Crim Rev HW3 Digest

ARTICLE 6
1. People vs. Lamahang; GR 43530; 03 August 1935
Facts:
- CFI: guilty of attempted robbery with additional penalty for habitual delinquency
- At early dawn on March 2, 1935, policeman Jose Tomambing, who was patrolling his
beat on Delgado and C. R. Fuentes streets of the City of Iloilo, caught the accused in
the act of making an opening with an iron bar on the wall of a store of cheap goods
located on the last named street. At that time the owner of the store, Tan Yu, was
sleeping inside with another Chinaman. The accused had only succeeded in breaking
one board and in unfastening another from the wall, when the policeman showed
up, who instantly arrested him and placed him under custody.
Issue: WON accused should be held liable for attempted robbery
Held: No
- It is our opinion that the attempt to commit an offense which the Penal Code
punishes is that which has a logical relation to a particular, concrete offense; that,
which is the beginning of the execution of the offense by overt acts of the
perpetrator, leading directly to its realization and consummation.
- The attempt to commit an indeterminate offense, inasmuch as its nature in relation
to its objective is ambiguous, is not a juridical fact from the standpoint of the Penal
Code.
- There is no doubt that in the case at bar it was the intention of the accused to enter
Tan Yu’s store by means of violence, passing through the opening which he had
started to make on the wall, in order to commit an offense which, due to the timely
arrival of policeman Tomambing, did not develop beyond the first steps of its
execution. But it is not sufficient, for the purpose of imposing penal sanction, that
an act objectively performed constitute a mere beginning of execution; it is
necessary to establish its unavoidable connection - that said beginning of execution,
if carried to its complete termination following its natural course, without being
frustrated by external obstacles nor by the voluntary desistance of the perpetrator,
will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense
- Thus, in case of robbery, in order that the simple act of entering by means of force
or violence another person’s dwelling may be considered an attempt to commit this
offense, it must be shown that the offender clearly intended to take possession,
for the purpose of gain, of some personal property belonging to another. In the
instant case, there is nothing in the record from which such purpose of the accused
may reasonably be inferred.
-  Acts susceptible of double interpretation, that is, in favor as well as against the
culprit, and which show an innocent as well as a punishable act, must not and
cannot furnish grounds by themselves for attempted nor frustrated crimes.
- Hence, it was held that the fact under consideration does not constitute attempted
robbery but attempted trespass to dwelling
2. Baleros vs. People; GR 138033; 22 February 2006
Facts:
- RTC & CA: guilty of attempted rape
- In the evening of December 12, inside Unit 307, MALOU retired at around 10:30.
Outside, right in front of her bedroom door, her maid, Marvilou, slept on a folding
bed.
- Early morning of the following day, MALOU was awakened by the smell of chemical
on a piece of cloth pressed on her face. She struggled but could not move.
Somebody was pinning her down on the bed, holding her tightly. She wanted to
scream for help but the hands covering her mouth with cloth wet with chemicals
were very tight. Still, MALOU continued fighting off her attacker by kicking him until
at last her right hand got free. With this …the opportunity presented itself when she
was able to grab hold of his sex organ which she then squeezed.
- The man let her go and MALOU went straight to the bedroom door and roused
Marvilou. xxx. Over the intercom, MALOU told S/G Ferolin that: "may pumasok sa
kuarto ko pinagtangkaan ako" 

Issue: WON the CA erred in affirming the ruling of the RTC finding petitioner guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of attempted rape.
Held: Yes.
- There is absolutely no dispute about the absence of sexual intercourse or carnal
knowledge in the present case. The next question that thus comes to the fore is
whether or not the act of the petitioner, i.e., the pressing of a chemical-soaked
cloth while on top of Malou, constitutes an overt act of rape.
o Petitioner did not commence at all the performance of any act indicative of
an intent or attempt to rape Malou. It cannot be overemphasized that
petitioner was fully clothed and that there was no attempt on his part to
undress Malou, let alone touch her private part. For what reason petitioner
wanted the complainant unconscious, if that was really his immediate
intention, is anybody’s guess.
- xxx. In the crime of rape, penetration is an essential act of execution to produce the
felony. Thus, for there to be an attempted rape, the accused must have commenced
the act of penetrating his sexual organ to the vagina of the victim but for some cause
or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance, the penetration, however,
slight, is not completed.

- However, they constitute unjust vexation punishable as light coercion under RPC
- As it were, unjust vexation exists even without the element of restraint or
compulsion for the reason that this term is broad enough to include any human
conduct which, although not productive of some physical or material harm, would
unjustly annoy or irritate an innocent person. That Malou, after the incident in
question, cried while relating to her classmates what she perceived to be a sexual
attack and the fact that she filed a case for attempted rape proved beyond cavil that
she was disturbed, if not distressed by the acts of petitioner.
3. People vs. Labiaga; GR 202867; 15 July 2013
Facts:
- RTC & CA: murder & frustrated murder in different criminal action
Version of the prosecution
- At around 7:00 p.m. on 23 December 2000, Gregorio Conde, and his two daughters,
Judy and Glenelyn Conde, were in their home at Barangay Malayu-an, Ajuy, Iloilo.
Thereafter, Gregorio stepped outside. Glenelyn was in their store, which was part of
their house. Shortly thereafter, appellant, who was approximately five meters away
from Gregorio, shot the latter. Gregorio called Judy for help. When Judy and
Glenelyn rushed to Gregorio’s aid, appellant shot Judy in the abdomen. Gregorio
and Judy were rushed to the Sara District Hospital. Judy was pronounced dead on
arrival while Gregorio made a full recovery after treatment of his gunshot wound.
o Autopsy of Judy: death was caused by "cardiopulmonary arrest secondary to
Cardiac Tamponade due to gunshot wound."
o Medical examination of Gregorio: sustained a gunshot wound measuring one
centimeter in diameter in his right forearm and "abrasion wounds hematoma
formation" in his right shoulder. (doctor said wound was not serious)
Version of the defense
- Appellant admitted that he was present during the shooting incident. He claimed,
however, that he acted in self-defense. Gregorio, armed with a shotgun, challenged
him to a fight. He attempted to shoot appellant, but the shotgun jammed. Appellant
tried to wrest the shotgun from Gregorio, and during the struggle, the shotgun fired.
He claimed that he did not know if anyone was hit by that gunshot.
Issue: WON accused is guilty of crime charged
Held: SC: murder and attempted murder not frustrated
- In frustrated murder, there must be evidence showing that the wound would have
been fatal were it not for timely medical intervention. If the evidence fails to
convince the court that the wound sustained would have caused the victim’s death
without timely medical attention, the accused should be convicted of attempted
murder and not frustrated murder. In the instant case, it does not appear that the
wound sustained by Gregorio Conde was mortal.

4. People vs. Angeles; GR 224289; 14 August 2019

Facts:
- RTC & CA: guilty of murder, frustrated murder, and attempted murder
Version of the Prosecution
- On April 27, 2010, around 11:30 in the evening, Eric and Mark Ryan Evangelista were
inside their residence, celebrating the eve of their sister's wedding. While the
celebration was ongoing, they suddenly heard a loud noise coming from the engine
and muffler of a tricycle. Eric and their youngest brother Elmer stepped out of the
house to check what the loud noise was all about. Mark Ryan followed them shortly.
- Sonny "Jong" Baynosa occupied the driver's seat of the nearby parked tricycle
where the noise was coming from. He was in the company of appellant, James
"Chita" Santos, and Dennis Ramos. As brothers Eric and Elmer approached, appellant
 alighted from the tricycle, walked straight to and forcefully stabbed Elmer in the
right abdomen. The knife snapped.
- When Eric rushed to help Elmer, Baynosa stabbed him (Eric) in the back, just below
his right shoulder. Mark Ryan who followed his brothers was not spared. Santos
stabbed him, too, in his right waist.
- Abelardo rushed to his brothers' aid. But Ramos also stabbed him in the left
stomach. Santos himself turned to Abelardo and stabbed the latter in the right
abdomen. Not to be outdone, appellant grabbed an icepick and joined in. He
stabbed Abelardo in the left chest. Baynosa also pulled an icepick and stabbed
Abelardo in the right chest. In view of the multiple stab wounds he sustained,
Abelardo fell to the ground. But still not satisfied, Santos stabbed him again in the
back. Thereafter, appellant walked away while Baynosa, Ramos, and Santos fled on
board the tricycle.
- A cousin of the Evangelista brothers, Rolando Quinto, saw the incident but he was
too scared to help. Only after the assailants had left did Rolando and others
approach and rush Elmer, Eric, Mark Ryan, and Abelardo to the hospital. Abelardo
was pronounced dead on arrival. Elmer died in the hospital.
- As for Eric, Dr. Fernandez found a stab wound in his back though it was not fatal. Dr.
Fernandez opined that even without adequate medical attendance, the wound
would heal in seven (7) to ten (10) days. Eric got discharged from the hospital on the
following day.
- As for Mark Ryan, he sustained a stab wound in the waist (back). He had to be
admitted into the Intensive Care Unit. After twelve (12) hours, however, his
condition worsened. Wasting no time, Dr. Fernandez immediately did an operation
on Mark Ryan. When Dr. Fernandez opened up Mark Ryan, the latter's abdomen was
filled with blood flowing from his punctured liver. It was a fatal injury which could
have caused Mark Ryan's death were it not for the timely and adequate medical
attendance given him. It would take him up to three (3) months to recover from this
injury.
Version of the Defense
- Evangelista brothers and other accused were in a fist fight that night of incident.
Appellant claimed to be a silent witness to the unfolding of these tragic events. He
got so scared, left, and went home. While buying cigarettes from a nearby store, he
saw Domingo and the police coming up to him. Domingo pointed him out as among
those who stabbed the Evangelista brothers.

Issue:
Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the verdict of conviction against appellant for
murder, frustrated murder, and attempted murder?
Held: No. (The defense were not corroborated by others so disregarded by courts)
- In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.
- Here, the attendant circumstances showed that appellant and his companions
intended to kill Eric and his brothers Elmer, Abelardo, and Mark Ryan. The three
(3) victims sustained multiple fatal stab wounds. As stated, the attendant
 circumstances here clearly show that appellant and his companions did intend to kill
the Evangelista brothers. They were able to deal multiple fatal blows on at least
three (3) of the brothers; but as for Eric, they did not spare him. He was also stabbed
by Baynosa. It just so happened they missed to hit him on a vital part like what they
did to Eric's three (3) brothers.

5. Valenzuela vs. People; GR 160188; 21 June 2007

Facts:
- On 19 May 1994, at around 4:30 p.m., petitioner and Calderon were sighted outside
the Super Sale Club, a supermarket within the ShoeMart (SM) complex along North
EDSA, by Lorenzo Lago (Lago), a security guard who was then manning his post at
the open parking area of the supermarket. Lago saw petitioner, who was wearing an
identification card with the mark "Receiving Dispatching Unit (RDU)," hauling a push
cart with cases of detergent of the well-known "Tide" brand. Petitioner unloaded
these cases in an open parking space, where Calderon was waiting. Petitioner then
returned inside the supermarket, and after five (5) minutes, emerged with more
cartons of Tide Ultramatic and again unloaded these boxes to the same area in the
open parking space.
- Thereafter, petitioner left the parking area and haled a taxi. He boarded the cab and
directed it towards the parking space where Calderon was waiting. Calderon loaded
the cartons of Tide Ultramatic inside the taxi, then boarded the vehicle. All these
acts were eyed by Lago, who proceeded to stop the taxi as it was leaving the open
parking area. When Lago asked petitioner for a receipt of the merchandise,
petitioner and Calderon reacted by fleeing on foot, but Lago fired a warning shot to
alert his fellow security guards of the incident. Petitioner and Calderon were
apprehended at the scene, and the stolen merchandise recovered. The filched items
seized from the duo were four (4) cases of Tide Ultramatic, one (1) case of Ultra 25
grams, and three (3) additional cases of detergent, the goods with an aggregate
value of ₱12,090.00.

Issue: WON he should be adjudged guilty of frustrated theft only, not the felony in its
consummated stage of which he was convicted
Held:
- We have long recognized the following elements of theft as provided for in Article
308 of the Revised Penal Code, namely: (1) that there be taking of personal
property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done with
intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and (5)
that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation
of persons or force upon things.

- On the critical question of whether it was consummated or frustrated theft, we are

obliged to apply Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code to ascertain the answer.
Following that provision, the theft would have been frustrated only, once the acts
committed by petitioner, if ordinarily sufficient to produce theft as a consequence,
 "do not produce [such theft] by reason of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator." Synthesis of the Diño and Flores rulings is in order. The determinative
characteristic as to whether the crime of theft was produced is the ability of the
actor "to freely dispose of the articles stolen, even if it were only momentary."

- The appreciation of several classes of factual circumstances such as the size and
weight of the property, the location of the property, the number and identity of
people present at the scene of the crime, the number and identity of people whom
the offender is expected to encounter upon fleeing with the stolen property, the
manner in which the stolen item had been housed or stored; and quite frankly, a
whole lot more. Even the fungibility or edibility of the stolen item would come into
account, relevant as that would be on whether such property is capable of free
disposal at any stage, even after the taking has been consummated.
- All these complications will make us lose sight of the fact that beneath all the
colorful detail, the owner was indeed deprived of property by one who intended to
produce such deprivation for reasons of gain. For such will remain the presumed
fact if frustrated theft were recognized, for therein, all of the acts of execution,
including the taking, have been completed. If the facts establish the non-completion
of the taking due to these peculiar circumstances, the effect could be to downgrade
the crime to the attempted stage, as not all of the acts of execution have been
performed. But once all these acts have been executed, the taking has been
completed, causing the unlawful deprivation of property, and ultimately the
consummation of the theft.
Maybe the Diño/Flores rulings are, in some degree, grounded in common sense. Yet
they do not align with the legislated framework of the crime of theft. There is no
language in Article 308 that expressly or impliedly allows that the "free disposition of
the items stolen" is in any way determinative of whether the crime of theft has been
produced. Diño itself did not rely on Philippine laws or jurisprudence to bolster its
conclusion, and the later Flores was ultimately content in relying on Diño alone for legal
support. These cases do not enjoy the weight of stare decisis, and even if they did, their
erroneous appreciation of our law on theft leave them susceptible to reversal. We thus
conclude that under the Revised Penal Code, there is no crime of frustrated theft.

6. Canceran vs. People; GR 206442; 01 July 2015

Facts:
- RTC & CA: guilty of consummated theft
Version of the Prosecution
- Damalito Ompoc (Ompoc), a security guard; and William Michael N. Arcenio
(Arcenio), the Customer Relation Officer of Ororama Mega Center (Ororama), as its
witnesses, testified that on or about October 6, 2002, Ompoc saw Caneeran
approach one of the counters in Ororama; that Caneeran was pushing a cart which
contained two boxes of Magic Flakes for which he paid P1,423.00; that Ompoc went
to the packer and asked if the boxes had been checked; that upon inspection by
Ompoc and the packer, they found out that the contents of the two boxes were not
 Magic Flakes biscuits, but 14 smaller boxes of Ponds White Beauty Cream worth
P28,627.20; that Caneeran hurriedly left and a chase ensued; that upon reaching the
Don Mariano gate, Caneeran stumbled as he attempted to ride a jeepney; that after
being questioned, he tried to settle with the guards and even offered his personal
effects to pay for the items he tried to take; that Arcenio refused to settle; and that
his personal belongings were deposited in the office of Arcenio.
Version of the Defense
- Canceran vehemently denied the charges against him. He claimed that he was a
promo merchandiser of La Tondena, Inc. and that on October 6, 2002, he was in
Ororama to buy medicine for his wife. On his way out, after buying medicine and
mineral water, a male person of around 20 years of age requested him to pay for the
items in his cart at the cashier; that he did not know the name of this man who gave
him P1,440.00 for payment of two boxes labelled Magic Flakes; that he obliged with
the request of the unnamed person because he was struck by his conscience; that
he denied knowing the contents of the said two boxes; that after paying at the
cashier, he went out of Ororama towards Limketkai to take a jeepney; that three
persons ran after him, and he was caught.
o Criminal Info: charged with Frustrated Theft.

Issue: Whether Canceran should be acquitted in the crime of theft as it was not charged
in the information
Held: No. But he is guilty of Attempted Theft only not Consummated
- The Court is not unmindful of the rule that "the real nature of the criminal charge is
determined, not from the caption or preamble of the information nor from the
specification of the law alleged to have been violated - these being conclusions of
law - but by the actual recital of facts in the complaint or information."
- In the subject information, the designation of the prosecutor of the offense, which
was "Frustrated Theft," may be just his conclusion. Nevertheless, the fact remains
that the charge was qualified by the additional allegation, but, nevertheless, did not
produce it by reason of some cause independent of accused's will. This averment,
which could also be deemed by some as a mere conclusion, rendered the charge
nebulous. There being an uncertainty, the Court resolves the doubt in favor of the
accused, Canceran, and holds that he was not properly informed that the charge
against him was consummated theft.

- As stated earlier, there is no crime of Frustrated Theft. The Information can never be
read to charge Canceran of consummated Theft because the indictment itself stated
that the crime was never produced. Instead, the Information should be construed to
mean that Canceran was being charged with theft in its attempted stage only.
Necessarily, Canceran may only be convicted of the lesser crime of Attempted Theft.
- "[A]n accused cannot be convicted of a higher offense than that with which he was
charged in the complaint or information and on which he was tried. It matters not
how conclusive and convincing the evidence of guilt may be, an accused cannot be
convicted in the courts of any offense, unless it is charged in the complaint or
 information on which he is tried, or necessarily included therein. He has a right to be
informed as to the nature of the offense with which he is charged before he is put
on trial, and to convict him of an offense higher than that charged in the complaint
or information on which he is tried would be an unauthorized denial of that right."

7. People vs. Pareja; GR 188979; 05 September 2012

Facts:
- RTC & CA: guilty of rape
- The evidence for the prosecution disclosed that at around 3:30 a.m. of June 16,
2003, AAA was sleeping beside her two-year old nephew, BBB, on the floor of her
sister’s room, when the appellant hugged her and kissed her nape and neck. AAA
cried, but the appellant covered her and BBB with a blanket. The appellant removed
AAA’s clothes, short pants, and underwear; he then took off his short pants and
briefs. The appellant went on top of AAA, and held her hands. AAA resisted, but the
appellant parted her legs using his own legs, and then tried to insert his penis into
her vagina. The appellant stopped when AAA’s cry got louder; AAA kicked the
appellant’s upper thigh as the latter was about to stand up. The appellant put his
clothes back on, and threatened to kill AAA if she disclosed the incident to anyone.
Immediately after, the appellant left the room. AAA covered herself with a blanket
and cried.
- Afterwards, AAA and her two (2) siblings went to the Women and Children’s Desk of
the Mandaluyong City Police Station and reported the incident. Accused was
charged with Attempted Rape but was held guilty of Consummated Rape
o CA explained that a slight penetration of the labia by the male organ is
sufficient to constitute rape, and held that a slight penetration took place
when the appellant’s penis touched AAA’s vagina as he was trying to insert it.
The presence of people in the other room did not make it impossible for the
appellant to have raped the victim, because lust is no respecter of time and
place. It also held that the victim’s lack of tenacity in resisting the appellant’s
sexual aggression did not amount to consent or voluntary submission to the
criminal act.
Issue: WON accused is guilty of consummated rape
Held: No. Only attempted rape
Carnal Knowledge Not Proven With Moral Certainty
A:    He tried to insert his sexual organ but he was not able to do so, ma’am.
A:    "Naidikit po niya sa ari ko." No penetration, not even slightest

- As earlier discussed, the prosecution failed to present sufficient and convincing

evidence to establish the required penile penetration. AAA’s testimony did not
establish that the appellant’s penis touched the labias or slid into her private part.
Aside from AAA’s testimony, no other evidence on record, such as a medico-legal
report, could confirm whether there indeed had been penetration, however slight,
of the victim’s labias. In the absence of testimonial or physical evidence to establish
penile penetration, the appellant cannot be convicted of consummated rape.
 - We emphasize that a conviction cannot be made to rest on possibilities; strongest
suspicion must not be permitted to sway judgment. In the present case, the
prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proving all the elements of
consummated rape.

8. Cruz vs. People; GR 166441; 08 October 2014

Facts:
- RTC: guilty of Attempted Rape & Acts of Lasciviousness
- CA: only attempted rape (acquitted of acts of lasciviousness since evidence is
insufficient. BBB was not presented to testify)

- [Petitioner] and [his wife] were engaged in the selling of plastic wares and glass
wares in different municipalities around the country. On December 20, 1993,
Norberto and Belinda employed AAA and BBB to help them in selling their wares in
Bangar, La Union which was then celebrating its fiesta. The young girls were
accompanied by Norberto, Belinda, Ruben Rodriguez (driver) and a sales boy by the
name of "Jess".
- On December 21, 1993, at around 1:00 o'clock in the morning, AAA and BBB went to
sleep. Less than an hour later, AAA was awakened when she felt that somebody was
on top of her. Norberto was mashing her breast and touching her private part. AAA
realized that she was divested of her clothing and that she was totally naked.
Norberto ordered her not to scream or she'll be killed. AAA tried to push Norberto
away and pleaded to have pity on her but her pleas fell on deaf ears. She fought
back and kicked Norberto twice. Norberto was not able to pursue his lustful desires.
Norberto offered her money and told her not to tell the incident to her mother
otherwise, she will be killed. AAA went out of the tent to seek help from Jess (the
house boy) but she failed to wake him up.
- Thirty minutes later, when AAA returned to their tent, she saw Norberto touching
the private parts of BBB. AAA saw her companion awake but her hands were
shaking. When she finally entered the tent, Norberto left and went outside.

- Defense: Considering the location of the tents, which were near the road and the
municipal hall, he could not possibly do the dastardly acts out in the open, not to
mention the fact that once AAA and BBB would scream, the policemen in the
municipal hall could hear them. He believes that the reason why the complainants
filed these cases against him was solely for the purpose of extorting money from
him.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner's climbing on top of the undressed AAA such that
they faced each other, with him mashing her breasts and touching her genitalia with his
hands, constituted attempted rape
Held: No. Only acts of lasciviousness
- Attempted rape is committed, therefore, when the "touching" of the vagina by the
penis is coupled with the intent to penetrate. The intent to penetrate is manifest
 only through the showing of the penis capable of consummating the sexual act
touching the external genitalia of the female. Without such showing, only the felony
of acts of lasciviousness is committed.
- The information charged that the petitioner "remove[d] her panty and underwear
and la[id] on top of said AAA embracing and touching her vagina and breast." With
such allegation of the information being competently and satisfactorily proven
beyond a reasonable doubt, he was guilty only of acts of lasciviousness, not
attempted rape. His embracing her and touching her vagina and breasts did not
directly manifest his intent to lie with her. The lack of evidence showing his erectile
penis being in the position to penetrate her when he was on top of her deterred any
inference about his intent to lie with her. At most, his acts reflected lewdness and
lust for her.

ARTICLE 8
1. People vs. Evasco; GR 213415; 26 September 2018
Facts:
- RTC & CA: muder
- On June 6, 2006, at about 9:00 p.m., witness Lorna went to the house of their
neighbor, one Armando, to fetch her husband, Wilfredo. When Lorna arrived at
Armando's house, she saw Ernesto boxing Wilfredo. Thereafter, she saw Jimmy hit
Wilfredo's head with a stone. As a result, Wilfredo fell to the ground with his face
up. While Wilfredo was still on the ground, Jimmy continuously hit him with a stone
and Ernesto was boxing Wilfredo's body. After mauling Wilfredo, Jimmy and
Ernesto walked away together. Subsequently, Lorna brought Wilfredo to the
hospital and was pronounced dead-on-arrival.
- According to Lorna, Wilfredo did not fight back when Ernesto and Jimmy mauled
him. He just parried the hands of Ernesto. She also claimed that Jimmy was standing
at the back of Wilfredo, when he pounded a stone on Wilfredo's head many times.
Defense
- Ernesto and Wilfredo had a heated argument. Because the group was allegedly
accustomed to such argument, the group did not interfere. Thereafter, Ernesto and
Wilfredo had a fist fight. Wilfredo stood up and Ernesto pushed him on a chair. Then,
Wilfredo fell to the ground. The group tried to pacify Ernesto and Wilfredo because
the latter was already lying on the ground. In his cross-examination, Jimmy stated
that when Ernesto and Wilfredo were fighting, he was held by Armando and was
told not to interfere.

Issue: WON there is conspiracy

Held: Yes
- Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony, and decide to commit it. Conspiracy must be established,
not by conjecture, but by positive and conclusive evidence, direct or circumstantial.
- Jimmy and Ernesto were shown to have acted in conspiracy when they assaulted
Wilfredo. Although their agreement concerning the commission of the felony, and
 their decision to commit it were not established by direct evidence, the records
contained clear and firm showing of their having acted in concert to achieve a
common design – that of assaulting Wilfredo. Direct proof of the agreement
concerning the commission of a felony, and of the decision to commit it is not
always accessible, but that should not be a hindrance to rendering a finding of
implied conspiracy.
- Indeed, when it is proved that two or more persons aimed by their acts towards the
accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their
combined acts, though apparently independent, were in fact connected and
cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of
sentiment, a conspiracy could be inferred although no actual meeting among them is
proved.
- SC changed crim from murder to homicide since treachery & abuse of superior
strength is absent.

2. People vs. Verona; GR 227748; 19 June 2019

Facts:
- Around 8:40 in the morning of October 27, 1998, Romeo Ortega (Ortega) was driving
his passenger jeepney known as "Valizing and had Manuel as conductor.
- Dioscoro and Eddie flagged down the jeepney and Ortega stopped to let them
aboard. Suddenly Edgar, who was then standing on the left side of the jeepney,
tried to stab Ortega with a "pisao" (short bolo). However, it was the right hand of
Arlene Yepes, the passenger seated on the left side of Ortega, that was hit. Seeing
Arlene Yepes wounded, Ortega immediately drove off. (so they were not in yet)

- As the "Valizing" left, Eva Castaño, who was then riding a motorcycle twelve meters
behind the said jeepney saw Dioscoro, Eddie, Edwin, Edgar and Efren holding bolos.
Eva Castaño knew Efren, Edwin and Eddie even before the incident because she
used to go to where said accused lived and had seen them in the place.
- Manuel, the conductor, was then holding on with both hands on the "Valizing" and
was standing on its rear step board.
o Suddenly, Efren and Eddie stabbed Manuel at the back, causing the latter to
fall on the ground. As Manuel lay flat on the ground, Edwin hacked Manuel
on the head and many times on the body. Edgar also hacked Manuel.
Dioscoro was seen holding a bolo as he stood near Manuel.
Defense:
- Appellant Edwin said that he saw his brother Edgar and Manuel, the victim, were
fighting. He ran inside the house of a certain person nicknamed "Caradol" to get a
long bolo. His house was 30 meters away from the place where Edgar and Manuel
were fighting. At the time he saw them, Edgar and Manuel were delivering stab
thrusts at each other. After about 20 minutes of fighting, Manuel fell down because
he sustained wounds on his head and nape. Edgar was wounded on the finger of his
left hand. Efren did not get involved. Edwin did not know where Dioscoro was during
the fight and he does not know Eva Castaño.
 - Efren & Dioscoro (dead): deny everything; alibi

Issue: Whether or not Eddie (at large), Efren, and Edwin are guilty of the crime of
murder penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.
Held: Yes
- Efren and Edwin's defenses of alibi and denial deserve no credence since they were
not able to prove the impossibility of their physical presence at the time and scene
of the incident.
- As for the issue of conspiracy, Efren and Edwin alleged in their Brief that "the facts of
the case were wanting of any overt acts that are reflective of any conspiracy
amongst the five accused." However, in the same Brief, Efren and Edwin cited the
direct testimony of Eva Castaño which revealed that "after the victim was first
stabbed at the back by accused-appellant Efren, the other accused Edwin did the
hacking thrust, followed by Edgar; while the other two accused, Dioscoro and Eddie,
were merely described xxx as being there carrying a weapon."
- Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The essence of conspiracy is the
unity of action and purpose. Direct proof is not essential to prove conspiracy for it
may be deduced from the acts of the accused before, during, and after the
commission of the crime charged, from which it may be indicated that there is
common purpose to commit the crime.
- In this case, the hacking acts of Efren and Edwin, when taken together with the
stabbing act of Efren, reveal a commonality and unity of criminal design. The
defense cannot aver that Dioscoro and Eddie's mere act of carrying a weapon is not
an overt act reflective of conspiracy because clearly, such act is in line with the crime
of murder. Regardless of the extent and character of Dioscoro and Eddie's respective
active participation, once conspiracy is proved, all of the conspirators are liable as
co-principals. The act of one is the act of all.

3. People vs. Carandang, et.al.; GR 175926; 06 July 2011

Facts:
- RTC & CA: guilty of two counts of murder and one count of frustrated murder
- The drug enforcement unit of the La Loma Police Station 1 received a request for
assistance from the sister of accused Milan regarding a drug deal that would
allegedly take place in her house. The station commander called SPO2 Wilfredo Pilar
Red and instructed him to talk to Milan’s sister, who was in their office. SPO2 Red,
accompanied by Police Officer (PO) 2 Dionisio Alonzo, SPO1 Estores and SPO1
Montecalvo, talked to Milan’s sister. Thereafter, SPO2 Red formed a team
composed of the officers who accompanied him during the interrogation, with him
as team leader. The team received further instructions from the station commander
then proceeded to Calavite Street aboard two vehicles, a mobile patrol car and an
unmarked car.
- When the team reached the place at around 4:00 p.m., they alighted from their
vehicles and surrounded Milan’s house. SPO1 Montecalvo’s group went to the left
 side of the house, while SPO2 Red’s group proceeded to the right. The two groups
eventually met at the back of the house near Milan’s room. The door to Milan’s
room was open, enabling the police officers to see Carandang, Milan and Chua
inside. SPO2 Red told the group that the persons inside the room would not put up a
fight, making them confident that nothing violent would erupt. However, when the
group introduced themselves as police officers, Milan immediately shut the door.
- PO2 Alonzo and SPO2 Red pushed the door open, causing it to fall and propelling
them inside the room. PO2 Alonzo shouted "Walang gagalaw!" Suddenly, gunshots
rang, hitting PO2 Alonzo and SPO2 Red who dropped to the floor one after the
other. Due to the suddenness of the attack, PO2 Alonzo and SPO2 Red were not able
to return fire and were instantly killed by the barrage of gunshots. SPO1
Montecalvo, who was right behind SPO2 Red, was still aiming his firearm at the
assailants when Carandang shot and hit him. SPO1 Montecalvo fell to the ground.
SPO1 Estores heard Chua say to Milan, "Sugurin mo na!" Milan lunged towards SPO1
Montecalvo, but the latter was able to fire his gun and hit Milan. SPO1 Estores went
inside the house and pulled SPO1 Montecalvo out.
- Reinforcements came at around 4:30 p.m. SPO1 Montecalvo was brought to the
Chinese General Hospital. Milan stepped out of the house and was also brought to a
hospital, but Carandang and Chua remained holed up inside the house for several
hours. There was a lengthy negotiation for the surrender of Carandang and Chua,
during which they requested for the presence of a certain Colonel Reyes and media
man Ramon Tulfo. It was around 11:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight when Carandang and
Chua surrendered. SPO2 Red and PO2 Alonzo were found dead inside the house,
their bodies slumped on the floor with broken legs and gunshot and grenade
shrapnel wounds.
o Dr. Winston Tan, Medico-Legal Officer of the Philippine National Police (PNP)
Crime Laboratory, conducted the post-mortem examination of the bodies of
SPO2 Red and PO2 Alonzo. He found that the gunshot wounds of Red and
Alonzo were the cause of their deaths.
- According to SPO1 Montecalvo’s account, Dr. Bu Castro of the Chinese General
Hospital operated on him, removing a bullet from the right portion of his nape. SPO1
Montecalvo’s hospitalization expenses amounted to ₱14,324.48. He testified that it
was a nightmarish experience for him as he feared that he might be paralyzed later
on.
- Defense: They all claimed that they were unarmed and were only playing card
games at the time of the incident when the public officers rushed in

Issue: WON there is conspiracy

Held: Yes
- That the three acted in concert can be gleaned from their actuations. First, when
they learned of the presence of the police officers, they closed the door. Not one of
them came out to talk peacefully with the police officers. Instead, Carandang
opened fire, Alonzo and Red did not even have the chance to touch their firearms at
that instant.
 - At first glance, Milan’s act of closing the door may seem a trivial contribution in the
furtherance of the crime. On second look, however, that act actually facilitated the
commission of the crime. The brief moment during which the police officers were
trying to open the door paved the way for the appellants to take strategic positions
which gave them a vantage point in staging their assault. Thus, when SPO2 Red and
PO2 Alonzo were finally able to get inside, they were instantly killed by the sudden
barrage of gunfire. In fact, because of the suddenness of the attack, said police
officers were not able to return fire.
- Insofar as Chua is concerned, his participation in the conspiracy consisted of lending
encouragement and moral ascendancy to his co-conspirators as evidenced by the
fact that he ordered Milan to attack the already fallen police officers with the
obvious intention to finish them off. Moreover, he did not immediately surrender
even when he had the opportunity to do so but instead chose to stay with
Carandang inside the room until their arrest.

- Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Evidence need not establish the
actual agreement among the conspirators showing a preconceived plan or motive
for the commission of the crime. Proof of concerted action before, during and after
the crime, which demonstrates their unity of design and objective, is sufficient.
When conspiracy is established, the act of one is the act of all regardless of the
degree of participation of each.
- In the case at bar, the conclusion that Milan and Chua conspired with Carandang
was established by their acts (1) before Carandang shot the victims (Milan’s closing
the door when the police officers introduced themselves, allowing Carandang to
wait in ambush), and (2) after the shooting (Chua’s directive to Milan to attack SPO1
Montecalvo and Milan’s following such instruction). Contrary to the suppositions of
appellants, these facts are not meant to prove that Chua is a principal by
inducement, or that Milan’s act of attacking SPO1 Montecalvo was what made him a
principal by direct participation. Instead, these facts are convincing circumstantial
evidence of the unity of purpose in the minds of the three. As co-conspirators, all
three are considered principals by direct participation.

4. People vs. Octa; GR 195196; 13 July 2015

Facts:
- Guilty of the crime of kidnapping for ransom
- In the morning of September 25, 2003, Johnny and Mike Adrian were on board a
Honda Civic Car colored silver travelling on Buenos Aires St., Sampaloc, Manila when
their way was blocked by a Mitsubishi box type Lancer car colored red-orange. The
four (4) armed occupants of the Lancer car alighted. Johnny did not open the door of
the Honda Civic car but one of the armed men fired his pistol at the left window of
the civic car, thus compelling Johnny to open the locked door of the car. The armed
men went inside the car and Johnny was ordered to transfer at the back seat at that
time. Inside the car, Johnny was handcuffed, blindfolded and was even boxed. The
 armed men asked for the names and telephone numbers of his mother-in-law. The
armed men called his mother-in-law giving the information that Johnny was in their
custody and they would just meet each other at a certain place. They travelled for a
while and then they stopped and Johnny was brought to a safehouse.
- After Johnny and Mike were kidnapped, the kidnappers communicated with
Johnny’s wife Ana Marie giving the information that they have intheir custody her
husband Johnny and her brother Mike Adrian. Ana Marie tried to confirm the
kidnapping incident by talking to her husband, who confirmed to his wife that he
and Mike Adrian were indeed kidnapped and they were in the custody of their
abductors. Ana Marie sought the assistance of the PACER [Police AntiCrime and
Emergency Response] and stayed in a PACER safehouse. During her stay, she had
several communications with her husband’s kidnappers. The latter started
demanding the amount of ₱20 million for the release of her husband and her
brother but the amount was considerably reduced up to the time that Ana Marie
was able to raise the amount of ₱538,000.00 which was accepted by the kidnappers.
- Finally, on September 30, 2003 at 10PM, the kidnappers set up the manner on how
the ransom money would be delivered. Ana Marie travelled to Quiapo Church, then
to Quezon City circle up to SM Fairview and to Robinsons Fairview. She was made to
stop at Red Lips Beer House and go to the nearby Caltex Auto Supply where she
would see a man wearing a red cap and who would ask her "saan yong padala ni
boss". She was instructed to deliver the wrapped bundled ransom money to the man
wearing red cap. When she saw the man with red cap, she was asked for the money.
At first, she did not give the money because she wanted to be sure that she was
giving the money to the right man. Using her own cellphone, she called up the man
who had been instructing her all along and asked him to confirm if the man in front
of her is the right man to give the ransom money to, saying "kausapin mo muna ito
kung siya ba." The man in the phone and the man in the red cap talked for a while in
another dialect which Ana Marie did not understand. When she asked the man to
give back her cellphone to her, he refused and, instead instructed her to give the
money to him. She described the man wearing red cap to be goodlooking, lightly
built, in his early 20s, around 5’4" in height and with dimples, which she later
identified in court as accused Estanly Octa.
- On October 1, 2003, Johnny was released by his captors after the payment of
ransom money. He was detained for the duration of six (6) days. After his release,
he removed his blindfold and handcuffs but he could hardly regain his sight and see
things. He flagged down a private pick-up and learned that he was in Camarin,
Caloocan City. He asked a favor that he be driven to Meycauayan, Bulacan where he
took a jeepney to Monumento, and from there, he took a taxi bound home. When
he was released, his brother-in-law Mike Adrian was also released.
- Defense: denial & alibi plus he was tortured to admit his guilt by PACER

Issue: WON the trial court gravely erred in finding him to be a conspirator to the crime
charge
 Held: No.
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 orfurtherance of the
complicity.
- Accused-appellant also claims that he cannot be considered as a conspirator to the
kidnapping in the absence of concrete proof that he actually participated in the
execution of the essential elements of the crime by overt acts indispensable to its
accomplishment. His receipt of the ransom money transpired only after the
kidnapping had been consummated and was not an essential element of the crime.
- We disagree. 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. 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.
- 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
- Moreover, the CA is correct in its observation that at the time accused-appellant
received the ransom money, the crime of kidnapping was still continuing, since
both victims were still being illegally detained by the kidnappers. 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. Ransom is money, price or consideration paid or demanded for the
redemption of a captured person or persons; or payment that releases from
captivity. Without ransom money, the freedom of the detained victims cannot be
achieved. The positive identification of accused-appellant constitutes direct, and not
merely circumstantial, evidence.

5. People vs. Feliciano, et.al.; GR 196735; 05 May 2014

Facts:
- Leandro, Amel, Derinis, Mervin, Cristobal, Felix, and Cesar are all members of the
Sigma Rho Fraternity. On December 8, 1994, at around 12:30 to 1 :00 p.m., they
were having lunch at Beach House Canteen, located at the back of the Main Library
of the University of the Philippines, Diliman. Suddenly, Dennis Venturina shouted,
"Brads, brods!"
- According to Leandro, Grand Archon of Sigma Rho Fraternity, he looked around
when Venturina shouted, and he saw about ten (10) men charging toward
them. The men were armed with baseball bats and lead pipes, and their heads were
covered with either handkerchiefs or shirts. Within a few seconds, five (5) of the
men started attacking him, hitting him with their lead pipes. During the attack, he
recognized one of the attackers as Robert Michael Beltran Alvir because his mask fell
off. Lachica tried to parry the blows of his attackers, suffering scratches and
contusions. He was, however, able to run to the nearby College of Education. Just
before reaching it, he looked back and saw Warren Zingapan and Julius Victor L.
 Medalla holding lead pipes and standing where the commotion was. Both of them
did not have their masks on. He was familiar with Alvir, Zingapan, and Medalla
because he often saw them in the College of Social Sciences and Philosophy (CSSP)
and Zingapan used to be his friend. The attack lasted about thirty (30) to forty-five
(45) seconds.
- Defense: denial & alibi
- After a judicious evaluation of the matter, the Court is of the considered view that
of the ten accused, some were sufficiently identified and some were not. The Court
believes that out of the amorphous images during the pandemonium, the
beleaguered victims were able to espy and identify some of the attackers etching an
indelible impression in their memory. Although each victim had a very strong motive
to place his fraternity rivals permanently behind bars, not one of them testified
against all of them. If the prosecution eyewitnesses, who were all Sigma Rhoans,
were simply bent on convicting Scintilla Juris members for that matter, they could
have easily tagged each and every single accused as a participant in the atrocious
and barbaric assault to make sure that no one else would escape conviction. Instead,
each eyewitness named only one or two and some were candid enough to say that
they did not see who delivered the blows against them.
Issue: WON the accused’s sentence should be aggravated as well even though they
were not wearing masks at the time
Addtl issue considered by SC: WON CA erred in modifying penalty from attempted
murder to slight physical injuries
Held: Yes.
- 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.
- In any case, the accused were being charged with the crime of murder, frustrated
murder, and attempted murder. All that is needed for the information to be
sufficient is that the elements of the crime have been alleged and that there are
sufficient details as to the time, place, and persons involved in the offense.

- However, the CA’s modification is erroneous. The appellate court found that the
accused-appellants were guilty of attempted murder only against Natalicio and
Fortes, and not against Mangrobang, Lachica, and Gaston. It is the appellate court's
 reasoning that because Lachica and Mangrobang "were no longer chased by the
attackers," it concluded that accused-appellants "voluntary desisted from pursuing
them and from inflicting harm to them, which shows that they did not have the
intent to do more than to make them suffer pain by slightly injuring them." It also
pointed out that the wound inflicted on Gaston "was too shallow to have been done
with an intent to kill."

- Conspiracy, once proven, has the effect of attaching liability to all of the accused,
regardless of their degree of participation, thus: Once an express or implied
conspiracy is proved, all of the conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of
the extent and character of their respective active participation in the commission of
the crime or crimes perpetrated in furtherance of the conspiracy because in
contemplation of law the act of one is the act of all.
- The liabilities of the accused-appellants in this case arose from a single incident
wherein the accused-appellants were armed with baseball bats and lead pipes, all in
agreement to do the highest amount of damage possible to the victims. Some were
able to run away and take cover, but the others would fall prey at the hands of their
attackers. The intent to kill was already present at the moment of attack and that
intent was shared by all of the accused-appellants alike when the presence of
conspiracy was proven. It is, therefore, immaterial to distinguish between the
seriousness of the injuries suffered by the victims to determine the respective
liabilities of their attackers. What is relevant is only as to whether the death occurs
as a result of that intent to kill and whether there are qualifying, aggravating or
mitigating circumstances that can be appreciated.

6. People vs. Credo; GR 230778; 22 July 2019

Facts:
- RTC & CA: guilty of murder and frustrated murder as co-conspirator
- Spouses Antonio and Evangeline operated a computer shop and a store at their
residence. Daniel and Juan, brothers, are nephews of Evangeline. At around lunch
time on March 16, 2004, Daniel, an assistant at the computer shop, entertained
male customers who wanted to rent tapes. Evangeline instructed Daniel to let the
male customers in. Evangeline got up and asked the men where they are from. One
of the men replied, "ano nga bang Iugar iyon?." Evangeline then told them that if
they are not from the area, they could just buy the tapes. Evangeline went back to
the table and continued eating her lunch. When Evangeline stood up to get water
from the refrigerator, Daniel and the two unidentified men suddenly appeared. One
of the unidentified men strangled her. Without saying anything, he pressed
the lanseta and started stabbing her. Evangeline struggled and resisted until she fell
to the floor while that person continued to stab her. Evangeline kicked him so he
would not reach her body. Thereafter, the men who assaulted her left. Evangeline
recalled that she sustained eight stab wounds. Once the two unidentified men left,
Evangeline stood up and saw Antonio standing at the gate with several stab
wounds. Upon seeing Antonio, Evangeline told Daniel to chase the two men who
 had just left. According to Evangeline, Daniel did not help her and even watched
while she was being stabbed. He did not go out to chase the two men.
- After being stabbed, Antonio was able to walk to the door of the computer
shop. Evangeline and Rufo, a neighbor, allegedly saw Daniel carry Antonio about
two feet from the ground and then drop him, causing his head to hit the ground. A
few minutes later, Antonio was carried to the vehicle of a neighbor while Evangeline
took a tricycle with neighbor Roy to the hospital. Antonio was declared dead on
arrival. Medico-Legal Report revealed that the cause of Antonio's death is "multiple
stab wounds on the back, chest, and neck. On the other hand, Evangeline's Medico-
Legal Certificate showed that she suffered multiple stab wounds
- Defense: Juan – denial & alibi; Daniel – he only saw the Spouses after the stabbing
and only accidentally dropped Antonio since he suddenly got up and cursed
Issue: Juan and Daniel argued that their presence, without executing any overt act, does
not prove conspiracy in inflicting of fatal injuries to Spouses Asistin
WON J&D were proven to be part of conspiracy
Held: No
- Here, careful scrutiny of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses reveals flaws
and inconsistencies that cast serious doubt on the veracity and truthfulness of their
allegations and would merit the acquittal of Juan and Daniel.
- Evangeline admitted that neither Daniel nor Juan stabbed her and that she did not
see Juan during the incident. Their complicity was merely based on circumstantial
evidence, having been allegedly seen near the residence of Spouses Asistin, talking
to strangers, before the incident took place. The prosecution witnesses admitted to
not knowing nor hearing what Daniel, Juan, and the other men were discussing.
They also admitted not seeing who killed Antonio.
- Macapagal-Arroyo vs. People: “But to be considered a part of the conspiracy, each
of the accused must  be  shown  to  have performed at least an overt act in
pursuance or in furtherance of the conspiracy, for without being shown to do so
none of them will be liable as a co-conspirator, and  each  may  only  be  held 
responsible for the results of his own acts.

- In this case, We find that the prosecution failed to present sufficient proof of
concerted action before, during, and after the commission of the crime which
would demonstrate accused-appellants' unity of design and objective. There is no
direct proof nor reliable circumstantial evidence establishing that Juan and Daniel
conspired with the unidentified men who stabbed Spouses Asistin.

- Anent the strange behavior of Daniel, We find the degree of interference or

participation of Daniel by allegedly standing still while Evangeline was being stabbed
and failing to come to her and Antonio's aid, insufficient to warrant the conclusion
that he is a co-conspirator. His conduct during and immediately after the stabbing
incident cannot be equated to a direct or overt act in furtherance of the criminal
design of the two unidentified men.
 - While it may be true that Daniel acted differently from what was expected of him in
the given situation, We cannot fault him for reacting the way he did. We have held
that "different people react differently to a given stimulus or type of situation, and
there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a
strange or startling or frightful experience." Certainly, a stabbing incident unfolding
before his very eyes, involving his aunt and uncle at that, was a frightful experience
for Daniel. He should not be faulted for being in a state of shock after witnessing a
gruesome event. (ACQUITTED)

7. People vs. Bokingco; GR 187536; 10 August 2011

Facts:
- CA: guilty of murder as co-conspirators
- The victim, Pasion and his wife, Elsa, were residing in a house along Mac Arthur
Highway. Pasion owned a pawnshop, which formed part of his house. He also
maintained two (2) rows of apartment units at the back of his house. The first row
had six (6) units, one of which is Apartment No. 5 and was being leased to Vitalicio,
Pasion’s brother-in-law, while the other row was still under construction at the time
of his death. Appellants, who were staying in Apartment No. 3, were among the 13
construction workers employed by Pasion.
- At around 1:00 a.m., Vitalicio was spin-drying his clothes inside his apartment when
Pasion came from the front door, passed by him and went out of the back door. A
few minutes later, he heard a commotion from Apartment No. 3. He headed to
said unit to check. He peeped through a screen door and saw Bokingco hitting
something on the floor. Upon seeing Vitalicio, Bokingco allegedly pushed open the
screen door and attacked him with a hammer in his hand. A struggle ensued and
Vitalicio was hit several times. Vitalicio bit Bokingco’s neck and managed to push
him away. Bokingco tried to chase Vitalicio but was eventually subdued by a co-
worker. Vitalicio proceeded to his house and was told by his wife that Pasion was
found dead in the kitchen of Apartment No. 3. Vitalicio went back to Apartment No.
3 and saw Pasion’s body lying flat on the kitchen floor. Pasion and Vitalicio were
brought to the hospital. Pasion expired a few hours later while Vitalicio was treated
for his injuries.
- Elsa testified that she was in the master’s bedroom on the second floor of the house
when she heard banging sounds and her husband’s moans. She immediately got off
the bed and went down. Before reaching the kitchen, Col blocked her way. Elsa
asked him why he was inside their house but Col suddenly ran towards her, sprayed
tear gas on her eyes and poked a sharp object under her chin. Elsa was wounded
when she bowed her head to avoid the tear gas. Col then instructed her to open the
vault of the pawnshop but Elsa informed him that she does not know the
combination lock. Elsa tried offering him money but Col dragged her towards the
back door by holding her neck and pulling her backward. Before they reached the
door, Elsa saw Bokingco open the screen door and heard him tell Col: "tara, patay
na siya." Col immediately let her go and ran away with Bokingco. Elsa proceeded to
 Apartment No. 3. Thereat, she saw her husband lying on the floor, bathed in his own
blood.
- Defense: Col – denial & alibi; Bokingco – Pasion was intoxicated and it was self-
defense but he admitted that he harbored ill feelings towards Pasion during cross-
examination (and he also admitted in open court that he killed Pasion)
Issue: WON Col is a co-conspirator
Held: No
- A downgrade of conviction from murder to homicide is proper for Bokingco for
failure of the prosecution to prove the presence of the qualifying circumstances.

- 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. Unity of purpose and unity in the execution of
the unlawful objective are essential to establish the existence of conspiracy.
- As a rule, conspiracy must be established with the same quantum of proof as the
crime itself and must be shown as clearly as the commission of the crime.

- The finding of conspiracy was premised on Elsa’s testimony that appellants fled
together after killing her husband and the extrajudicial confession of Bokingco.
Nobody witnessed the commencement of the attack. Col was not seen at the
apartment where Pasion was being attacked by Bokingco. In fact, he was at Elsa’s
house and allegedly ordering her to open the pawnshop vault.
- 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.
- In as much as Bokingco’s extrajudicial confession is inadmissible against him, it is
likewise inadmissible against Col, specifically where he implicated the latter as a
cohort. Under the Rules of Court, the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an
act, declaration or omission of another. Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet.
Consequently, an extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant, is not
admissible against his or her co-accused, and is considered as hearsay against
 them. An exception to the res inter alios acta rule is an admission made by a
conspirator. Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that the act or
declaration of the conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its existence may
be given in evidence against the co-conspirator provided that the conspiracy is
shown by evidence other than by such act or declaration. In order that the
admission of a conspirator may be received against his or her co-conspirators, it is
necessary that first, the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the
admission itself; second, the admission relates to the common object; and third, it
has been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the conspiracy. As
we have previously discussed, we did not find any sufficient evidence to establish
the existence of conspiracy. Therefore, the extrajudicial confession has no probative
value and is inadmissible in evidence against Col. Bokingco’s judicial admission
exculpated Col because Bokingco admitted that he only attacked Pasion after the
latter hit him in the head. All told, an acquittal for Col is in order because no
sufficient evidence was adduced to implicate him.

8. People vs. Castillo; GR 132895; 10 March 2004

Facts:
- Automatic review on RTC: guilty of Qualified Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention and sentenced to death
- On March 1, 1995, Rosanna Baria was employed as one of the household helpers of
Mr. and Mrs. Luis De Guzman Cebrero at their residence. In the morning of said
date, Femie, another housemaid of the Cebreros’ and Baria’s relative, bathed and
dressed up Rocky, the couple’s six year old son and afterwards advised Baria that
someone, who was also a Cebrero househelper, will fetch Rocky.
- At about 8:00 a.m., a tricycle arrived. On board was a woman, whom Baria pointed
to in court and who gave her name as Evangeline Padayhag. Baria assisted Rocky to
board the tricycle. The tricycle brought Rocky and the woman, whom Rocky pointed
to in court and who gave her name as Evangeline Padayhag, to a nearby
"Mcdonald’s". Thereat, they were joined by another woman whom Rocky pointed
to in court and who gave her name as Elizabeth Castillo. The three proceeded to a
house far from the "Mcdonald’s" where Rocky slept "four times".
- At about 5:30 p.m. of March 1, 1995, Luis Cebrero arrived home from work. When
his son DJ arrived, he informed his father that Rocky did not attend school. Luis
Cebrero asked Baria who told him that Rocky was fetched at home by a woman to
attend a birthday party. Informed thereof, Mr. Cebrero then called up his friends
and went to the police station to report that his son was missing.
- At about 7:30 p.m. that night, Luis Cebrero received a telephone call from a woman
saying, "Ibigay mo sa akin ang ATM card mo o ang bata". Luis replied, "Kailangan ko
ang bata". The woman asked how much money was in his ATM and Luis replied
P40,000.00. Luis then requested to talk to his son but the woman said, "Hindi
puwede, malayo dito ang anak mo at tatawag na lang uli ako".
- Luis Cebrero decided to connect a tape recorder to his phone. On March 2, 1995, at
about 7:20 p.m., his phone rang. The caller was a woman telling him, "Bigyan mo
 ako nang isang million", to which he replied, "Hindi ko kayang ibigay ang isang
million". The caller told Luis that she will call back later on.
- When the caller did not contact Luis Cebrero the following day, March 3, 1995, he
instructed his wife to raise some money. From the bank, Mrs. Cebrero withdrew
P800,000.00 in P1,000.00 denomination. The bank provided Mrs. Cebrero a list
containing the serial numbers of the money withdrawn.
- On March 4, 1995, at about 9:30 p.m., Luis Cebrero received a telephone call. The
caller was a woman who asked, "Ano nasa iyo na ba ang pera"? Luis answered,
"Hindi ko kayang ibigay sa iyo ang halagang iyon, kalahati lang ang kaya kong ibigay".
The caller said, "Sige, puede na yan and instructed Luis Cebrero to be in Paco,
Obando, Bulacan, alone, at about 2:00 a.m.; that at Paco, Obando, Bulacan, is a
"Farmacia Dilag" and beside it is a street which Luis must follow until he reaches the
church called "Sabadista" where he should drop the money. Luis Cebrero received
another call on that same night instructing him to stop in front of the Farmacia Dilag
and walk on the street beside it going to a chapel and to drop the money on the
chapel’s terrace.
- Informed of the place for the pay-off, on March 4, 1995, Major Ronnie Eleazar,
Commanding Officer of the Intelligence Security Group (ISG), Philippine Army,
briefed his men on Rocky’s kidnapping and assigned them their respective tasks in
the stakeout they will undertake around the pay-off.
- At about 11:00 p.m. of March 4, 1995, Sgt. Alejandro Delena and his ISG team,
proceeded to Obando, Bulacan for the stakeout. After positioning themselves near
the stakeout site, a car arrived and stopped in front of the chapel. The man alighted
and placed a bag in front of the chapel and immediately left. After about forty (40)
minutes, two women appeared, proceeded to where the bag was dropped. On
seeing the bag, the women laughed and left. After about two (2) minutes, the two
women returned, picked up the bag and immediately left. The ISG team searched
the area around the drop-off place but the two women were nowhere to be found.
In court, Sgt. Delena pointed to and identified Castillo and Padayhag as the two
women he saw in front of the chapel in Obando, Bulacan and who, later on, picked
up the bag dropped by Luis Cebrero.
- Puzzled by the sudden disappearance of the two women, Sgt. Delena and his team
remained at the stake-out area. The team befriended the residents of the place, one
of whom was a certain Joselito Torres who claimed to be the former boyfriend of
Elizabeth Castillo whom he recognized from the picture shown to him by Sgt.
Delena. Torres informed the ISG team that Castillo had already left for Mindanao.
Sgt. Delena immediately communicated the information, including the address of
Gigi Padayhag in Navotas, to his commanding officer.
- At about 9:00 p.m. of March 5, 1995, Luis Cebrero was at home when a tricycle
stopped in front of his house. Somebody knocked at the door and when Luis Cebrero
opened it, he saw his son, Rocky.
- Prosecuted for kidnapping and serious illegal detention, Evangeline Padayhag and
Elizabeth Castillo initially pleaded guilty upon arraignment and were each meted
the penalty of life imprisonment. The trial court, however, on motion based on
 improvident plea, ordered the withdrawal of the plea of guilty and directed the re-
arraignment of Castillo and Padayhag.
- In an 11-page Decision, of which nine pages were devoted to the recital of facts, the
trial court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses more credible and
gave no weight to Castillo and Padayhag’s defenses.
Issue: WON there is conspiracy to extort ransom in this case
Held: No. (Padayhag is acquitted)
- Castillo also points out that Rocky came along freely with them, was not harmed,
and was even cared for during his detention. This argument is pointless. The essence
of kidnapping is deprivation of liberty. For kidnapping to exist, it is not necessary
that the offender kept the victim in an enclosure or treated him harshly. Where the
victim in a kidnapping case is a minor, it becomes even more irrelevant whether the
offender forcibly restrained the victim. Leaving a child in a place from which he did
not know the way home, even if he had the freedom to roam around the place of
detention, would still amount to deprivation of liberty. For under such a situation,
the child’s freedom remains at the mercy and control of the abductor.
- Castillo’s explanation that she decided to return Rocky only when he was no longer
sick is also implausible. In the first place, she failed to explain why she did not return
the child the moment she found out he was sick. That would have been the more
prudent course of action at that time. However, one day after the "pay-off" on 4
March 1995, Rocky suddenly appeared by himself at the Cebreros’ home on 5 March
1995. Any reasonable person would conclude that the pay-off and the return of the
child were related events. Castillo would have us attribute this to coincidence.

Conspiracy
- Padayhag’s sole involvement in this entire episode is her act of fetching Rocky and
bringing him to where Castillo was waiting for them. Padayhag then went strolling
with the two, went to the house of Castillo’s sister together with Castillo and Rocky,
and then later left the house. From this fact alone, the prosecution would have us
rule that Padayhag acted in conspiracy with Castillo. The prosecution contends that
without Padayhag’s help, Castillo could not have abducted Rocky. We are not
persuaded.
- There must be positive and conclusive evidence that Padayhag acted in concert
with Castillo to commit the same criminal act. To hold an accused guilty as a co-
principal by conspiracy, there must be a sufficient and unbroken chain of events that
directly and definitely links the accused to the commission of the crime without any
space for baseless suppositions or frenzied theories to filter through. Indeed,
conspiracy must be proven as clearly as the commission of the crime itself.
- Performance of an act that contributes to the goal of another is not enough. The act
must be motivated by the same unlawful intent. Neither joint nor simultaneous
action is per se sufficient indicium of conspiracy, unless proved to have been
motivated by a common design.
- Padayhag’s act of fetching Rocky is not conclusive proof of her complicity with
Castillo’s plan, a plan Padayhag did not even know. After the two spent the day
 together, Castillo beseeched Padayhag to fetch Rocky citing as reason her love for
the child and a desire to spend time with the boy. Padayhag is a young lass from the
province who only finished Grade Two. Padayhag was thus easily misled by the
more worldly Castillo. Padayhag’s testimony reveals her naiveté.
- Padayhag’s confusion in the way she answered the questions propounded to her
only highlights the fact that she was not aware of Castillo’s plans and was vulnerable
to the latter’s manipulation. Her straightforward and wide-eyed admission of facts
that incriminate her demonstrate a level of honesty that can only be found in
those who do not know the art of deceit. Far from a cold and calculating mind,
Padayhag strikes us as one whose innocence often leaves her at the mercy of her
more worldly peers. It is clear that she acted with the full belief that Castillo was
doing nothing wrong. Whatever moved her to do what Castillo asked of her is up for
speculation. What matters is that her motivation in fetching Rocky was not to kidnap
the boy. To impose criminal liability, the law requires that there be intentional
participation in the criminal act, not the unwitting cooperation of a deceived
individual.

- In its brief the prosecution itself cites that any inquiry as to the liability of an
individual as a conspirator should focus on all acts before, during and after the
commission of the crime. We have done precisely that, and it is precisely why we
rule for her innocence. After her stroll with Castillo and Rocky, she left when Castillo
brought the boy to her sister’s house in Caloocan. She never visited nor contacted
Castillo afterwards. She remained at her house and refused to go with Castillo when
the latter suddenly tried to coax her to go to Dipolog. None of the money used as
ransom was found in her possession. Her involvement in the "pay-off" was never
established. The testimony of two prosecution witnesses, Sgt. De Lena and Sgt.
Iglesias, claiming that Padayhag was with Castillo when the latter picked up the
ransom in Obando, is contradicted by Castillo’s admission in open court that she
brought along a certain "Mila" and not Padayhag. In addition, the testimonies of
these two police officers suffer from their failure to explain how they suddenly lost
track of the two women who took the ransom in front of their very eyes.

- All these circumstances illustrate the absence of any hint of conspiracy. We also find
that the prosecution failed to prove Padayhag’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

9. GMA vs. People; GR 220598; 19 July 2016

Facts:
- Information: Ombudsman accuse (the accused) of the crime of PLUNDER, as defined
by, and penalized under Section 2 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7080, as amended by
R.A. No. 7659, committed, as follows:
That during the period from January 2008 to June 2010 or sometime prior or
subsequent thereto, in Quezon City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, accused GLORIA MA CAP A GAL-ARROYO, then the President of the
Philippines, ROSARIO C. URIARTE, then General Manager and Vice Chairman, …,
 BENIGNO B. AGUAS, then Budget and Accounts Manager, all of the Philippine
Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO),…., 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 THREE HUNDRED SIXTY
FIVE MILLION NINE HUNDRED NINETY SEVEN THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED FIFTEEN
PESOS (PHP365,997,915.00), more or less, through any or a combination or a series
of overt or criminal acts, or similar schemes or means, described as follows:

(a) diverting in several instances, funds from the operating budget of PCSO to its
Confidential/Intelligence Fund that could be accessed and withdrawn at any time
with minimal restrictions, and converting, misusing, and/or illegally conveying or
transferring the proceeds drawn from said fund in the aforementioned sum, also
in several instances, to themselves, in the guise of fictitious expenditures, for
their personal gain and benefit;

(b) raiding the public treasury by withdrawing and receiving, in several instances,
the above-mentioned amount from the Confidential/Intelligence Fund from
PCSO's accounts, and or unlawfully transferring or conveying the same into their
possession and control through irregularly issued disbursement vouchers and
fictitious expenditures; and

(c) taking advantage of their respective official positions, authority, relationships,

connections or influence, in several instances, to unjustly enrich themselves in
the aforementioned sum, at the expense of, and the damage and prejudice of
the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

- After the Prosecution rested its case, the accused separately filed their demurrers to
evidence asserting that the Prosecution did not establish a case for plunder against
them.

- The Sandiganbayan granted the demurrers and dismissed the case against the accused
within its jurisdiction, except for petitioners and Valencia. It held that there was
sufficient evidence showing that they had conspired to commit plunder.

- Petitioners filed this case before the Supreme Court on certiorari before the Supreme
Court to assail the denial of their demurrers to evidence, on the ground of grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Issue: WON the Prosecution did not properly allege and prove the existence of
conspiracy among GMA, Aguas and Uriarte
Held: Yes
- We stress that the community of design to commit an offense must be a conscious
one. Conspiracy transcends mere companionship, and mere presence at the scene
of the crime does not in itself amount to conspiracy. Even knowledge of, or
acquiescence in, or agreement to cooperate is not enough to constitute one a party
to a conspiracy, absent any active participation in the commission of the crime with
a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose. Hence, conspiracy
must be established, not by conjecture, but by positive and conclusive evidence.

- In her case, GMA points out that all that the State showed was her having affixed her
unqualified "OK" on the requests for the additional CIFs by Uriarte. She argues that
such act was not even an overt act of plunder because it had no immediate and
necessary relation to plunder by virtue of her approval not being per se illegal or
irregular. However, the Sandiganbayan, in denying the Motions for Reconsideration
of GMA and Aguas vis-a-vis the denial of the demurrers, observed that: “What
accused Arroyo forgets is that although she did not actually commit any "overt act"
of illegally amassing CIF funds, her act of approving not only the additional CIF funds
but also their releases, aided and abetted accused Uriarte's successful raids on the
public treasury. Accused Arroyo is therefore rightly charged as a co-conspirator of
Uriarte who accumulated the CIF funds. Moreover, the performance of an overt act
is not indispensable when a conspirator is the mastermind.”

- It is in this regard that the Sandigabayan gravely abused its discretion amounting to

lack or excess of its jurisdiction. To start with, its conclusion that GMA had been the
mastermind of plunder was plainly conjectural and outrightly unfounded
considering that the information did not aver at all that she had been the
mastermind; hence, the Sandigabayan thereby acted capriciously and arbitrarily. In
the second place, the treatment by the Sandiganbayan of her handwritten
unqualified "OK" as an overt act of plunder was absolutely unwarranted considering
that such act was a common legal and valid practice of signifying approval of a fund
release by the President.

- The law requires in the criminal charge for plunder against several individuals that
there must be a main plunderer and her co-conspirators, who may be members of
her family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or
other persons. 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.
 - The Prosecution seems to be relying on the doctrine of command responsibility to
impute the actions of subordinate officers to GMA as the superior officer. The
reliance is misplaced, for incriminating GMA under those terms was legally
unacceptable and incomprehensible. The application of the doctrine of command
responsibility is limited, and cannot be true for all litigations. The Court ruled
in Rodriguez v. Macapagal-Arroyo that command responsibility pertains to the
responsibility of commanders for crimes committed by subordinate members of the
armed forces or other persons subject to their control in international wars or
domestic conflict. The doctrine has also found application in civil actions for human
rights abuses. But this case involves neither a probe of GMA' s actions as the
Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, nor of a human rights
issue. As such, it is legally improper to impute the actions of Uriarte to GMA in the
absence of any conspiracy between them.

- Under the circumstances, the Sandiganbayan's finding on the existence of the

conspiracy to commit plunder was unsustainable. It then becomes unavoidable for
the Court to rule that because the Prosecution failed to properly allege the elements
of the crime, as well as to prove that any implied conspiracy to commit plunder or
any other crime existed among GMA, Aguas and Uriarte there was no conspiracy to
commit plunder among them. As a result, GMA and Aguas could be criminally
responsible only for their own respective actions, if any. (ACQUITTED)

10. Fernan vs. People; GR 145927; 24 August 2007

Facts:
- The instant petition under Rule 45 originated from 119 criminal cases filed with the
Sandiganbayan (SB) involving no less than 36 former officials and employees of the
then Ministry of Public Highways (MPH) and several suppliers of construction
materials for defalcation of public funds arising from numerous transactions in the
Cebu First Highway Engineering District in 1977. Because of the sheer magnitude of
the illegal transactions, the number of people involved, and the ingenious scheme
employed in defrauding the government, this infamous 86 million highway scam has
few parallels in the annals of crime in the country.

- On June 21, 1978, COA Regional Director directed auditors to verify and submit a
report on sub-allotment advises issued to various highway engineering districts in
Cebu, particularly, the Cebu City, Cebu 1st, Cebu 2nd and the Mandaue City Highway
Engineering Districts. Complying with the directive, they conducted an investigation
and in due course submitted their findings. Their report (Exhibit C) confirmed the
issuance of fake Letters of Advice of Allotments (LAAs) in the districts mentioned.
They discovered that two sets of LAAs were received by the districts. One set
consists of regular LAAs which clearly indicated the covering sub-allotment advices
and were duly signed by thr Finance Officer of the MPH Regional Office. The LAAs
were numbered in proper sequence and duly recorded in the logbook of the
 Accounting, Budget and Finance Division. The other set consists of fake LAAs which
do not indicate the covering sub-allotment advice and were signed by Chief
Accountant Rolando Mangubat and Engr. Jose Bagasao, instead of the Finance
Officer. These fake LAAs were not numbered in proper sequence; they were mostly
undated and were sometimes duplicated. They could not be traced to the files and
records of the Accounting, Budget and Finance Division. The accounting entry for the
disbursements made on the fake LAAs was debited to the Accounts-Payable
Unliquidated and credited to the Checking Account with the Bureau of Treasury. All
of these were approved for the Finance Officer by Chief Accountant Rolando
Mangubat. Mangubat, however, had no authority to approve them because since
October 1977, he had already been detailed to the MPH Central Office. There were
indications that the practice had been going on for years.

- Sometime in February, 1977, accused Mangubat (Chief Accountant), Preagido

(Accountant III), Sayson (Budget Examiner), and Cruz (Clerk II), all of MPH Region VII,
met at the Town and Country Restaurant in Cebu City and hatched an ingenious plan
to siphon off large sums of money from government coffers. Mangubat had found a
way to withdraw government money through the use of fake LAAs, vouchers and
other documents and to conceal traces thereof with the connivance of other
government officials and employees.
- Mangubat enticed Preagido, Cruz and Sayson to join him. All three agreed to help
him carry out his plan. They typed the fake LAAs during Saturdays. Cruz and Sayson
also took charge of negotiating or selling the fake LAAs to contractors at 26% of the
gross amount. Preagido on her part manipulated the General Ledger, Journal
Vouchers and General Journal thru negative entries to conceal the illegal
disbursements. Thus, in the initial report of the auditors (Exhibit D), it was
discovered that the doubtful allotments and other anomalies escaped notice due to
the following manipulations:

- The nuclei of this massive conspiracy, namely: Rolando Mangubat, Jose Sayson, and
Edgardo Cruz, all of MPH Region VII, were found guilty in all 119 counts and were
accordingly sentenced by the SB. The other conniver, Delia Preagido, after being
found guilty in some of the cases, became a state witness in the remainder. On the
basis of her testimony and pertinent documents, Informations were filed,
convictions were obtained, and criminal penalties were imposed on the rest of the
accused.
- On the other hand, petitioners were both Civil Engineers of the MPH assigned to the
Cebu First Highway Engineering District. Petitioner Fernan, Jr. was included among
the accused in Criminal Case Nos. 2879, 2880, 2881, 2885, 2914, and 2918 allegedly
for having signed six (6) tally sheets or statements of deliveries of materials, used as
bases for the preparation of the corresponding number of general vouchers. Fund
releases were made to the suppliers, contractors, and payees based on these
general vouchers.
- The anti-graft court (Sandiganbayan) 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. (six cases)

Issue: WON Sandiganbayan 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.
(Petitioners vigorously claim error on the part of the lower court when it made the
finding that they were co-conspirators with the other parties accused despite the dearth
of evidence to amply demonstrate complicity).

Held: No.
- We find that the conspiracy in the instant cases resembles the "wheel" conspiracy.
The 36 disparate persons who constituted the massive conspiracy to defraud the
government were controlled by a single hub, namely: Mangubat (Chief Accountant),
Preagido (Accountant III), Sayson (Budget Examiner), and Cruz (Clerk II), who
controlled the separate "spokes" of the conspiracy. Petitioners were among the
many spokes of the wheel.

- After a close re-examination of the records, the Court finds no reason to disturb the
finding of the anti-graft court that petitioners are co-conspirators of the other
accused. Undisturbed is the rule that this Court is not a trier of facts and in the
absence of strong and compelling reasons or justifications, it will accord finality to
the findings of facts of the SB. The feeble defense of petitioners that they were not
aware of the ingenuous plan of the group of accused Mangubat and the
indispensable acts to defraud the government does not merit any consideration.
The State is not tasked to adduce direct proof of the agreement by petitioners with
the other accused, for such requirement, in many cases, would border on near
impossibility. The State needs to adduce proof only when the accused committed
acts that constitute a vital connection to the chain of conspiracy or in furtherance of
the objective of the conspiracy. In the case at bench, the signing of the fake tally
sheets and/or delivery receipts, reports of inspection, and requests for supplies and
materials by petitioners on separate occasions is vital to the success of the
Mangubat Group in siphoning off government funds. Without such fabricated
documents, the general vouchers covering the supply of materials cannot be
properly accomplished and submitted to the disbursing officer for the preparation of
checks.

- In People v. Mangubat, the court a quo elucidated the conspiracy in the Cebu
highway scam in a trenchant manner: “Where the acts of each of the accused
constitute an essential link in a chain and the desistance of even one of them would
 prevent the chain from being completed, then no conspiracy could result as its
consummation would then be impossible or aborted. But when each and everyone
of the accused in the instant cases performed their assigned tasks and roles with
martinet-like precision and accuracy, by individually performing essential overt acts,
so much so that the common objective is attained, which is to secure the illegal
release of public funds under the guise of fake or simulated public documents, then
each and everyone of said accused are equally liable as co-principals under the well-
established and universally-accepted principle that, once a conspiracy is directly or
impliedly proven, the act of one is the act of all and such liability exists
notwithstanding no-participation in every detail in the execution of the offense.”

11. Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan; GR 148965; 26 February 2002

Facts:

In November 2000, as an offshoot of the impeachment proceedings against the former

President of the Philippines Joseph Ejercito Estrada, five criminal complaints against the former
President and members of his family, his associates, friends and conspirators were filed with
the respondent Office of the Ombudsman. 

On April 4, 2001, the Ombudsman issued a Joint Resolution finding probable cause warranting
the filing with the Sandiganbayan of several criminal charges against the former President and
the other respondents therein. One of the charges was for the plunder under Republic Act No.
7080 and among the respondents was the former’s president’s son the petitioner in this case
Jose "Jinggoy" Estrada, then mayor of San Juan, Metro Manila.

The charge was amended and filed on April 18, 2001. Docketed as Criminal Case No. 26558, the
case was assigned to the Third Division of the Sandiganbayan. The arraignment of the accused
was set on July 10, 2001. No bail for petitioner's provisional liberty was fixed. On April 24, 2001,
petitioner filed a "Motion to Quash or Suspend" the Amended Information on the ground that
the Anti-Plunder Law, Republic Act No. 7080, is unconstitutional and that it charged more than
one offense. Respondent Ombudsman opposed the motion.

On April 25, 2001, the respondent court issued a warrant of arrest for petitioner and his co-
accused. On its basis, petitioner and his co-accused were placed in custody of the law. On April
30, 2001, petitioner filed a "Very Urgent Omnibus Motion" alleging that: (1) no probable cause
exists to put him on trial and hold him liable for plunder, it appearing that he was only allegedly
involved in illegal gambling and not in a "series or combination of overt or criminal acts" as
required in R.A. No. 7080; and (2) he is entitled to bail as a matter of right.

On July 9, 2001, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution denying petitioner's "Motion to Quash
and Suspend" and "Very Urgent Omnibus Motion." Petitioner's alternative prayer to post bail
was set for hearing after arraignment of all the accused.

The Amended Information is divided into three parts: (1) the first paragraph charges former
President Joseph E. Estrada with the crime of plunder together with petitioner Jose "Jinggoy"
Estrada, Charlie "Atong" Ang, Edward Serapio, Yolanda Ricaforte and others; (2) the second
paragraph spells out in general terms how the accused conspired in committing the crime of
plunder; and (3) the four sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) describe in detail the predicate acts
constitutive of the crime of plunder pursuant to items (1) to (6) of R.A. No. 7080, and state the
names of the accused who committed each act.

Pertinent to the case at bar is the predicate act alleged in subparagraph (a) of the Amended
Information which is of "receiving or collecting, directly or indirectly, on several instances,
money in the aggregate amount of P545,000,000.00 for illegal gambling in the form of gift,
share, percentage, kickback or any form of pecuniary benefit…" In this subparagraph (a),
petitioner, in conspiracy with former President Estrada, is charged with the act of receiving or
collecting money from illegal gambling amounting to P545 million
-----
As an offshoot of the impeachment proceedings against Joseph Ejercito Estrada, then President
of the Republic of the Philippines, five criminal complaints against the former President and
members of his family, his associates, friends, and conspirators were filed with the respondent
Office of the Ombudsman.
The respondent Ombudsman issued a Joint Resolution finding probable cause warranting the
filing with the Sandiganbayan of several criminal Informations against the former President and
the other respondents therein. One of the Informations was for the crime
of plunder under Republic Act No. 7080 and among the respondents was herein petitioner Jose
Jinggoy Estrada, then mayor of San Juan, Metro Manila.

Issue:
Should the charge against petitioner be dismissed on the ground that the allegation
of conspiracy in the Information is too general?
Whether petitioner Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada may be tried for plunder, it appearing that he was
only allegedly involved in one act or offense that is illegal gambling and not in a "series or
combination of overt or criminal acts" as required in R.A. No. 7080

Held:
No. In the crime of plunder, different parties may be united by a common purpose. In the case
at bar, the different accused and their different criminal acts have a commonality to help the
former President amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth. Sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) in
the Amended Information alleged the different participation of each accused in the conspiracy.
The gravamen of the conspiracy charge, therefore, is not that each accused agreed to receive
protection money from illegal gambling, that each misappropriated a portion of the tobacco
excise tax, that each accused ordered the GSIS and SSS to purchase shares of Belle Corporation
and receive commissions from such sale, nor that each unjustly enriched himself from
commissions, gifts, and kickbacks; rather, it is that each of them, by their individual acts, agreed
to participate, directly or indirectly, in the amassing, accumulation and acquisition of ill-gotten
wealth of and/or for former President Estrada.
Under the Philippine law, conspiracy should be understood on two levels. As a general rule,
conspiracy is not a crime in our jurisdiction. It is punished as a crime only when the law fixes a
penalty for its commission such as in conspiracy to commit treason, rebellion, and sedition. In
contrast, under American criminal law, the agreement or conspiracy itself is the gravamen of
the offense.  When conspiracy is charged as a crime, the act of conspiring and all the elements
of the said crime must be set forth in the complaint or information. The requirements on the
sufficiency of allegations are different when conspiracy is not charged as a crime in itself but
only as the mode of committing the crime as in the case at bar.

There is less necessity of reciting its particularities in the Information because conspiracy is not
the gravamen of the offense charged. The conspiracy is significant only because it changes the
criminal liability of all the accused in the conspiracy and makes them answerable as co-
principals regardless of the degree of their participation in the crime. The liability of the
conspirators is collective and each participant will be equally responsible for the acts of others,
for the act of one is the act of all.

A conspiracy indictment need not, of course, aver all the components of conspiracy or allege all
the details thereof, like the part that each of the parties therein has performed, the evidence
proving the common design or the facts connecting all the accused with one another in the web
of the conspiracy. Neither is it necessary to describe conspiracy with the same degree of
particularity required in describing a substantive offense. It is enough that the indictment
contains a statement of facts relied upon to be constitutive of the offense in ordinary and
concise language, with as much certainty as the nature of the case will admit, in a manner that
can enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended, and with such
precision that the accused may plead his acquittal or conviction to a subsequent indictment
based on the same facts.

Following the stream of our own jurisprudence, it is enough to allege conspiracy as a mode in
the commission of an offense in either of the following manner: (1) by use of the word
conspire, or its derivatives or synonyms, such as confederate, connive, collude, etc; or (2) by
allegations of basic facts constituting the conspiracy in a manner that a person of common
understanding would know what is intended, and with such precision as would enable the
accused to competently enter a plea to a subsequent indictment based on the same facts.
Thus, the petition is dismissed for failure to show that the respondent Sandiganbayan acted
without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is dismissed for failure to show that the respondent
Sandiganbayan acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

12. People vs. Morilla; GR 189833; 05 February 2014

Facts:
- RTC & CA: guilty of illegal transportation of dangerous drugs – life imprisonment
 - It was found by the trial court that the two vehicles, the Starex van driven by Mayor
Mitra and the ambulance van driven by Morilla, left Infanta, Quezon en route to
Manila. The Starex van which was ahead of the ambulance was able to pass the
checkpoint set up by the police officers. However, the ambulance driven by Morilla
was stopped by police officers. Through the untinted window, one of the police
officers noticed several sacks inside the van. Upon inquiry of the contents, Morilla
replied that the sacks contained narra wooden tiles. Unconvinced, the police officers
requested Morilla to open the rear door of the car for further inspection. When it
was opened, the operatives noticed that white crystalline granules were scattered
on the floor, prompting them to request Morilla to open the sacks. At this moment,
Morilla told the police officers that he was with Mayor Mitra in an attempt to
persuade them to let him pass.9 His request was rejected by the police officers and
upon inspection, the contents of the sacks turned out to be sacks
of methamphetamine hydrochloride.10 This discovery prompted the operatives to
chase the Starex van of Mayor Mitra. The police officers were able to overtake the
van and Mayor Mitra was asked to stop. They then inquired if the mayor knew
Morilla. On plain view, the operatives noticed that his van was also loaded with
sacks like the ones found in the ambulance. Thus, Mayor Mitra was also requested
to open the door of the vehicle for inspection. At this instance, Mayor Mitra offered
to settle the matter but the same was rejected. Upon examination, the contents of
the sacks were likewise found to contain sacks of methamphetamine
hydrochloride.11cralawred

Issue: WON there is conspiracy

Held: Yes

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.

This argument is misplaced.

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. 22 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. Both vehicles loaded with several sacks of
dangerous drugs, were on convoy from Quezon to Manila. Mayor Mitra was able to drive
through the checkpoint set up by the police operatives. When it was Morilla’s turn to pass
through the checkpoint, he was requested to open the rear door for a routinary check. Noticing
white granules scattered on the floor, the police officers requested Morilla to open the sacks. If
indeed he was not involved in conspiracy with Mayor Mitra, he would not have told the police
officers that he was with the mayor.
His insistence that he was without any knowledge of the contents of the sacks and he just
obeyed the instruction of his immediate superior Mayor Mitra in driving the said vehicle
likewise bears no merit.

Here, Morilla and Mayor Mitra were caught in flagrante delicto in the act of transporting the
dangerous drugs on board their vehicles. “Transport” as used under the Dangerous Drugs Act
means “to carry or convey from one place to another.” 23 It was well established during trial that
Morilla was driving the ambulance following the lead of Mayor Mitra, who was driving a Starex
van going to Manila. The very act of transporting methamphetamine hydrochloride is malum
prohibitum since it is punished as an offense under a special law. The fact of transportation of
the sacks containing dangerous drugs need not be accompanied by proof of criminal intent,
motive or knowledge.24

13. Go-Tan vs. Tan; GR 168852; 30 September 2008

Facts:
Petitioner Sharica filed a Petition with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Protective Order
(TPO) against her husband,Steven, and her parents-in-law, Spouses Perfecto C. Tan and Juanita
L. Tan (respondents). She alleged that 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)7 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9262,8 otherwise known as the "Anti-Violence
Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004."

On March 7, 2005, the RTC issued a Resolution12 dismissing the case as to respondents on the
ground that, being the parents-in-law of the petitioner, they were not included/covered as
respondents under R.A. No. 9262 under the well-known rule of law "expressio unius est exclusio
alterius."13The RTC reasoned that to include respondents under the coverage of R.A. No. 9262
would be a strained interpretation of the provisions of the law.

Issue:
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS-SPOUSES PERFECTO & JUANITA, PARENTS-IN-LAW OF
SHARICA, MAY BE INCLUDED IN THE PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9262, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "ANTI-VIOLENCE
AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN ACT OF 2004".17

Held: Yes

On the other hand, respondents submit that they are not covered by R.A. No. 9262 since
Section 3 thereof explicitly provides that the offender should be related to the victim only by
marriage, a former marriage, or a dating or sexual relationship; that allegations on the
conspiracy of respondents require a factual determination which cannot be done by this Court
in a petition for review; that respondents cannot be characterized as indispensable or necessary
parties, since their presence in the case is not only unnecessary but altogether illegal,
considering the non-inclusion of in-laws as offenders under Section 3 of R.A. No. 9262.
The Court rules in favor of the petitioner.

Indeed, Section 47 of R.A. No. 9262 expressly provides for the suppletory application of the
RPC, thus:
SEC. 47. Suppletory Application. - For purposes of this Act, the Revised Penal Code and other
applicable laws, shall have suppletory application. (Emphasis supplied)
Parenthetically, Article 10 of the RPC provides:
ART. 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code. – Offenses which are or in the
future may be punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This
Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should specially provide the
contrary. (Emphasis supplied)

Hence, legal principles developed from the Penal Code may be applied in a supplementary
capacity to crimes punished under special laws, such as R.A. No. 9262, in which the special law
is silent on a particular matter.

It bears mention that the intent of the statute is the law24 and that this intent must be
effectuated by the courts. In the present case, the express language of R.A. No. 9262 reflects
the intent of the legislature for liberal construction as will best ensure the attainment of the
object of the law according to its true intent, meaning and spirit - the protection and safety of
victims of violence against women and children.

Thus, contrary to the RTC's pronouncement, the maxim "expressio unios est exclusio alterius"
finds no application here. It must be remembered that this maxim is only an "ancillary rule of
statutory construction." It is not of universal application. Neither is it conclusive. It should be
applied only as a means of discovering legislative intent which is not otherwise manifest and
should not be permitted to defeat the plainly indicated purpose of the legislature. 25

The Court notes that petitioner unnecessarily argues at great length on the attendance of
circumstances evidencing the conspiracy or connivance of Steven and respondents to cause
verbal, psychological and economic abuses upon her. However, conspiracy is an evidentiary
matter which should be threshed out in a full-blown trial on the merits and cannot be
determined in the present petition since this Court is not a trier of facts. 26 It is thus premature
for petitioner to argue evidentiary matters since this controversy is centered only on the
determination of whether respondents may be included in a petition under R.A. No. 9262. The
presence or absence of conspiracy can be best passed upon after a trial on the merits.
Considering the Court's ruling that the principle of conspiracy may be applied suppletorily to
R.A. No. 9262, the Court will no longer delve on whether respondents may be considered
indispensable or necessary parties. To do so would be an exercise in superfluity.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed Resolutions dated March 7, 2005
and July 11, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 94, Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q-05-
54536 are hereby PARTLY REVERSED and SET ASIDE insofar as the dismissal of the petition
against respondents is concerned.