
The trial court had ruled that Carandang, Milan and Chua
Hospital. Milan stepped out of the house and was also
acted in conspiracy in the commission of the crimes
brought to a hospital, [10] but Carandang and Chua
charged. Thus, despite the established fact that it was
remained holed up inside the house for several
Carandang who fired the gun which hit SPO2 Red, PO2
hours. There was a lengthy negotiation for the... surrender
Alonzo and SPO1 Montecalvo, all three accused were
of Carandang and Chua, during which they requested for
held... equally criminally responsible therefor. The trial
the presence of a certain Colonel Reyes and media man
court explained that Carandang, Milan and Chua's
Ramon Tulfo. [11] It was around 11:00 p.m. to 12:00
actuations showed that they acted in concert against the
midnight when Carandang and Chua surrendered. [12]
police officers.
SPO2 Red and PO2 Alonzo were found dead inside the
In the case at bar, the conclusion that Milan and Chua
house, their bodies slumped on the floor with broken legs
conspired with Carandang was established by their acts (1)
and gunshot and grenade shrapnel wounds. [13]
before Carandang shot the victims (Milan's closing the
Dr. Winston Tan, Medico-Legal Officer of the Philippine
door when the police officers introduced themselves,
National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory, conducted the
allowing Carandang to wait in ambush), and (2) after the...
post-mortem examination of the bodies of SPO2 Red and
shooting (Chua's directive to Milan to attack SPO1
PO2 Alonzo. He found that the gunshot wounds of Red
Montecalvo and Milan's following such instruction).
and Alonzo were the cause of their deaths... the trial court
Neither can the rapid turn of events be considered to
rendered its Decision [21] finding Carandang, Milan and
negate a finding of conspiracy. Unlike evident
Chua guilty of two counts of murder and one count of
premeditation, there is no requirement for conspiracy to
frustrated murder
exist that there be a sufficient period of time to elapse to
afford full opportunity for meditation and... concerted action, it is evident that they conspired with one
reflection. Instead, conspiracy arises on the very moment another to murder Pionio Yacapin and should each suffer
the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the the same criminal liability attached to the aforementioned
subject felony. criminal act regardless of who fired the weapon which
delivered the fatal wounds that ended the life of the victim.
There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
4) People vs. Dadao. et.al. then decide to commit it. It arises on the very instant the
plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the felony
GR 201860 January 22, 2014 and forthwith decide to pursue it. . As such, it does not
matter who inflicted the mortal wound, as each of the
actors incurs the same criminal liability, because the act of
FACTS: one is the act of all.
On the eveing of July 1993, Marcelino Dadao, with his CA’s decision was affirmed.
three other men, conspired, confederated, and mutually
helped each other with intent to kill by means of treachery,
assaulted victim Piono Yacpin using a gun and two bolos,
5) People vs. Estanly Octa
hitting him on his back and leg, which ultimately caused his
death. GR 195196 July 13, 2015
Prosecution presented six witnesses, all with congruent
testimonies, and the defense presented the accused as
witnesses, with one Police Inspector Armada, stating that
FACTS:
two of the accused yielded negative for parafin.
On the morning on Septemebr 25 2003, while Johnny
RTC found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
Corpuz and Mike Batuigas are on board in a Honda Civic
the crime of murder, and were sentenced to suffer
travelling in Sampaloc, Manila, some four armed men
reclusion perpetua. CA affirmed the decision, hence the
blocked their way and insisted to get inside their car. The
petition.
armed men deemed successful in getting in the car and
was ordered Johnny to take the back seat. Also, he was
ISSUE: WON accused-appellands are guilty of
handcuffed, blindfolded, and even boxed while travelling.
consipirating Piono’s murder.
When they reached the safehouse, the armed men called
Johnny’s wife Ana Marie to inform her that they are indeed
RULING:
kidnapped. The armed men started demanding P 20
YES. The evidence on record has established that all four
Million but were reduced to P538,00.
accused shared a community of criminal design. By their
Finally, on September 30, 2003, Ana Marie were instructed
to give the ransom money to a man wearing a red cap that
she will see on Caltex Auto Supply. She reached the
location before giving the money to the man, who was
further discovered to be Estanly Octa, she first phoned the
kidnappers to confirm whether or not Octa is one of them.
Johnny and Mike were released on October 1 2003.
RTC found Octa guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
kidnapping, and was sentenced to suffer maximum prison
term of reclusion perpetua. CA affirmed the decision.
Octa contended that the trial court gravely erred in finding
him to be a conspirator to the crime charged. Hence, the
appeal.
ISSUE: WON accused-appellant was guilty of kidnapping
as co-conspirator.
RULING:
YES. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come
to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony
and decide to commit it. Where all the accused acted in
concert at the time of the commission of the offense, and it
is shown by such acts that they had the same purpose or
common design and were united in its execution,
conspiracy is sufficiently established. It must be shown that
all participants performed specific acts with such closeness
and coordination as to indicate a common purpose or
design to commit the felony.
Evidently, to hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by
reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to have
performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the
complicity. There must be intentional participation in the
transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common
design and purpose. Thus, accused-appellants’ argument
that he is a mere accomplice must fail. He is liable as a
principal for being a co-conspirator in the crime of
Kidnapping for Ransom under Art. 267 of the RPC, as
amended by R.A. 7659.
While his receipt of the ransom money was not a material
element of the crime, it was nevertheless part of the grand
plan and was in fact the main reason for kidnapping the
victims.
Appeal is dismissed. CA’s decision is affirmed with
modifications.
6) People vs. Feliciano, JR..Et.al.
GR 196735 May 5, 2014
FACTS:
On December 8, 1994, at around 12:30 to 1:00 in the
afternoon, seven (7) members of the Sigma Rho fraternity
were eating lunch at the Beach House Canteen, near the
Main Library of the University of the Philippines, Diliman,
when they were attacked by several masked men
carrying baseball bats and lead pipes. Some of them
sustained injuries that required hospitalization. One of
them, Dennis Venturina, died from his injuries.
An information for murder was filed against several
members of the Scintilla Juris fraternity and separate
informations were also filed against them for the attempted
and frustrated murder of Sigma Rho fraternity members.
RTC found Alvir, Feliciano Jr., Soliva, Medalla and
Zingapan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and
attempted murder. Others were acquitted. The case
against Guerrero was ordered archived by the court until
his apprehension. CA affirmed RTC’s decision.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not accused-appellants’ constitutional
rights were violated when the information against
them contained the aggravating circumstance of the
use of masks despite the prosecution presenting
witnesses to prove that the masks fell off
2. Whether or not the RTC and CA correctly ruled, on
the basis of the evidence, that accused-appellants
were sufficiently identified.
HELD:
FIRST ISSUE: No.
The Court held that an information is sufficient when the
accused is fully apprised of the charge against him to
enable him to prepare his defense. The argument of
appellants that the information filed against them violates
their constitutional right to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against them holds no water. The
Court found no merit on the appellants’ arguments that the
prosecution should not have included the phrase “wearing
masks and/or other forms of disguise” in the information
since they were presenting testimonial evidence that not
all the accused were wearing masks or that their masks fell
off.
It should be remembered that every aggravating
circumstance being alleged must be stated in the
information. Failure to state an aggravating circumstance,
even if duly proven at trial, will not be appreciated as such
It was, therefore, incumbent on the prosecution to state the
aggravating circumstance of “wearing masks and/or other
forms of disguise” in the information in order for all the
evidence, introduced to that effect, to be admissible by the
trial court.
In criminal cases, disguise is an aggravating circumstance
because, like nighttime, it allows the accused to remain
anonymous and unidentifiable as he carries out his crimes.
The introduction of the prosecution of testimonial evidence
that tends to prove that the accused were masked but the
masks fell off does not prevent them from including
disguise as an aggravating circumstance.
What is important in alleging disguise as an aggravating
circumstance is that there was a concealment of identity by
the accused. The inclusion of disguise in the information
was, therefore, enough to sufficiently apprise the accused
that in the commission of the offense they were being
charged with, they tried to conceal their identity.
The introduction of evidence which shows that some of the
accused were not wearing masks is also not violative of
their right to be informed of their offenses.
The information charges conspiracy among the accused.
Conspiracy presupposes that “the act of one is the act of
all.” This would mean all the accused had been one in their
plan to conceal their identity even if there was evidence
later on to prove that some of them might not have done
so.
SECOND ISSUE: Yes.
The Court held that the accused were sufficiently identified
by the witnesses for the prosecution. It was held that the
trial court, in weighing all the evidence on hand, found the
testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution to be
credible. Slight inconsistencies in their statements were
immaterial considering the swiftness of the incident.
Evidence as part of the res gestae may
be admissible but have little persuasive value in this
case
According to the testimony of U.P. Police Officer Salvador,
when he arrived at the scene, he interviewed the
bystanders who all told him that they could not recognize
the attackers since they were all masked. This, it is argued,
could be evidence that could be given as part of the res
gestae.
There is no doubt that a sudden attack on a group
peacefully eating lunch on a school campus is a startling
occurrence. Considering that the statements of the
bystanders were made immediately after the startling
occurrence, they are, in fact, admissible as evidence given
in res gestae.
The statements made by the
bystanders, although admissible, have little persuasive
value since the bystanders could have seen the events
transpiring at different vantage points and at different
points in time. Even Frisco Capilo, one of the bystanders
at the time of the attack, testified that the attackers had
their masks on at first, but later on, some remained masked
and some were unmasked.
When the bystanders’ testimonies are weighed against
those of the victims who witnessed the entirety of the
incident from beginning to end at close range, the
former become merely corroborative of the fact that an
attack occurred. Their account of the incident,
therefore, must be given considerably less weight than
that of the victims.
Accused-appellants were correctly charged with
murder, and there was treachery in the commission of
the crime
The victims in this case were eating lunch on campus.
They were not at a place where they would be reasonably
expected to be on guard for any sudden attack by rival
fraternity men.
The victims, who were unarmed, were also attacked with
lead pipes and baseball bats. The only way they could
parry the blows was with their arms. In a situation where
they were unarmed and outnumbered, it would be
impossible for them to fight back against the attackers. The
attack also happened in less than a minute, which would
preclude any possibility of the bystanders being able to
help them until after the incident.
The swiftness and the suddenness of the attack gave no
opportunity for the victims to retaliate or even to defend
themselves. Treachery, therefore, was present in this
case.
7) People vs. Morilla
GR 189833 February 5, 2014
FACTS:
In October 2001, police discovered Ronnie Mitra, mayor of
Panulukan, Quezon and Javier Morilla to be transporting
methampethamine hydrochloride, comomnly known as
shabu.
While in a checkpoint, the Starex Car of the Mayor was
able to pass inspection, but the ambulance that was driven
by Morilla was inspected when the police noticed some
sacks inside the van. They asked Morilla to open the sacks
but he refused, suggesting that they were only pieces of
narra and the sacks are of Mayor’s. The police insisted to
inspect the ambulance and they discovered that the sacks
were sacks of shabu. The discovery prompted the police
to chase the Starex Van of the Mayor Mitra, and later
discovered that there were also sacks of shabu inside his
car.
RTC found Mayor Mitra and Morilla guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violating Dangerous Drugs Act and
sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of
P10 Million each. CA affirmed the decision.
Moriila raised the issue of whether he may be consvicted
for conspiracy to commit the offense charged . Hence, the
petition.
ISSUE: WON Morilla is guilty of conspiring with Mayor
Mitra.
RULING:
YES. Petition denied. Concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it. To determine conspiracy,
there must be a common design to commit a felony
Morilla argues that the mere act of driving the ambulance
on the date he was apprehended is not sufficient to prove
that he was part of a syndicated group involved in the
illegal transportation of dangerous drugs.
In conspiracy, it need not be shown that the parties actually
came together and agreed in express terms to enter into
and pursue a common design. The assent of the minds
may be and, from the secrecy of the crime, usually inferred
from proof of facts and circumstances which, taken
together, indicate that they are parts of some complete
whole.
In this case, the totality of the factual circumstances leads
to a conclusion that Morilla conspired with Mayor Mitra in
a common desire to transport the dangerous drugs.
8) People vs. Bokingco
GR 187536 August 10, 2011
FACTS:
Noli and Elsa Pasion were an owner of a pawnshop and a
two-row apartment in Angeles City, Pampanga.
In the midnight of February 2000, Dante Vitaliano saw
Michael Bokingco hitting something on the floor. He
headed on his apartment unit and there he discovered that
it was Noli Pasion, his brother-in-law, that was hit by
Bokingco. Upon seeing him, Bokingco ran towards him and
attacked him with a hammer. Vitaliano managed to push
him away and proceeded to Pasion’s house to inform Elsa,
Noli’s wife, that his husband was already dead.
Meanwhile, Elsa also heard the commotion while she was
in the master’s bedroom. She immediately went down to
check what was happenning but before reaching the
kitchen, she was blocked by co-accused Reynante Col.
She asked Col why he was in their house but he refused
to answer, instead, he sprayed tear gas on Elsa’s eyes.
Col instructed her to open the vault of their pawnshop but
she told him that she doesn’t know the combination lock.
He then proceeded to drag her in the back door. Before
they reached the door, Bokingco openned the screen door
and shouted “tara na, patay na s’ya!” Col immediately let
her go and ran away with Bokingco.
Later, Vitaliano and Elsa discovered Noli lying on the floor,
bathing with his own blood. Necropsy reported that Noli
suffered 29 injuries, and that the injuries sustained by Noli
on his skull was the cause of his death.
Prosecution filed a case against Bokingco and Col. RTC
found them guilty of murder and sentenced them to suffer
the penalty of death. CA affirmed the decision but reduced
the sentence to life imprisonment without parole.
Appellant sought reversal to the decision contending that
Col is not guilty of conspiring with Bokingco.
ISSUE: WON Col is guilty of murder as co-conspirator.
RULING.
NO. Indeed, in order to convict Col as a principal by direct
participation in the case before us, it is necessary that
conspiracy between him and Bokingco be proved.
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
agreement to commit an unlawful act. It may be inferred
from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after
the commission of the crime. Conspiracy may be deduced
from the mode and manner in which the offense was
perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the accused
evincing a joint or common purpose and design, concerted
action, and community of interest. Unity of purpose and
unity in the execution of the unlawful objective are
essential to establish the existence of conspiracy.
Based on these acts alone, it cannot be logically inferred
that Col conspired with Bokingco in killing Pasion. At the
most, Col’s actuations can be equated to attempted
robbery, which was actually the initial information filed
against appellants before it was amended, on motion of the
prosecution, for murder.
Elsa testified that she heard Bokingco call out to Col that
Pasion had been killed and that they had to leave the
place. This does not prove that they acted in concert
towards the consummation of the crime. It only proves, at
best, that there were two crimes committed simultaneously
and they were united in their efforts to escape from the
crimes they separately committed.
Their acts did not reveal a unity of purpose that is to kill
Pasion. Bokingco had already killed Pasion even before he
sought Col. Their moves were not coordinated because
while Bokingco was killing Pasion because of his pent-up
anger, Col was attempting to rob the pawnshop.
Appellant Reynante Col is ACQUITTED on ground of
reasonable doubt. Appellant Michael Bokingco is found
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Homicide. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of
six years (6) and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum
to 14 years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion
temporal, as maximum.
9) People vs. Castillo
425 SCRA 136 March 10, 2004
Facts:
On March 1, 1995, in Parañaque, Metro Manila,
Philippines the accused ELIZABETH CASTILLO and
EVANGELINE PADAYHAG, conspiring together
kidnapped Horacio Cebrero IV, a five years old which
lasted for more than three (3) days for the purpose of
extorting ransom from the parents of the victim.
Issue:
WHETHER OR NOT, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN
CONCLUDING THAT THERE WAS CONSPIRACY TO
EXTORT RANSOM IN THIS CASE?
Ruling:
The prosecution failed to prove Padayhags guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. In People v. Gonzales, it was held that:
In the absence of conspiracy, if the inculpatory facts and
circumstances are capable of two or more explanations,
one of which is consistent with the innocence of the
accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the
evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is
not sufficient to support a conviction.
Every person accused has the right to be presumed
innocent until the contrary is proven beyond reasonable
doubt. The presumption of innocence stands as a
fundamental principle of both constitutional and criminal
law.[37] Thus, the prosecution has the burden of proving
every single fact establishing guilt.[38] Every vestige of
doubt having a rational basis must be removed.[39] The
defense of the accused, even if weak, is no reason to
convict.[40] Within this framework, the prosecution must
prove its case beyond any hint of uncertainty. The defense
need not even speak at all. The presumption of innocence
is more than sufficient. Padayhags is acquitted and Castillo
was sentenced to suffer the penalty of death.
10) Fernan vs. People
GR 145927 August 24, 2007
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 LAA’s 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 sandiiganbayan erred 11) GMA vs. People
in convicting petitioners as co-conspirators despite the
prosecution’s failure to specifically prove beyond
reasonable doubt the facts and circumstances that would GR 220598 July 19, 2016
implicate them as co-conspirators and justify their
conviction.
FACTS:
Ruling:
The Court resolves the consolidated petitions
No. The Sandigan Bayan has accurately ruled on
for certiorari separately filed by former President Gloria
conviction of the petitioners as co-conspirators in spite of
Macapagal-Arroyo and Philippine Charity Sweepstakes
the prosecution’s failure to prove such. The court explained
Office (PCSO) Budget and Accounts Manager Benigno B.
why direct proof of prior agreement is not necessary:
Aguas.
“Secrecy and concealment are essential features of a
On July 10, 2012, the Ombudsman charged in the
successful conspiracy. It may be inferred from the conduct
Sandiganbayan former President Gloria Macapagal-
of the accused before, during and after the commission of
Arroyo (GMA) and PCSO Budget and Accounts Manager
the crime, showing that they had acted with a common
Aguas (and some other officials of PCSO and Commission
purpose and design. Conspiracy may be implied if it is
on Audit whose charges were later dismissed by the
proved that two or more persons aimed their acts toward
Sandiganbayan after their respective demurrers to
the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each
evidence were granted, except for Uriarte and Valdes who
doing a part so that their combined acts, though apparently
were at large) for conspiracy to commit plunder, as defined
independent of each other, were in fact, connected and
by, and penalized under Section 2 (b) of Republic Act
cooperative, which indicates closeness of personal
(R.A.) No. 7080, as amended by R.A. No. 7659.
association and concurrence of sentiment. To hold an
The information reads: That during the period from
accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy,
January 2008 to June 2010 or sometime prior or
he must have shown to have performed a concerted act to
subsequent thereto xxx accused Gloria Macapagal-
the furtherance of the common design and purpose.
Arroyo, the then President of the Philippines xxx Benigno
Aguas, then PCSO Budget and Accounts Manager, all
public officers committing the offense in relation to their
respective offices and taking undue advantage of their
respective official positions, authority, relationships,
connections or influence, conniving, conspiring and
confederating with one another, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and criminally amass, accumulate
and/or acquire, directly or indirectly, ill-gotten wealth in the
aggregate amount or total value of PHP365,997,915.00,
more or less, [by raiding the public treasury].
Thereafter, accused GMA and Aguas separately filed their
respective petitions for bail which were denied by the
Sandiganbayan on the ground that the evidence of guilt
against them was strong.
After the Prosecution rested its case, accused GMA and
Aguas then separately filed their demurrers to evidence
asserting that the Prosecution did not establish a case for
plunder against them. The same were denied by the
Sandiganbayan, holding that there was sufficient evidence
to show that they had conspired to commit plunder. After
the respective motions for reconsideration filed by GMA
and Aguas were likewise denied by the Sandiganbayan,
they filed their respective petitions for certiorari.
ISSUES:
Procedural:
1. Whether or not the special civil action for certiorari is
proper to assail the denial of the demurrers to
evidence.
Substantive:
1. Whether or not the State sufficiently established the
existence of conspiracy among GMA, Aguas, and
Uriarte ;
2. Whether or not the State sufficiently established all
the elements of the crime of plunder: (a) Was there
evidence of amassing, accumulating or acquiring ill-
gotten wealth in the total amount of not less than
P50,000,000.00? (b) Was the predicate act of raiding
the public treasury alleged in the information proved
by the Prosecution?
RULING:
Re procedural issue:
The special civil action for certiorari is generally not
proper to assail such an interlocutory order issued by the
trial court because of the availability of another remedy in
the ordinary course of law. Moreover, Section 23, Rule 119
of the Rules of Court expressly provides that “the order
denying the motion for leave of court to file demurrer to
evidence or the demurrer itself shall not be reviewable by
appeal or by certiorari before judgment.” It is not an
insuperable obstacle to this action, however, that the
denial of the demurrers to evidence of the petitioners was
an interlocutory order that did not terminate the
proceedings, and the proper recourse of the demurring
accused was to go to trial, and that in case of their
conviction they may then appeal the conviction, and assign
the denial as among the errors to be reviewed. Indeed, it
is doctrinal that the situations in which the writ
of certiorari may issue should not be limited, because to do
so “x x x would be to destroy its comprehensiveness and
usefulness. So wide is the discretion of the court that
authority is not wanting to show that certiorari is more
discretionary than either prohibition or mandamus. In the
exercise of our superintending control over other courts,
we are to be guided by all the circumstances of each
particular case ‘as the ends of justice may require.’ So it is
that the writ will be granted where necessary to prevent a
substantial wrong or to do substantial justice.”
The exercise of this power to correct grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government
cannot be thwarted by rules of procedure to the contrary
or for the sake of the convenience of one side. This is
because the Court has the bounden constitutional duty to
strike down grave abuse of discretion whenever and
wherever it is committed. Thus, notwithstanding the
interlocutory character and effect of the denial of the
demurrers to evidence, the petitioners as the accused
could avail themselves of the remedy
of certiorari when the denial was tainted with grave
abuse of discretion.
Re first substantive issue: The Prosecution did not
properly allege and prove the existence of conspiracy
among GMA, Aguas and Uriarte.
A perusal of the information suggests that what
the Prosecution sought to show was an implied conspiracy
to commit plunder among all of the accused on the basis
of their collective actions prior to, during and after the
implied agreement. It is notable that the Prosecution did
not allege that the conspiracy among all of the accused
was by express agreement, or was a wheel conspiracy or
a chain conspiracy.
We are not unmindful of the holding in Estrada v.
Sandiganabayan [G.R. No. 148965, February 26, 2002,
377 SCRA 538, 556] to the effect that an information
alleging conspiracy is sufficient if the information alleges
conspiracy either: (1) with the use of the word conspire, or
its derivatives or synonyms, such as confederate, connive,
collude, etc; or (2) by allegations of the basic facts
constituting the conspiracy in a manner that a person of
common understanding would know what is being
conveyed, and with such precision as would enable the
accused to competently enter a plea to a subsequent
indictment based on the same facts. We are not talking
about the sufficiency of the information as to the
allegation of conspiracy, however, but rather the
identification of the main plunderer sought to be
prosecuted under R.A. No. 7080 as an element of the
crime of plunder. Such identification of the main
plunderer was not only necessary because the law
required such identification, but also because it was
essential in safeguarding the rights of all of the
accused to be properly informed of the charges they
were being made answerable for. The main purpose of
requiring the various elements of the crime charged to be
set out in the information is to enable all the accused to
suitably prepare their defense because they are presumed
to have no independent knowledge of the facts that
constituted the offense charged.
Despite the silence of the information on who the main
plunderer or the mastermind was, the Sandiganbayan
readily condemned GMA in its resolution dated September
10, 2015 as the mastermind despite the absence of the
specific allegation in the information to that effect. Even
worse, there was no evidence that substantiated such
sweeping generalization.
In fine, the Prosecution’s failure to properly allege the
main plunderer should be fatal to the cause of the
State against the petitioners for violating the rights of
each accused to be informed of the charges against
each of them.
Re second substantive issues:
(a) No proof of amassing, or accumulating, or
acquiring ill-gotten wealth of at least Php50 Million
was adduced against GMA and Aguas.
The corpus delicti of plunder is the amassment,
accumulation or acquisition of ill-gotten wealth valued at
not less than Php50,000,000.00. The failure to establish
the corpus delicti should lead to the dismissal of the
criminal prosecution.
As regards the element that the public officer must
have amassed, accumulated or acquired ill-gotten
wealth worth at least P50,000,000.00, the Prosecution
adduced no evidence showing that either GMA or
Aguas or even Uriarte, for that matter, had amassed,
accumulated or acquired ill-gotten wealth of any
amount. There was also no evidence, testimonial or
otherwise, presented by the Prosecution showing
even the remotest possibility that the CIFs
[Confidential/Intelligence Funds] of the PCSO had
been diverted to either GMA or Aguas, or Uriarte.
(b) The Prosecution failed to prove the predicate act of
raiding the public treasury (under Section 2 (b) of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7080, as amended)
To discern the proper import of the phrase raids on the
public treasury, the key is to look at the accompanying
words: misappropriation, conversion, misuse or
malversation of public funds [See Sec. 1(d) of RA 7080].
This process is conformable with the maxim of statutory
construction noscitur a sociis, by which the correct
construction of a particular word or phrase that is
ambiguous in itself or is equally susceptible of various
meanings may be made by considering the company of the
words in which the word or phrase is found or with which it
is associated. Verily, a word or phrase in a statute is always
used in association with other words or phrases, and its
meaning may, therefore, be modified or restricted by the
latter. To convert connotes the act of using or disposing of
another’s property as if it were one’s own;
to misappropriate means to own, to take something for
one’s own benefit; misuse means “a good, substance,
privilege, or right used improperly, unforeseeably, or not as
intended;” and malversation occurs when “any public
officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is
accountable for public funds or property, shall appropriate
the same or shall take or misappropriate or shall consent,
through abandonment or negligence, shall permit any
other person to take such public funds, or property, wholly
or partially.” The common thread that binds all the four
terms together is that the public officer used the property
taken. Considering that raids on the public treasury is in
the company of the four other terms that require the use of
the property taken, the phrase raids on the public
treasury similarly requires such use of the property taken.
Accordingly, the Sandiganbayan gravely erred in
contending that the mere accumulation and gathering
constituted the forbidden act of raids on the public
treasury. Pursuant to the maxim of noscitur a
sociis, raids on the public treasury requires the raider
to use the property taken impliedly for his personal
benefit.
As a result, not only did the Prosecution fail to show where
the money went but, more importantly, that GMA and
Aguas had personally benefited from the same. Hence, the
Prosecution did not prove the predicate act of raids on the
public treasury beyond reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petitions for
certiorari; ANNULS and SETS ASIDE the resolutions
issued in Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-0174 by the
Sandiganbayan on April 6, 2015 and September 10, 2015;
GRANTS the petitioners’ respective demurrers to
evidence; DISMISSES Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-
0174 as to the petitioners GLORIA MACAPAGAL-
ARROYO and BENIGNO AGUAS for insufficiency of
evidence; ORDERS the immediate release from detention
of said petitioners; and MAKES no pronouncements on
costs of suit.
12) Go-Tan vs. Tan
GR 168852 September 30, 2008
Facts:
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 ralted
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.

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