ARTICLE 8 – CONSPIRACY 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
G.R. No. 213415, September 26, 2018 fell to the ground with his face up.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JIMMY EVASCO Y NUGAY While Wilfredo was still on the ground, Jimmy continuously hit him with a stone
AND ERNESTO ECLAVIA, Accused. and Ernesto was boxing Wilfredo's body.
JIMMY EVASCO Y NUGAY, Accused-Appellant. After mauling Wilfredo, Jimmy and Ernesto walked away together.
DECISION Subsequently, Lorna brought Wilfredo to the hospital and was pronounced
BERSAMIN, J.: dead-on-arrival.
The determination of whether or not the aggravating circumstance of abuse of According to Lorna, Wilfredo did not fight back when Ernesto and Jimmy
superior strength was attendant requires the arduous review of the acts of the mauled him. He just parried the hands of Ernesto. She also claimed that Jimmy
accused in contrast with the diminished strength of the victim. There must be a was standing at the back of Wilfredo, when he pounded a stone on Wilfredo's
showing of gross disproportionality between each of them. Mere numerical head many times.
superiority on the part of the accused does not automatically equate to superior Witness Joan Fernandez (Joan) corroborated the testimony of Lorna. She
strength. The determination must take into account all the tools, skills and alleged that she was standing for about four meters from the accused when the
capabilities available to the accused and to the victim to justify a finding of incident happened. Wilfredo was standing when Jimmy and Ernesto mauled
disproportionality; otherwise, abuse of superior strength is not appreciated as him. In particular, she stated, "[s]inusuntok po saka iyong bato pinupukpuk po sa
an aggravating circumstance. ulo ni Wilfredo Sasot."
The Case Joan also stated that Jimmy hit Wilfredo's head with a stone, which is as big as
The Court considers and resolves the appeal of accused-appellant Jimmy her fist, while Ernesto with his bare hands hit Wilfredo on his face, chest and
Evasco y Nugay (Jimmy) who assails his conviction for murder handed down by neck. Jimmy and Ernesto simultaneously attacked Wilfredo, who was unable to
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 63, in Calauag, Quezon through the run because the two of them were holding him.
judgment rendered on November 22, 2011 in Criminal Case No. 5019-C, 1 which Lorna and Joan identified in open court Jimmy as one of the persons who
the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed on appeal through the decision promulgated mauled Wilfredo.
on January 6, 2014.2 In addition, one Dr. Haidee T. Lim (Dr. Lim), Municipal Health Officer of Calauag,
Antecedents Quezon, testified for the prosecution. She stated that she conducted a Post
For the killing of Wilfredo Sasot, Jimmy, along with Ernesto Eclavia (Ernesto), Mortem Examination of Wilfredo's cadaver. She found that Wilfredo sustained a
was indicted for murder under the information that alleged: lacerated wound on his right ear, which could have been caused by a blunt
That on or about the 6th day of June 2006, at Barangay Mambaling, Municipality instrument or a hard object. She also averred that there was an abrasion on the
of Calauag, Province of Quezon, Philippines; and within the jurisdiction of this area below the chin of Wilfredo.
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, Jimmy Evasco, armed with a stone, Dr. Lim also issued the Certificate of Death of Wilfredo and indicated therein
conspiring and confederating with Ernesto Eclavia and mutually helping each that the "immediate cause [of his death] was cerebral infected secondary to
other, with intent to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation, and taking mauling, this means a traumatic death or brain injury secondary to mauling."
advantage of their superior strength, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and For its part, the defense presented Jimmy in order to establish the following:
feloniously attack, assault and hit with the said stone one Wilfredo Sasot, On June 6, 2006, Jimmy was in Barangay Mambaling, Calauag, Quezon and was
thereby inflicting upon the latter fatal injuries on his head, which directly having a drinking spree with Wilfredo, Ernesto, Armando, Armando's son, along
caused his death. with a certain Efren and Ito.
CONTRARY TO LAW.3 At about 9:00p.m., Ernesto and Wilfredo had a heated argument. Because the
The factual and procedural antecedents were summarized m the assailed group was allegedly accustomed to such argument, the group did not interfere.
decision of the CA in the following manner, viz.: Thereafter, Ernesto and Wilfredo had a fist fight. Wilfredo stood up and Ernesto
x x x the prosecution presented three witnesses, namely, Lorna Sasot, Joan pushed him on a chair. Then, Wilfredo fell to the ground. The group tried to
Fernandez, and Dr. Haidee T. Lim in order to establish the following: pacify Ernesto and Wilfredo because the latter was already lying on the ground.
On June 6, 2006, at about 9:00 p.m., while in Barangay Mambaling, Calauag, In his cross-examination, Jimmy stated that when Ernesto and Wilfredo were
Quezon, witness Lorna Sasot (Lorna) went to the house of their neighbor, one fighting, he was held by Armando and was told not to interfere. He also said that
Armando Braga (Armando), to fetch her husband, Wilfredo Sasot (Wilfredo). there were only two punches when Wilfredo fell from his chair.
Jimmy averred that the group had a drinking session from 3:00 p.m. up to 10:00 between him and Ernesto because there was no direct evidence to prove the
p.m. After the incident, he went home.4 conspiracy, but only circumstantial evidence. He argues that the Prosecution did
Judgment of the RTC not establish the attendance of any of the qualifying circumstances alleged in
After trial, the RTC convicted Jimmy, concluding that the Prosecution's the information.
witnesses were credible as they did not have any ill-motive to impute a heinous Ruling of the Court
crime against Jimmy unless the imputation was true; that Jimmy and his co- The appeal lacks merit.
accused had conspired to kill Wilfredo as borne out by their concerted actions in The essential requisites of murder that the Prosecution must establish beyond
assaulting the latter; that the killing of Wilfredo had been treacherous and reasonable doubt are, namely: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused
attended with abuse of superior strength; and that the attendance of evident killed him or her; (3) that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying
premeditation was ruled out. circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code; and (4) that
The dispositive portion of the judgment of the RTC reads: the killing was not parricide or infanticide.8
Wherefore, premises considered, the prosecution has sufficiently proved and As borne out by the record, Jimmy and Ernesto ganged up on Wilfredo, with
convinced this court beyond reasonable doubt that JIMMY EVASCO y Ernesto punching Wilfredo and Jimmy, from behind, hitting Wilfredo on the
Nugay is GUILTY of Murder for the killing of Wilfredo Sasot and that he should head with a rock. According to the medico-legal officer, the continuous trauma
be punished therefor. He is hereby sentenced to Reclusion Perpetua or on the brain was the cause of Wilfredo's death. That Jimmy and Ernesto were
imprisonment from twenty (20) years and one (1) day to forty (40) years the authors of the crime who should be held criminally responsible for the
without eligibility for parole. Let his preventive imprisonment be deducted from killing of Wilfredo is beyond dispute.
the penalty herein imposed pursuant to the provisions of Article 29 of the Did the acts of Jimmy and Ernesto establish a conspiracy between them?
Revised Penal Code. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning
Jimmy Evasco is likewise ordered to indemnify the family of the late Wilfredo the commission of a felony, and decide to commit it. 9 Conspiracy must be
Sasot the following amounts: established, not by conjecture, but by positive and conclusive evidence, direct or
circumstantial.
Php75,000.00 - civil indemnity for death;
Jimmy and Ernesto were shown to have acted in conspiracy when they
Php75,000.00 - for and as moral damages;
assaulted Wilfredo. Although their agreement concerning the commission of the
Php30,000.00 - for and as exemplary damages;
felony, and their decision to commit it were not established by direct evidence,
Php25,000.00 - for and as temperate damages.
the records contained clear and firm showing of their having acted in concert to
Let the records of the case insofar as Ernesto Eclavia alias Boy is concerned be achieve a common design – that of assaulting Wilfredo. Direct proof of the
sent to the Archives without prejudice to its subsequent prosecution upon the agreement concerning the commission of a felony, and of the decision to commit
arrest or voluntary surrender of said accused. it is not always accessible, but that should not be a hindrance to rendering a
SO ORDERED.5 finding of implied conspiracy. Thus, the Court has discoursed in Macapagal-
Decision of the CA Arroyo v. People:10
On appeal, the CA affirmed the conviction of Jimmy. It concurred with the In terms of proving its existence, conspiracy takes two forms. The first is the
disquisition of the RTC, except that it declared that treachery was not attendant. express form, which requires proof of an actual agreement among all the co-
It concluded that Jimmy had committed murder because he and Ernesto abused conspirators to commit the crime. However, conspiracies are not always shown
their superior strength in killing the victim and in preventing the latter from to have been expressly agreed upon. Thus, we have the second form, the implied
fleeing. The fallo reads: conspiracy. An implied conspiracy exists when two or more persons are shown
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated November 22, 2011 of to have aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful
the Regional Trial Court of Calauag, Quezon, Branch 63 in Criminal Case No. object, each doing a part so that their combined acts, though apparently
5019-C is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that all monetary awards independent, were in fact connected and cooperative, indicating closeness of
for damages shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum personal association and a concurrence of sentiment. Implied conspiracy is
from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid. proved through the mode and manner of the commission of the offense, or from
SO ORDERED.6 the acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime
Hence, this appeal.7 indubitably pointing to a joint purpose, a concert of action and a community of
Issue interest.11
Jimmy argues that the CA erred in affirming his conviction for murder
considering that the RTC gravely erred in finding that conspiracy had existed
Indeed, when it is proved that two or more persons aimed by their acts towards means to purposely use force excessively out of proportion to the means of
the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their defense available to the person attacked. The appreciation of the attendance of
combined acts, though apparently independent, were in fact connected and this aggravating circumstance depends on the age, size and strength of the
cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of parties.18
sentiment, a conspiracy could be inferred although no actual meeting among Mere numerical superiority on the part of the aggressors does not define the
them is proved.12 attendance of this aggravating circumstance. As the Court pointed out in People
The lower courts disregarded the alibi and denial interjected by the accused- v. Beduya:19
appellant in his defense. The lower courts were correct in doing so, for alibi and Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is a notorious inequality
denial were generally self-serving and easily fabricated. Moreover, several of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of
witnesses positively identified Jimmy as one of the assailants of the victim. Such superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor selected or
positive identification, being categorical and consistent, could not be undone by taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime. The fact that there
alibi and denial in the absence of any credible showing of ill-motive on the part were two persons who attacked the victim does not per se establish that
of the identifying witnesses.13 the crime was committed with abuse of superior strength, there being no
The CA concluded that the assault was not treacherous. We concur. Treachery proof of the relative strength of the aggressors and the victim. The evidence
exists when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, must establish that the assailants purposely sought the advantage, or that they
employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof, which tend had the deliberate intent to use this advantage. To take advantage of superior
directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising strength means to purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the means
from the defense which the offended party might make.14 For treachery to be of defense available to the person attacked. [Bold emphasis supplied]
appreciated, therefore, the State must establish the following elements, to wit: A review quickly illustrates that the lower courts did not calibrate the relative
(1) the accused must employ means, method, or manner of execution that will strengths of the aggressors and their victim. Their failure to do so was palpable
ensure his safety from defensive or retaliating acts on the part of the victim, enough, for there was no indication of the assailants having deliberately taken
with no opportunity being given to the latter to defend himself or to retaliate; advantage of their numerical superiority if there were no witnesses who could
and (2) the accused must deliberately or consciously adopt such means, describe how the assault had commenced. For sure, their having assaulted the
method, or manner of execution.15 The sudden and unexpected attack by the victim together was not by itself a definite index of their having deliberately
aggressor on the unsuspecting victim is of the essence of treachery because taken advantage of their greater number.
such manner of attack deprives the latter of any real chance to defend himself Considering that the numerical superiority of the assailants could not be
and at the same time ensures the commission of the assault without risk to the considered as the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength that
aggressor, and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim.16 would qualify the killing, the crime was homicide, not murder.
In this case, there was no evidence adduced to show that Ernesto and Jimmy Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code punishes homicide with reclusion temporal.
had deliberately chosen their particular mode of attack to ensure the With the absence of any aggravating circumstances, the medium period
accomplishment of their criminal intention. None of the Prosecution's witnesses of reclusion temporal – from 14 years, eight months and one day to 17 years and
had seen how the assault had commenced; hence, treachery could not be held to four months – is the proper imposable penalty. Pursuant to the Indeterminate
have attended the assault that led to the untimely death of the victim. Sentence Law, the minimum of the indeterminate sentence should be derived
The CA found that Jimmy and Ernesto had perpetrated the killing with abuse of from prision mayor (i.e., from six years and one day to 12 years), the penalty
superior strength; and that the manner of attack indicated abuse of their next lower than reclusion temporal, while the maximum of the indeterminate
superiority,17 observing that their simultaneous acts of hitting Wilfredo with the sentence should be 14 years, eight months and one day. In short, the
rock and mauling him together indicated their taking advantage of their indeterminate sentence of the accused-appellant is 10 years of prison mayor, as
combined strengths to assault the victim. the minimum, to 14 years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal, as
We reverse the lower courts' findings. Abuse of superior strength is to be the maximum.
appreciated only when there was a notorious inequality of forces between the To conform with People v. Jugueta,20 the Court reduces the civil indemnity and
victim and the aggressors that was plainly and obviously advantageous to the moral damages to P50,000.00 each, but increases the amount of temperate
latter who purposely selected or took advantage of such inequality in order to damages to P50,000.00 (in lieu of actual damages representing the expenses for
facilitate the commission of the crime. The assailants must be shown to have the burial of the remains of the victim, which were not proved with certainty).
consciously sought the advantage, or to have the deliberate intent to use their The award of exemplary damages is deleted because of the absence of any
superior advantage. In this context, to take advantage of superior strength aggravating circumstances. In addition, all the amounts allowed herein shall
earn interest of 6% per annum reckoned from the finality of this decision until the vehicle stopped, accused Efren Verona, Edwin Verona and Edgar Verona
full settlement. suddenly and unexpectedly took turns in hacking and stabbing Manuel Tingoy
WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS and DECLARES accused-appellant Jimmy with the use of short bolos and a long bolo which the said accused provided
Evasco y Nugay GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of homicide, and, themselves for the purpose while accused Rogelio Verona who was also armed
accordingly, SENTENCES him to suffer the indeterminate sentence of 10 years with a bolo, stood on guard, thereby inflicting multiple incised and stab wounds
of prison mayor, as minimum, to 14 years, eight months, and one day on the different parts of the body of Manuel Tingoy which were the direct and
of reclusion temporal, as maximum; and ORDERS him to pay the heirs of the late immediate cause of his death.
Wilfredo Sasot P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages,
and P50,000.00 as temperate damages, plus legal interest of 6%  per CONTRARY TO LAW.3
annum from the finality of this decision until full settlement. During their arraignment on 22 November 1999, Dioscoro Verona, the father of
The accused-appellant shall further pay the costs of suit. Eddie and Edgar Verona, Efren and Edwin pleaded not guilty. A pre trial
SO ORDERED. conference was conducted on 7 December 1999. Trial on the merits of the case
ensued thereafter.

The prosecution presented two witnesses: (1) Ms. Eva Castafio, a passerby
SECOND DIVISION riding a motorcyle; and (2) Dr. Nemia Yebron-Sangrano, the Municipal Health
G.R. No. 227748, June 19, 2019 Officer of Dagami, Leyte. The prosecution also formally offered in evidence
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. EDDIE VERONA, documentary Exhibit "A" and series, the medico-legal necropsy report issued on
ACCUSED, 28 October 1998 by Dr. Nemia Yebron-Sangrano, and Exhibit "B" and series, a
sketch of the human anatomy with printed name and signature of Dr. Nemia
EFREN VERONA AND EDWIN VERONA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS. Yebron-Sangrano.4
DECISION
CARPIO, J.: The defense presented the testimonies of the following witnesses: (1) Edwin
The Case Verona, (2) Efren Verona, and (3) Dioscoro Verona.

This is an ordinary appeal to reverse the 1 August 2016 Decision1 of the Court of Dioscoro Verona died while under detention.5 Eddie Verona remains at large.6
Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-CR HC No. 01481 which affirmed with modification the Version of the Prosecution
20 February 2012 Judgment2 of the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City,
Branch 6, in Criminal Case No. 99-01-42, finding accused Eddie Verona (Eddie) Below is the version of facts of the prosecution as cited in the Decision of the
and accused-appellants Efren and Edwin Verona (Efren and Edwin) guilty Court of Appeals:
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder for the death of Manuel Tingoy Around 8:40 in the morning of October 27, 1998, Romeo Ortega (Ortega) was
(Manuel). driving his passenger jeepney known as "Valizing" along the highway in
The Charge Barangay Guingauan, Tanauan, Leyte. The "Valizing" which was plying the
Burauen-Tacloban City route, had Manuel [Tingoy] as conductor. The jeepney
In an Information signed by Provincial Prosecutor Teresita S. Lopez, Eddie, came from Burauen, Leyte and was on its way to Tacloban City.
Efren, and Edwin were charged with the crime of murder penalized under
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. The accusatory portion of the Dioscoro and Eddie flagged down the jeepney and Ortega stopped to let them
Information reads: aboard. Suddenly Edgar, who was then standing on the left side of the jeepney,
That on or about the 27th day of October, 1998, in the Municipality of Tanauan, tried to stab Ortega with a "pisao" (short bolo). However, it was the right hand
Province of Leyte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable of Arlene Yepes, the passenger seated on the left side of Ortega, that was hit.
Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating together and Seeing Arlene Yepes wounded, Ortega immediately drove off.
mutually helping one another, with intent to kill, with treachery and abuse of
superior strength, did then and there wil[l]fully, unlawfully and feloniously Ortega knew Edgar as the conductor of "7 Brothers," a competitor
performed the following acts, to wit: accused Dioscoro Verona and Eddie transportation company plying the same route - Burauen Tacloban City.
Verona flagged down the passenger jeepney driven by Romeo Ortega and when
As the "Valizing" left, Eva Castañ o, who was then riding a motorcycle twelve went to his nipa hut in his ricefield in Barangay Cansamada, Dagami, Leyte.
meters behind the said jeepney saw Dioscoro, Eddie, Edwin, Edgar and Efren. Edgar remained in the place. At the time that Edgar and Manuel were fighting,
Dioscoro, Eddie and Edwin carried long bolos, about 70 em. in length, while Efren did not get involved. Edwin did not know where Dioscoro was during the
Edgar and Efren carried short bolos, about 33-34 em. in length. Eva Castañ o also fight and he does not know Eva Castañ o.
saw Rogelio Verona standing near a barangay tanod outpost, about six meters
away from the "Valizing." The second defense witness was Efren. On October 27, 1998, he was in the
house of his uncle, Manuel Manubay, in Barangay Cansamada East and was
Eva Castañ o knew Efren, Edwin and Eddie even before the October 27, 1998 watching television. The night before, he also watched television and went to
incident because she used to go to Cansamada, Dagami, Leyte where said bed at nine o' clock in the evening. Most of the time, he spends his evenings in
accused lived and had seen them in the place. said house since it is big and he can watch television. The house of his father is
located from the house of his uncle Manuel Manubay. He stayed in the house of
Manuel, the conductor, was then holding on with both hands on the "Valizing" his uncle until noontime of October 27, 1998 and left for home. After the
and was standing on its rear step board. Suddenly, Efren and Eddie stabbed incident, he just stayed in Barangay Cansamada until he was arrested by the
Manuel at the back, causing the latter to fall on the ground. As Manuel lay flat on police [i]n September 1999. He does not know Manuel.
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 Dioscoro was the last defense witness. He died during the pendency of the case
Manuel. but after he testified in court. He testified that he was in the barangay hall of
Barangay Cansamada East on October 27, 1998 and was on duty as a barangay
Dr. Nemia Yebron Sangrano, Municipal Health Officer of Dagami, Leyte, councilor. He was implicated in the case and came to know that he was included
examined the dead body of Manuel. In her Medico Legal Necropsy Report, she three months after the incident. During those three months, he stayed in their
determined the death of Manuel as severe hemorrhage due to multiple stab house and did what he customarily does. The distance from Barangay
wounds. The wounds sustained by the victim were: Cansamada East and Barangay Guingauan, Tanauan, Leyte is about two
kilometers. Edwin and Efren are his sons. He did not know about what the
xxxx prosecution witnesses testified against them.8
The Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
Dr. Sangrano identified wounds numbers 1, 2, 3 and 6 as fatal because such
wounds injured vital organs and major blood vessels. She opined that the In its Judgment dated 20 February 2012, the Regional Trial Court found Efren
incised and stab wounds could have been inflicted by a sharp-edged instrument, and Edwin guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder with the
such as a bolo.7 presence of the aggravating circumstances of treachery, abuse of superior
Version of the Defense strength, intent to kill, and conspiracy attending the commission of the crime.
The Regional Trial Court held that the version of the prosecution was more
On the other hand, the version of facts of the defense as cited in the same "credible and believable and in accord with ordinary human experience."9 The
Decision is as follows: dispositive portion of the Judgment reads:
The defense presented appellants Edwin, Efren and Dioscoro. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Judgment is hereby rendered, finding the
accused EFREN VERONA and EDWIN VERONA, Guilty beyond reasonable doubt
Appellant Edwin declared that he was in Barangay Guingauan, Tanauan, Leyte of Murder in Criminal Case No. 99-01-42 and each one of them is hereby
on October 27, 1998 and was waiting for the results of the Jai-Alai game. After sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua without eligibility for
an hour, his brother Edgar and Manuel, the victim, were fighting. He ran inside parole. They are also hereby ORDERED to jointly and severally indemnify the
the house of a certain person nicknamed "Caradol" to get a long bolo. His house Heirs of Manuel Tingoy, the sum of Php75,000.00 for civil indemnity ex
was 30 meters away from the place where Edgar and Manuel were fighting. At delict[o]; Php75,000.00 for moral damages; and Php30,000.00 for exemplary
the time he saw them, Edgar and Manuel were delivering stab thrusts at each damages.
other. Edgar, who was smaller than Manuel, was armed with a long bolo, while
Manuel was armed with a short bolo. After about 20 minutes of fighting, Manuel Both accused EFREN VERONA and EDWIN VERONA are however ACQUITTED
fell down because he sustained wounds on his head and nape. Edgar was from the charge for Attempted Murder in Criminal Case No. 99-0lw40 due to
wounded on the finger of his left hand. [After] Manuel fell down, Edwin left and insufficiency of evidence.
 Every criminal conviction requires the prosecution to prove two things with the
No pronouncement as to costs. same quantum of evidence of proof beyond reasonable doubt: (1) the fact of the
crime, i.e., the presence of all of the elements of the crime for which the accused
SO ORDERED.10 stands charged; and (2) the fact that the accused is the perpetrator of the
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals crime.12 It is basic that when a crime is committed, the first duty of the
prosecution is to prove the identity of the perpetrator of the crime beyond
In its Decision dated 1 August 2016, the Court of Appeals affirmed with reasonable doubt for there can be no conviction even if the commission of the
modification the Judgment of the Regional Trial Court, stating that "a trial crime is established.13
court's findings of fact are entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on
appeal," especially if no facts of weight and substance have been overlooked, Efren and Edwin allege that the prosecution eyewitness, Eva Castañ o, was not
misapprehended or misapplied in a case under appeal. The Court of Appeals credible and reliable because first, there were material inconsistencies and
thus held: substantial contradictions in her statements, and second, her relative position
WHEREFORE, this appeal is DENIED. The Judgment dated 20 February 2012 of from the crime scene did not possibly afford her good visibility for her to
Branch 6 of the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City in Crim. Case No. 99w01- recognize the faces of the assailants.14
42 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The phrase "without eligibility for
parole" in the penalty is DELETED. Efren and Edwin put much weight on the inconsistent testimony given by Eva
Castañ o regarding the first time she saw Efren and Edwin. In her sworn
SO ORDERED.11 affidavit, she recounted that she first saw Efren and Edwin before the jeepney
The Issue left. On the other hand, in her direct testimony, she testified that she first saw
them after the jeepney had left. Finally, on cross-examination, she admitted that
Whether or not Eddie (at large), Efren, and Edwin are guilty of the crime of she knew Efren and Edwin even before the incident happened because she was
murder penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. a member of the cooperative in Brgy. Cansamada, a barangay Efren and Edwin
The Ruling of the Court frequented.15

The appeal is unmeritorious. Efren and Edwin's defenses of alibi and denial The above inconsistencies are minor details which do not detract from Eva
deserve no credence since they were not able to prove the impossibility of their Castañ o's credibility. These inconsistencies may be disregarded if they do not
physical presence at the time and scene of the incident. impair the essential veracity of the testimony of a witness. 16 The eyewitness's
confusion regarding the first time she saw Efren and Edwin does not affect in
Efren and Edwin alleged the following grounds in their appeal: any manner the facts constituting the commission of the crime. The
inconsistencies in her sworn affidavit and in-court testimonies were minimal
1. Prosecution witness, Eva Castañ o, was not credible and reliable, thus, the and immaterial. Even if she was approximately 12 meters away from the locus
guilt of appellants [was] not proven beyond reasonable doubt; criminis and considering that she testified in court three years after the incident,
Eva Castañ o was still categorical and consistent in the material details of her
2. The trial court erred in finding that conspiracy attended the commission of affidavit and testimony, that is, the identities of Efren and Edwin and the
the crime despite the prosecution's failure to establish and prove it; commission of the crime of murder.

3. The trial court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of Furthermore, we agree with the Office of the Solicitor General that "findings of
treachery despite the failure of the prosecution to establish and prove it; and fact of the trial court as to the credibility of witnesses are accorded great
1weight and respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts,
4. The trial court erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of abuse of and speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from
superior strength when it should have been absorbed in treachery. such findings."17 This is because the trial court is in a better position to decide
the question of credibility of witnesses, having heard the witnesses themselves
Inconsistencies may be disregarded if they do not impair the essential and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial, unless
veracity of a witness's testimony. it has overlooked certain facts of substance and value.18
Weighing the versions of the prosecution and the defense, the Regional Trial Prosecution eyewitness Eva Castañ o categorically and in simple terms
Court found that Efren and Edwin's defenses of alibi and denial did not prove: described the manner in which the accused killed the victim: Efren Verona
the impossibility of their physical presence at the time and scene of the crime. delivered the first stab blow on the victim. After Manuel Tingoy fell to the
We agree with the Regional Trial Court that the testimony of the sole ground, Edwin Verona hacked the victim on the head and the body using his
eyewitness, Eva Castañ o, was credible and straightforward: weapon; Edgar Verona also hacked the victim using his own 33 cms[.] long bolo;
[T]he Court has found the version of the prosecution to be credible[,] believable Efren Verona utilized his own 33 cms[.] long bolo to stab the victim at the back
[and] in accord with ordinary human experience. The eyewitness, Eva Castañ o of his body; and Efren first stabbed the victim, and followed by Edwin. At the
is also a resident of Dagami, Leyte and it was reasonable to believe her claim time he was first stabbed, Manuel Tingoy was standing on the step board of the
that she personally knows the accused. Her narration of the incident was clear, Jeepney [and] was holding on the bars.23
categorical and consistent in their material points. xxx. Certainly, a person The sudden attack by Efren and Edwin with stab blows and 33-cm.
witnessing something as gruesome as the killing of a man by several men acting long bolos against an unsuspecting Manuel while he was riding the jeepney
in concert with one another is something which is not easily erased in one's caught the victim by surprise. Manuel was clearly unprepared and had no
memory. Here in this case, the said eyewitness took the witness stand in the means to put up a defense. Such aggression ensured the commission of the
year 2001 or 3 years after the killing of the victim. Despite the lapse of said crime without risk on Efren and Edwin. Treachery was attendant not only
period of time, she was able to accurately describe what she saw. xxx. Moreover, because of the suddenness of the attack but also due to the absence of
not anyone among the accused ascribed any ill-will or ill-motive on her part as opportunity to repel the aggress1on.
reason for her testimony.19
Where the prosecution eyewitness was familiar with the accused, where Regarding the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength, we agree
the locus criminis afforded good visibility and where no improper motive can be with Efren and Edwin and the finding of the Court of Appeals that abuse of
attributed to the witness for testifying against the accused; then the witness's superior strength is deemed absorbed in treachery. Since treachery qualifies the
version of the story prevails over alibi and denial and deserves much weight. 20 crime of murder, the generic aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior
strength is necessarily included in the former.24
The elements of murder and of conspiracy were proven.
As for the issue of conspiracy, Efren and Edwin alleged in their Brief that "the
Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals correctly held that the facts of the case were wanting of any overt acts that are reflective of any
prosecution sufficiently proved Efren and Edwin's guilt beyond reasonable conspiracy amongst the five accused."25 However, in the same Brief, Efren and
doubt. The following elements were proven to sustain the conviction for Edwin cited the direct testimony of Eva Castañ o which revealed that "after the
murder: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed said person; (3) victim was first stabbed at the back by accused-appellant Efren, the other
that the killing was attended by the qualifying circumstances in Article 248 of accused Edwin did the hacking thrust, followed by Edgar; while the other two
the Revised Penal Code, such as treachery; and (4) that the killing is not accused, Dioscoro and Eddie, were merely described xxx as being there carrying
parricide or infanticide.21 a weapon."26

Manuel's killing in this case was attended with treachery - a sudden and Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning
unexpected attack by the aggressors on the unsuspecting victim, depriving the the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The essence of conspiracy is
latter of any real chance to defend himself, thereby ensuring its commission the unity of action and purpose. Direct proof is not essential to prove conspiracy
without risk to the aggressors, and without the slightest provocation on the part for it may be deduced from the acts of the accused before, during, and after the
of the victim.22 commission of the crime charged, from which it may be indicated that there is
common purpose to commit the crime.27
In this case, the qualifying circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated
by the lower courts given the manner by which Efren and Edwin ki1led Manuel. In this case, the hacking acts of Efren and Edwin, when taken together with the
The Regional Trial Court, being in the best position to have assessed the stabbing act of Efren, reveal a commonality and unity of criminal design. The
evidence on record and heard the testimony of Eva Castañ o, held that: defense cannot aver that Dioscoro and Eddie's mere act of carrying a weapon is
The evidence very clearly established that the victim was stabbed immediately not an overt act reflective of conspiracy because clearly, such act is in line with
after the Jeepney he was riding - the victim then was positioned at the rear, the crime of murder. Regardless of the extent and character of Dioscoro and
standing on the stepboard of the vehicle - was stopped by the accused. 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.28 That on or about the 5th day of April 2001, in Quezon City, Philippines, the
above-named accused, conspiring together, confederating with and mutually
Thus, considering all of the foregoing, Efren and Edwin's conviction for the helping one another, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
crime of murder must stand. with intent to kill, taking advantage of superior strength and with treachery and
evident premeditation, attack, assault and employ personal violence upon the
Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for the crime of person of PO2 DIONISIO ALONZO Y SALGO, by then and there shooting the
murder qualified by treachery is reclusion perpetua to death. However, pursuant latter several times with the use of a firearm of unknown caliber hitting him on
to Republic Act No. 934629 proscribing the imposition of death penalty, and the different parts of the body, thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal
there being no aggravating circumstance that attended the commission of the gunshot wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his death, to the
crime, the penalty to be imposed on Efren and Edwin should be reclusion damage and prejudice of the immediate heirs of said PO2 DIONISIO ALONZO Y
perpetua. SALGO.
That the crime was committed in contempt of or with insult to the public
With respect to the award of damages, we affirm and find in accordance with authorities.2
prevailing jurisprudence30 the amounts adjudged by the Regional Trial Court, Criminal Case No. Q-01-100062
which were affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that must be awarded to the heirs That on or about the 5th day of April, 2001, in Quezon City, Philippines, the
of Manuel Tingoy, to wit: (1) civil indemnity at Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos above-named accused, conspiring together, confederating with and mutually
(P75,000.00); (2) moral damages at Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00); helping one another, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
and (3) exemplary damages at Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00). All these with intent to kill, taking advantage of superior strength and with treachery and
monetary awards shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per evident premeditation, attack, assault and employ personal violence upon the
annum from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid. person of SPO2 WILFREDO RED Y PILAR, by then and there shooting the latter
several times with the use of a firearm of unknown caliber, hitting him on the
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in different parts of the body and as soon as the said victim fell on the ground, by
CA-G.R. CEB-CR HC No. 01481, which affirmed with modification the 20 placing a hand grenade (sic) underneath the body which directly caused an
February 2012 Judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City, Branch 6, explosion and mutilated the body which directly caused the death of SPO2
in Criminal Case No. 99-01-42, is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that all WILFREDO RED Y PILAR, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the victim
the monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per in such amount as may be awarded to them under the provisions of the Civil
annum from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid. Code.
That the crime was committed in contempt of or with insult to the public
SO ORDERED. authorities.3
Criminal Case No. Q-01-100063
That on or about the 5th day of April, 2001, in Quezon City, Philippines, the
G.R. No. 175926               July 6, 2011 above-named accused, conspiring together, confederating with and mutually
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, helping one another, with intent to kill with evident premeditation and with
vs. treachery, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, assault,
RESTITUTO CARANDANG, HENRY MILAN AND JACKMAN CHUA, Accused- attack and employ personal violence upon the person of SPO1 WILFREDO
Appellants. MONTECALVO Y DALIDA, by then and there shooting the latter with the use of a
DECISION firearm of unknown caliber, hitting him on his neck, thereby inflicting upon him
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: serious and mortal injuries, the offender thus performing all the acts of
This is an appeal by Henry Milan and Jackman Chua from the Decision 1 of the execution which would have produced the crime of murder as a consequence,
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01934 dated May 10, 2006. Said but nevertheless did not produce it by reasons or causes independent of the will
Decision affirmed that of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicting them and of the perpetrators, that is the timely and able medical assistance rendered to
one Restituto Carandang for two counts of murder and one count of frustrated said SPO1 WILFREDO MONTECALVO Y DALIDA, to the damage and prejudice of
murder in Criminal Cases No. Q-01-100061, Q-01-100062 and Q-01-100063, the the said offended party.
Informations for which read: That the crime was committed in contempt of or with insult to the public
Criminal Case No. Q-01-100061 authorities.4
On May 15, 2001, accused-appellants Carandang, Milan and Chua pleaded not Tulfo.11 It was around 11:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight when Carandang and Chua
guilty to the crimes charged. surrendered.12 SPO2 Red and PO2 Alonzo were found dead inside the house,
The prosecution evidence, culled from the testimonies of Senior Police Officer their bodies slumped on the floor with broken legs and gunshot and grenade
(SPO) 1 Wilfredo Montecalvo, SPO1 Rodolfo Estores, Police Senior Inspector shrapnel wounds.13
(P/Sr. Insp.) Virgilio Calaro, P/Supt. Manuel Roxas and Dr. Wilson Tan, yielded Dr. Winston Tan, Medico-Legal Officer of the Philippine National Police (PNP)
the following version of the facts: Crime Laboratory, conducted the post-mortem examination of the bodies of
In the afternoon of April 5, 2001, the drug enforcement unit of the La Loma SPO2 Red and PO2 Alonzo. He found that the gunshot wounds of Red and
Police Station 1 received a request for assistance from the sister of accused Alonzo were the cause of their deaths.14
Milan regarding a drug deal that would allegedly take place in her house at According to SPO1 Montecalvo’s account, Dr. Bu Castro of the Chinese General
Calavite St., Brgy. Salvacion, Quezon City. The station commander called SPO2 Hospital operated on him, removing a bullet from the right portion of his nape.
Wilfredo Pilar Red and instructed him to talk to Milan’s sister, who was in their SPO1 Montecalvo’s hospitalization expenses amounted to ₱14,324.48. He
office. SPO2 Red, accompanied by Police Officer (PO) 2 Dionisio Alonzo, SPO1 testified that it was a nightmarish experience for him as he feared that he might
Estores and SPO1 Montecalvo, talked to Milan’s sister. Thereafter, SPO2 Red be paralyzed later on.15
formed a team composed of the officers who accompanied him during the The defense presented the three accused as witnesses, testifying as follows:
interrogation, with him as team leader. The team received further instructions Carandang claims that he had no firearm during the incident, and that it was the
from the station commander then proceeded to Calavite Street aboard two police officers who fired all the shots. He was in Milan’s house during the
vehicles, a mobile patrol car and an unmarked car.5 incident in order to ask Milan to accompany him to convert his cellular phone’s
When the team reached the place at around 4:00 p.m.,6 they alighted from their SIM card. When he arrived at Milan’s place, he found Milan and Chua playing a
vehicles and surrounded Milan’s house. SPO1 Montecalvo’s group went to the card game. A short time later, there was banging on the door. The door of the
left side of the house, while SPO2 Red’s group proceeded to the right. The two house was destroyed and gunfire suddenly erupted, prompting him to take
groups eventually met at the back of the house near Milan’s room. The door to cover under a bed. Chua cried out to him that he was hit and that he might lose
Milan’s room was open, enabling the police officers to see Carandang, Milan and blood. Milan ran outside and sustained injuries as well. There was an explosion
Chua inside. SPO2 Red told the group that the persons inside the room would near the door, causing burns on Carandang’s left arm. Gunfire continued coming
not put up a fight, making them confident that nothing violent would erupt. from different directions for two to three minutes. Suddenly, the place became
However, when the group introduced themselves as police officers, Milan dark as the lights went out.16
immediately shut the door.7 Since gunshots were still heard every now and then, Carandang stayed in the
PO2 Alonzo and SPO2 Red pushed the door open, causing it to fall and house and did not come out. Col. Tor, the new Chief of the Criminal Investigation
propelling them inside the room. PO2 Alonzo shouted "Walang gagalaw!" Division (CID) Sikatuna, negotiated for Carandang to come out. Carandang
Suddenly, gunshots rang, hitting PO2 Alonzo and SPO2 Red who dropped to the requested for the presence of his wife, Col. Doroteo Reyes and media man
floor one after the other. Due to the suddenness of the attack, PO2 Alonzo and Ramon Tulfo. He went out of the house at around midnight when the three
SPO2 Red were not able to return fire and were instantly killed by the barrage arrived.17
of gunshots. SPO1 Montecalvo, who was right behind SPO2 Red, was still aiming Milan testified that he was at home in Calavite St. at the time of the incident. He
his firearm at the assailants when Carandang shot and hit him. SPO1 Montecalvo knew Carandang for seven months. Chua was their neighbor. While playing a
fell to the ground. SPO1 Estores heard Chua say to Milan, "Sugurin mo na!" card game inside his room, they heard someone pounding at the door. He stood
Milan lunged towards SPO1 Montecalvo, but the latter was able to fire his gun and approached the door to check. The door was destroyed, and two
and hit Milan. SPO1 Estores went inside the house and pulled SPO1 Montecalvo unidentified men barged in. Gunshots erupted. He was hit on the left side of his
out.8 body. He ran out of the room, leaving Chua and Carandang behind. As he was
Reinforcements came at around 4:30 p.m. upon the arrival of P/Sr. Insp. Calaro, doing so, he saw his mother lying down and shouting "Itigil niyo ang putukan;
Chief Operations Officer of the La Loma Police Station 1, and P/Supt. Roxas, the maraming matatanda dito!" Milan was then hit on his left leg by another
Deputy Station Commander of Police Station 1 at the time of the incident.9 SPO1 gunshot.18
Montecalvo was brought to the Chinese General Hospital. Milan stepped out of Chua testified that he went to the house of Milan at around noontime of April 4,
the house and was also brought to a hospital, 10 but Carandang and Chua 2001 to play a card game. They played inside Milan’s ground floor room. Five to
remained holed up inside the house for several hours. There was a lengthy ten minutes later, Carandang arrived and laid down on the bed. Chua did not
negotiation for the surrender of Carandang and Chua, during which they pay much attention as Milan and Carandang discussed about cellular phones.
requested for the presence of a certain Colonel Reyes and media man Ramon Later, they heard a loud banging in the door as if it was being forced open. Milan
stood up to see what was happening. Chua remained seated and Carandang was Carandang, Milan and Chua appealed to this Court.23 The appeals were
still on the bed. The door was forcibly opened. Chua heard successive gunshots separately docketed as G.R. Nos. 160510-12.24 Pursuant, however, to the
and was hit on his left big toe. He ducked on the floor near the bed to avoid decision of this Court in People v. Mateo,25 the appeals were transferred26 to the
being hit further. He remained in that position for several hours until he lost Court of Appeals, where they were assigned a single docket number, CA-G.R.
consciousness. He was already being treated at the Chinese General Hospital CR.-H.C. No. 01934.
when he regained consciousness. In said hospital, a paraffin test was conducted On May 10, 2006, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed Decision modifying
upon him.19 the Decision of the trial court:
P/Sr. Insp. Grace Eustaquio, Forensic Chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory, WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of
later testified that the paraffin test on Chua yielded a negative result for Quezon City, Branch 76, in Criminal Case Nos. Q-01-100061-63 finding accused-
gunpowder nitrates, but that performed on Carandang produced a positive appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of Murder and one
result. She was not able to conduct a paraffin test on Milan, who just came from (1) count of Frustrated Murder is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS as
the operating room when she saw him. Milan seemed to be in pain and refused follows:
to be examined.20 1) In Criminal Case Nos. Q-01-100061 and Q-01-100062, accused-appellants are
On April 22, 2003, the trial court rendered its Decision 21 finding Carandang, hereby ordered to pay the heirs of PO2 Dionisio S. Alonzo and SPO2 Wilfredo P.
Milan and Chua guilty of two counts of murder and one count of frustrated Red an indemnity for loss of earning capacity in the amount of ₱2,140,980.69
murder: and ₱2,269,243.62, respectively; and
WHEREFORE, finding the accused RESTITUTO CARANDANG, HENRY MILAN 2) In Criminal Case No. Q-01-100063, accused-appellants are hereby instead
AND JACKMAN CHUA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison term of six (6) years and one (1)
described and penalized under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code in relation day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and
to Article 63 of the same Code, for the killing of SPO2 Wilfredo Pilar Red and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
PO2 Dionisio Alonzo qualified by treachery and acting in conspiracy with each With costs against the accused-appellants.27
other, they are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for Milan and Chua appealed to this Court anew.28 Carandang did not appeal, and
each count of murder and to indemnify the heirs of the victims, jointly and instead presented a letter informing this Court that he is no longer interested in
severally, as follows: pursuing an appeal.29 On April 9, 2008, Milan and Chua filed a Supplemental
To the heirs of SPO2 Wilfredo Red: Appellant’s Brief to further discuss the Assignment of Errors they presented in
1. ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity; their September 28, 2004 Appellant’s Brief:
2. ₱50,000.00 as moral damages; I.
3. ₱149,734.00 as actual damages; and The court a quo erred in holding that there was conspiracy among the
4. ₱752,580.00 as compensatory damages appellants in the case at bar.
To the heirs of PO2 Dionisio Alonzo: II.
1. ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity; Assuming arguendo that conspiracy exists, the court a quo gravely erred in
2. ₱50,000.00 as moral damages; convicting them of the crime of murder and frustrated murder instead of
3. ₱139,910.00 as actual damages; and homicide and frustrated homicide only, the qualifying circumstance of treachery
4. ₱522,960.00 as compensatory damages. not having been duly proven to have attended the commission of the crimes
Likewise, finding the accused Restituto Carandang, Henry Milan and Jackman charged.30
Chua guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of frustrated murder, The trial court had ruled that Carandang, Milan and Chua acted in conspiracy in
described and penalized under Article 249 in relation to Article 6, paragraph 2, the commission of the crimes charged. Thus, despite the established fact that it
having acted in conspiracy with each other and applying the Indeterminate was Carandang who fired the gun which hit SPO2 Red, PO2 Alonzo and SPO1
Sentence Law, they are hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of six (6) years Montecalvo, all three accused were held equally criminally responsible therefor.
of prision mayor to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, and The trial court explained that Carandang, Milan and Chua’s actuations showed
to indemnify the victim Wilfredo Montecalvo as follows: that they acted in concert against the police officers. The pertinent portion of
1. ₱14,000.00 as actual damages; the RTC Decision reads:
2. ₱20,000.00 as moral damages; Milan, Carandang and Chua were all inside the room of Milan. Upon arrival of
3. ₱20,000.00 as reasonable attorney’s fees; and police officers Red, Alonzo and the others and having identified themselves as
4. To pay the costs.22 police officers, the door was closed and after Alonzo and Red pushed it open and
as Alonzo shouted, "walang gagalaw," immediately shots rang out from inside Montecalvo.36 Milan claims that he was already injured in the stomach when he
the room, felling Alonzo, then Red, then Montecalvo. Chua was heard by Estores ran out, and it was natural for him to seek safety.
to shout to Milan: "Sugurin mo na" (tsn, October 16, 2001, page 8). And as Milan Assuming arguendo that Chua uttered "Sugurin mo na!" to Milan, appellants
lunged at Montecalvo, the latter shot him. argue that no crime was committed due to the same as all the victims had
That the three acted in concert can be gleaned from their actuations. First, when already been shot when said words were shouted.37 Furthermore, it appears to
they learned of the presence of the police officers, they closed the door. Not one have been uttered as a result of indiscretion or lack of reflection and did not
of them came out to talk peacefully with the police officers. Instead, Carandang inherently carry with it inducement or temptation.38
opened fire, Alonzo and Red did not even have the chance to touch their In the Supplemental Brief, Milan and Chua point out that the assault on the
firearms at that instant.31 victims was the result of the impulsive act of Carandang and was not a result of
In affirming this ruling, the Court of Appeals further expounded on the acts of any agreement or a concerted action of all the accused.39 They claim that when
Milan and Chua showing that they acted in concert with Carandang, to wit: the shootout ensued, Chua immediately dove down near the bed while Milan
In the present case, when appellants were alerted of the presence of the police ran out of the room out of fear.40 It is allegedly hard to imagine that SPO1
officers, Milan immediately closed the door. Thereafter, when the police officers Montecalvo with certainty heard Chua utter the phrase "Sugurin mo na,"
were finally able to break open said door, Carandang peppered them with considering that the incident happened so fast, there were lots of gunshots.41
bullets. PO2 Alonzo and SPO2 Red died instantly as a result while SPO1 To summarize, Milan’s and Chua’s arguments focus on the lack of direct
Montecalvo was mortally wounded. Then, upon seeing their victims helplessly evidence showing that they conspired with Carandang during the latter’s act of
lying on the floor and seriously wounded, Chua ordered Milan to attack the shooting the three victims. However, as we have held in People v.
police officers. Following the order, Milan rushed towards Montecalvo but the Sumalpong, 42 conspiracy may also be proven by other means:
latter, however, was able to shoot him. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning
At first glance, Milan’s act of closing the door may seem a trivial contribution in the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Evidence need not establish
the furtherance of the crime. On second look, however, that act actually the actual agreement among the conspirators showing a preconceived plan or
facilitated the commission of the crime. The brief moment during which the motive for the commission of the crime. Proof of concerted action before, during
police officers were trying to open the door paved the way for the appellants to and after the crime, which demonstrates their unity of design and objective, is
take strategic positions which gave them a vantage point in staging their assault. sufficient. When conspiracy is established, the act of one is the act of all
Thus, when SPO2 Red and PO2 Alonzo were finally able to get inside, they were regardless of the degree of participation of each.43
instantly killed by the sudden barrage of gunfire. In fact, because of the In the case at bar, the conclusion that Milan and Chua conspired with Carandang
suddenness of the attack, said police officers were not able to return fire. was established by their acts (1) before Carandang shot the victims (Milan’s
Insofar as Chua is concerned, his participation in the conspiracy consisted of closing the door when the police officers introduced themselves, allowing
lending encouragement and moral ascendancy to his co-conspirators as Carandang to wait in ambush), and (2) after the shooting (Chua’s directive to
evidenced by the fact that he ordered Milan to attack the already fallen police Milan to attack SPO1 Montecalvo and Milan’s following such instruction).
officers with the obvious intention to finish them off. Moreover, he did not Contrary to the suppositions of appellants, these facts are not meant to prove
immediately surrender even when he had the opportunity to do so but instead that Chua is a principal by inducement, or that Milan’s act of attacking SPO1
chose to stay with Carandang inside the room until their arrest.32 Montecalvo was what made him a principal by direct participation. Instead,
Milan and Chua object to the conclusion that they were in conspiracy with these facts are convincing circumstantial evidence of the unity of purpose in the
Carandang due to their acts of closing the door and not peaceably talking to the minds of the three. As co-conspirators, all three are considered principals by
police officers. According to them, those acts were caused by their being direct participation.
frightened by the police officers who were allegedly in full battle gear. 33 Milan Appellants’ attempt to instill doubts in our minds that Chua shouted "sugurin
and Chua further assert that the fortuitous and unexpected character of the mo na" to Milan, who then ran towards SPO1 Montecalvo, must fail. SPO1
encounter and the rapid turn of events should have ruled out a finding of Estores’s positive testimony44 on this matter prevails over the plain denials of
conspiracy.34 They claim that the incident happened so fast, giving them no Milan and Chua. SPO1 Estores has no reason to lie about the events he
opportunity to stop Carandang.35 witnessed on April 5, 2001. As part of the team that was attacked on that day, it
Appellants contest the factual finding that Chua directed Milan to go after SPO1 could even be expected that he is interested in having only the real perpetrators
Montecalvo, alleging that they were both unarmed and that there was no way punished.
for Milan to attack an armed person. What really happened, according to them, Furthermore, we have time and again ruled that factual findings of the trial
was that Milan ran out of the room for safety and not to attack SPO1 court, especially those affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive on this
Court when supported by the evidence on record. 45 It was the trial court that indeterminate penalty should then be within the range of the penalty next lower
was able to observe the demeanors of the witnesses, and is consequently in a to reclusion temporal, and thus may be any term within prision mayor, the
better position to determine which of the witnesses are telling the truth. Thus, range of which is 6 years and 1 day to 12 years. The modified term of 6 years
this Court, as a general rule, would not review the factual findings of the courts a and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum, to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of
quo, except in certain instances such as when: (1) the conclusion is grounded on reclusion temporal as maximum, is within these ranges.
speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, The civil liabilities of appellants should, however, be modified in accordance
absurd or impossible; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is with current jurisprudence. Thus, in Criminal Case Nos. Q-01-100061 and Q-01-
based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) 100062, the award of ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity for each victim must be
there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based; increased to ₱75,000.00.54 In cases of murder and homicide, civil indemnity of
(7) the finding of absence of facts is contradicted by the presence of evidence on ₱75,000.00 and moral damages of ₱50,000.00 are awarded automatically,
record; (8) the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to the findings of without need of allegation and proof other than the death of the
the trial court; (9) the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant victim.55 Appellants are furthermore solidarily liable to each victim for
and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different ₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages, which is awarded when the crime was
conclusion; (10) the findings of the Court of Appeals are beyond the issues of committed with an aggravating circumstance, be it generic or
the case; and (11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties.46 qualifying.56 However, since Carandang did not appeal, he is only solidarily
Neither can the rapid turn of events be considered to negate a finding of liable with Milan and Chua with respect to the amounts awarded by the Court of
conspiracy. Unlike evident premeditation, there is no requirement for Appeals, since the Court of Appeals’ Decision has become final and executory
conspiracy to exist that there be a sufficient period of time to elapse to afford with respect to him. The additional amounts (₱25,000.00 as civil indemnity and
full opportunity for meditation and reflection. Instead, conspiracy arises on the ₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages) shall be borne only by Milan and Chua, who
very moment the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the subject are hereby held liable therefor solidarily.
felony.47 In Criminal Case No. Q-01-100063, the solidary liability of Milan and Chua for
As held by the trial court and the Court of Appeals, Milan’s act of closing the moral damages to SPO1 Wilfredo Montecalvo is likewise increased to
door facilitated the commission of the crime, allowing Carandang to wait in ₱40,000.00, in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. 57 An award of
ambush. The sudden gunshots when the police officers pushed the door open ₱20,000.00 as exemplary damages is also warranted.58 The additional amounts
illustrate the intention of appellants and Carandang to prevent any chance for (₱20,000.00 as moral damages and ₱20,000.00 as exemplary damages) are
the police officers to defend themselves. Treachery is thus present in the case at likewise to be solidarily borne only by Milan and Chua.
bar, as what is decisive for this qualifying circumstance is that the execution of WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01934
the attack made it impossible for the victims to defend themselves or to dated May 10, 2006 is hereby AFFIRMED, with the following MODIFICATIONS:
retaliate.48 1. In Criminal Case Nos. Q-01-100061 and Q-01-100062, appellants Henry Milan
The trial court correctly sentenced appellants to suffer the penalty of reclusion and Jackman Chua are held solidarily liable for the amount of ₱25,000.00 as civil
perpetua in Criminal Case Nos. Q-01-100061 and Q-01-100062. The penalty for indemnity and ₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages to the heirs of each of the
murder under Article 24849 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion perpetua to victims, PO2 Dionisio S. Alonzo and SPO2 Wilfredo P. Red, in addition to the
death. Applying Article 6350 of the same Code, since there was no other amounts to which they are solidarily liable with Restituto Carandang as held in
modifying circumstance other than the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01934. Thus, to summarize the rulings of the lower courts
penalty that should be imposed is reclusion perpetua. and this Court:
In Criminal Case No. Q-01-100063, the Court of Appeals correctly modified the a. The heirs of SPO2 Wilfredo Red are entitled to the following amounts:
penalty for the frustrated murder of SPO1 Montecalvo. Under Article 50 51 in i. ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱50,000.00 of which shall be solidarily borne by
connection with Article 61, paragraph 252 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty Carandang, Milan and Chua, while ₱25,000.00 shall be the solidary liability of
for frustrated murder is one degree lower than reclusion perpetua to death, Milan and Chua only;
which is reclusion temporal. Reclusion temporal has a range of 12 years and 1 ii. ₱50,000.00 as moral damages to be solidarily borne by Carandang, Milan and
day to 20 years. Its medium period, which should be applied in this case Chua;
considering that there is no modifying circumstance other than the qualifying iii. ₱149,734.00 as actual damages to be soldarily borne by Carandang, Milan
circumstance of treachery, is 14 years, 8 months and 1 day to 17 years and 4 and Chua;
months – the range of the maximum term of the indeterminate penalty under iv. ₱2,140,980.00 as indemnity for loss of earning capacity to be solidarily borne
Section 153 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The minimum term of the by Carandang, Milan and Chua; and
v. ₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages to be solidarily borne by Milan and Chua Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 48, Manila, convicting accused-appellant
only; Estanly Octa y Bas, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of kidnapping
b. The heirs of PO2 Dionisio Alonzo are entitled to the following amounts: for ransom.
i. ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱50,000.00 of which shall be solidarily borne by As culled from the records, the prosecution's version is herein quoted:
Carandang, Milan and Chua, while ₱25,000.00 shall be the solidary liability of In the morning of September 25, 2003, around 6:40 A.M., Johnny Corpuz
Milan and Chua only; (Johnny) and Mike Adrian Batuigas (Mike Adrian) were on board a Honda Civic
ii. ₱50,000.00 as moral damages to be solidarily borne by Carandang, Milan and Car colored silver with Plate No. UPT 697 travelling on Buenos Aires St.,
Chua; Sampaloc, Manila when their way was blocked by a Mitsubishi box type Lancer
iii. ₱139,910.00 as actual damages to be solidarily borne by Carandang, Milan car colored red-orange. The four (4) armed occupants of the Lancer car alighted.
and Chua; Johnny did not open the door of the Honda Civic car but one of the armed men
iv. ₱2,269,243.62 as indemnity for loss of earning capacity to be solidarily borne fired his pistol at the left window of the civic car, thus compelling Johnny to
by Carandang, Milan and Chua; open the locked door of the car. The armed men went inside the car and Johnny
v. ₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages to be solidarily borne by Milan and Chua was ordered to transfer at the back seat at that time. Inside the car, Johnny was
only; handcuffed, blindfolded and was even boxed. The armed men asked for the
2. In Criminal Case No. Q-01-100063, appellants Henry Milan and Jackman Chua names and telephone numbers of his mother-in-law. The armed men called his
are held solidarily liable for the amount of ₱20,000.00 as moral damages and mother-in-law giving the information that Johnny was in their custody and they
₱20,000.00 as exemplary damages to SPO1 Wilfredo Montecalvo, in addition to would just meet each other at a certain place. They travelled for a while and
the amounts to which they are solidarily liable with Restituto Carandang as held then they stopped and Johnny was brought to a safehouse.
in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01934. Thus, to summarize the rulings of the lower After Johnny and Mike were kidnapped, the kidnappers communicated with
courts and this Court, SPO1 Wilfredo Montecalvo is entitled to the following Johnny’s wife Ana Marie Corpuz (Ana Marie) giving the information that they
amounts: have intheir custody her husband Johnny and her brother Mike Adrian. Ana
i. ₱14,000.00 as actual damages to be solidarily borne by Carandang, Milan and Marie tried to confirm the kidnapping incident by talking to her husband, who
Chua; confirmed to his wife that he and Mike Adrian were indeed kidnapped and they
ii. ₱40,000.00 as moral damages, ₱20,000.00 of which shall be solidarily borne were in the custody of their abductors. Ana Marie sought the assistance of the
by Carandang, Milan and Chua, while ₱20,000.00 shall be the solidary liability of PACER [Police AntiCrime and Emergency Response] and stayed in a PACER
Milan and Chua only; safehouse located at P. Tuazon, Cubao, Quezon City. During her stay, she had
iii. ₱20,000.00 as exemplary damages to be solidarily borne by Milan and Chua several communications with her husband’s kidnappers. The latter started
only; and demanding the amount of ₱20 million for the release of her husband and her
iv. ₱20,000.00 as reasonable attorney’s fees, to be solidarily borne by brother but the amount was considerably reduced up to the time that Ana Marie
Carandang, Milan and Chua. was able to raise the amount of ₱538,000.00 which was accepted by the
3. Appellants are further ordered to pay interest on all damages awarded at the kidnappers.
legal rate of Six Percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of this Finally, on September 30, 2003 at 10PM, the kidnappers set up the manner on
judgment.1avvphi1 how the ransom money would be delivered. Ana Marie travelled to Quiapo
SO ORDERED. 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
G.R. No. 195196               July 13, 2015 "saan yong padala ni boss". She was instructed to deliver the wrapped bundled
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, ransom money to the man wearing red cap. When she saw the man with red
vs. cap, she was asked for the money. At first, she did not give the money because
ESTANLY OCTA y BAS, Accused-Appellant. she wanted to be sure that she was giving the money to the right man. Using her
DECISION own cellphone, she called up the man who had been instructing her all along
SERENO, CJ: and asked him to confirm if the man in front of her is the right man to give the
Before us is a Notice of Appeal1 dated 30 July 2010 from the Court of Appeals ransom money to, saying "kausapin mo muna ito kung siya ba." The man in the
(CA) Decision2 dated 19 July 2010 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03490, affirming the phone and the man in the red cap talked for a while in another dialect which
Decision3 dated 15 May 2008 in Criminal Case No. 04-224073 issued by the 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 victims was for the purpose of extorting Php538,000.00 was actually delivered
him. She described the man wearing red cap to be goodlooking, lightly built, in to the above-mentioned accused in exchange for the release of the victims.
his early 20s, around 5’4" in height and with dimples, which she later identified CONTRARY TO LAW.8
in court as accused Estanly Octa. When arraigned on 5 July 2004,accused-appellant, assisted by counsel, pleaded
On October 1, 2003, Johnny was released by his captors after the payment of not guilty to the charge. Trial on the merits then ensued.9
ransom money. He was detained for the duration of six (6) days. After his On 15 May 2008, the RTC rendered a Decision, 10 the dispositive portion of which
release, he removed his blindfold and handcuffs but he could hardly regain his is herein quoted:
sight and see things. He flagged down a private pick-up and learned that he was WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Estanly Octa y Bas guilty beyond
in Camarin, Caloocan City. He asked a favor that he be driven to Meycauayan, reasonable doubt for the felony charge [sic] and pursuant to law, he is hereby
Bulacan where he took a jeepney to Monumento, and from there, he took a taxi sentenced to suffer maximum prison term of reclusion perpetua and to pay the
bound home. When he was released, his brother-in-law Mike Adrian was also private aggrieved party of the following:
released.4 1. The amount of 538,000.00 as actual and compensatory damages;
The defense recounted a different set of facts, to wit: 2. The amount of 100,000.00 as moral damages; and
x x x [O]n September 25, 2003, he was still in Daet, Camarines Norte working as 3. The amount of 50,000.00 as exemplary damages and cost.
a welder in the welding shop of his uncle Edwin delos Reyes. He went to Daet on In view of the conviction of the accused, the Manila City Jail is ordered to
the second week of August 2003 and returned to Manila when he was called by commit his person to the National Penitentiary immediately without necessary
his father sometime in November 2003. In addition to his defense of denial and [sic] delay.
alibi, he clings to the theory that he himself was a victim of abduction. He SO ORDERED.11
testified that, on December 1, 2003, while crossing the street, his way was In so ruling, the RTC ruled that prosecution witness Ana Marie Corpuz, wife of
blocked by a van and thereafter, two (2) persons alighted and a gun was poked victim Johnny Corpuz, steadfastly testified that she gave the ransom money in
at him then he was boarded inside the van. His hands were tied and eyes the amount of 538,000 to accused-appellant. She did not waiver in identifying
covered. The incident happened at Susano Road, Camarin, Caloocan City. He was and describing him as good-looking, wearing red cap, light in built, in his early
eventually brought to the PACER Office, Camp Crame, Quezon City. He claims 20’s, 5’4" and with dimples. The assertion of Ana Marie Corpuz that accused-
that he was tortured to admit the charge filed against him. At the PACER’s office, appellant was sporting dimples was squarely corroborated by the court’s
he was presented to a State Prosecutor of the DOJ but he claimed he was not observation when he took the witness stand.12
assisted by counsel. He said that he did not submit himself for medical The trial court also viewed the act of receiving ransom money as sufficient
examination. He categorically stated that, when he was inquested by a State evidence to establish accused-appellant’s conspiratorial act in the kidnapping
Prosecutor, he did not tell of the alleged torture that he suffered because he was for ransom of the victims in this case.13
afraid.5 With respect to the defense of denial and alibi, the RTC found them to be
On 4 December 2003, accused-appellant was arrested by the operatives of the inherently weak as opposed to the straightforward testimony of Corpuz. The
Police Anti-Crime and Emergency Response (PACER) on S[u]sano Road, claim of accused-appellant that he was abducted did not convince the court
Camarin, Caloocan City, in connection with another kidnap for ransom incident. either, inasmuch as it was not supported by evidence, nor was it the subject of
He was identified by prosecution witness Ana Marie Corpuz from a police line- an investigation.14
up as the person who had received the ransom money from her. 6 Consequently, Upon intermediate appellate review, the CA rendered a Decision15 promulgated
on 26 February 2004, an Information7 was filed against accused-appellant on 19 July 2010, to wit:
charging him with the crime of kidnapping for ransom as follows: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the appeal in this case is
That on or about 6:40 a.m. of September 25, 2003, in the City of Manila, DENIED and the assailed decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 48, in
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- Manila in Criminal Case No. 04-224073 finding Estanly Octa y Bas guilty of the
named accused, conspiring, confederating, and mutually helping one another, crime of kidnapping for ransom and imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua
did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously kidnap and deprive and ordered him to pay 538,000.00 as actual and compensatory damages,
JOHNNY L.CORPUZ and MIKE ADRIAN BATUIGAS, a minor, of their liberty and 100,000.00 as moral damages and 50,000.00 as exemplary damages and cost, is
against their will by means of threats and intimation with the use of firearms, hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
and then bring them through the use of a motor vehicle to a house, wherein they SO ORDERED.16
were detained for a period of six (6) days, and that the abduction of the said The CA found the positive identification of accused-appellant by prosecution
witness Ana Marie Corpuz to be unwavering and steadfast. It stressed that his
positive identification, when categorical, consistent, straightforward, and person on the stand can draw the line between fact and fancy. The forthright
without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the answer or the hesitant pause, the quivering voice or the angry tone, the
matter, would prevail over mere alibi and denial.17 Such positive identification flustered look or the sincere gaze, the modest blush or the guilty blanch – these
constituted direct evidence, and not merely circumstantial evidence.18 can reveal if the witness is telling the truth or lying through his teeth.27
Moreover, the CA ruled that accused-appellant had been rightly found to be a xxxx
co-conspirator in this case. At the time he received the ransom money, the crime [Thus], when the credibility of a witness is in issue, the findings of fact of the
of kidnapping was still continuing, since both victims were still illegally trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment
detained by the kidnappers. Accused-appellant’s act of taking the ransom of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said
money was an overt act made in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity.19 findings are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect. This is more true if
Hence, the instant appeal.20 such findings were affirmed by the appellate court, since it is settled that when
ISSUES the trial court’s findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings
In seeking a reversal of the decisions of the CA and the RTC, accused-appellant are generally binding upon this Court. Without any clear showing that the trial
Octa argues that: court and the appellate court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some
1. The trial court gravely erred in convicting him despite the prosecutions’ facts or circumstances of weight and substance, the rule should not be
failure to positively identify him as the ransom taker;21 disturbed."28
2. The trial court gravely erred in finding him to be a conspirator to the crime In this case, both the RTC and the CA found Corpuz to be a credible witness who
charged;22 and had categorically testified that she saw the face of the ransom taker, and that he
3. The trial court gravely erred in convicting him of the crime charged based on was actually the accused-appellant.
circumstantial evidence.23 The fact that Corpuz failed to declare in her Sinumpaang Salaysay that the
THE COURT’S RULING ransom taker was sporting a dimple was not fatal to her testimony because she
We deny accused-appellant’s appeal. was able to positively and categorically identify accused-appellant during the
When the credibility of a witness is at police line-up and in open court.
issue, the findings of fact of the trial Even accused-appellant’s insinuation that Corpuz could have been influenced by
court are accorded high respect if the police during the line-up cannot be given weight in the face of his positive
not conclusive effect, more so if identification as the ransom taker. On this point, we agree with the observation
those findings have been affirmed by of the CA that "assuming arguendo that the accused-appellant’s out of court
the appellate court. identification was defective, her subsequent identification in court cured any
In his Brief, accused-appellant contends that the prosecution failed to prove flaw that may have initially attended it. We emphasize that the ‘inadmissibility
beyond reasonable doubt that he was the one who received the ransom money. of a police line-up identification x x x should not necessarily foreclose the
He primarily argues that prosecution witness Ana Marie Corpuz could not have admissibility of an independent in-court identification.’"29
positively ascertained the identity of the ransom taker, because the area where To hold an accused guilty as a co-
the transaction took place was dark, and the man was wearing a cap. Neither did principal by reason of conspiracy, he
Corpuz declare in her Sinumpaang Salaysay that the person who received the must be shown to have performed an
ransom money was sporting a dimple, a fact that she mentioned on direct overt act in pursuance or
examination.24 Accused-appellant further insinuates that the police might have furtherance of the complicity.
influenced his out-of-court identification in the line-up when they informed Accused-appellant also claims that he cannot be considered as a conspirator to
Corpuz that they had apprehended some people who were suspects in other the kidnapping in the absence of concrete proof that he actually participated in
kidnap for ransom cases, and that information might have conditioned her mind the execution of the essential elements of the crime by overt acts indispensable
that the ransom taker had already been apprehended.25 to its accomplishment. His receipt of the ransom money transpired only after
We disagree. the kidnapping had been consummated and was not an essential element of the
In People v. Basao,26 the Court held that: crime.30
[T]the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best We disagree.
and most competently performed by the trial judge, who had the unmatched On point is our dissertation in People v. Bautista,31 to wit:
opportunity to observe the witnesses and to assess their credibility by the Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning
various indicia available but not reflected on the record. The demeanor of the the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.1awp++i1 Where all the
accused acted in concert at the time of the commission of the offense, and it is reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay ₱538,000 as actual damages, ₱100,000
shown by such acts that they had the same purpose or common design and were as moral damages, and ₱100,000 as exemplary damages.
united in its execution, conspiracy is sufficiently established. It must be shown SO ORDERED.
that all participants performed specific acts with such closeness and
coordination as to indicate a common purpose or design to commit the felony.
xxxx G.R. No. 196735               May 5, 2014
Evidently, to hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-appellee,
must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of vs.
the complicity. There must be intentional participation in the transaction with a DANILO FELICIANO, JR., JULIUS VICTOR MEDALLA, CHRISTOPHER SOLIVA,
view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose. x x x. WARREN L. ZINGAPAN, and ROBERT MICHAEL BELTRAN ALVIR, Accused-
xxxx appellants.
Taking these facts in conjunction with the testimony of Dexter, who testified DECISION
that accused-appellant was the one who received the ransom money x x x then LEONEN, J.:
the commonality of purpose of the acts of accused-appellant together with the It is in the hallowed grounds of a university where students, faculty, and
other accused can no longer be denied. Such acts have the common design or research personnel should feel safest. After all, this is where ideas that could
purpose to commit the felony of kidnapping for ransom. probably solve the sordid realities in this world are peacefully nurtured and
Thus, accused-appellants’ argument that he is a mere accomplice must fail. He is debated. Universities produce hope. They incubate all our youthful dreams.
liable as a principal for being a co-conspirator in the crime of Kidnapping for Yet, there are elements within this academic milieu that trade misplaced
Ransom under Art. 267 of the RPC, as amended by R.A. 7659 x x x. 32 (Emphasis concepts of perverse brotherhood for these hopes. Fraternity rumbles exist
ours) because of past impunity. This has resulted in a senseless death whose justice is
Moreover, the CA is correct in its observation that at the time accused-appellant now the subject matter of this case. It is rare that these cases are prosecuted. It
received the ransom money, the crime of kidnapping was still continuing, since is even more extraordinary that there are credible witnesses who present
both victims were still being illegally detained by the kidnappers.33 While his themselves courageously before an able and experienced trial court judge.
receipt of the ransom money was not a material element of the crime, it was This culture of impunity must stop. There is no space in this society for
nevertheless part of the grand plan and was in fact the main reason for hooliganism disguised as fraternity rumbles. The perpetrators must stand and
kidnapping the victims.34 Ransom is money, price or consideration paid or suffer the legal consequences of their actions. They must do so for there is an
demanded for the redemption of a captured person or persons; or payment that individual who now lies dead, robbed of his dreams and the dreams of his
releases from captivity.35 Without ransom money, the freedom of the detained family. Excruciating grief for them will never be enough.
victims cannot be achieved. The positive identification of accused-appellant It is undisputed that on December 8, 1994, at around 12:30 to 1:00 in the
constitutes direct, and not merely circumstantial, evidence. afternoon, seven (7) members of the Sigma Rho fraternity were eating lunch at
Accused-appellant's contention that he was convicted based only on the Beach House Canteen, near the Main Library of the University of the
circumstantial evidence deserves scant consideration. We agree with the Philippines, Diliman, when they were attacked by several masked men carrying
conclusion of the CA that "[Corpuz] testified that she gave the ransom money to baseball bats and lead pipes. Some of them sustained injuries that required
accused-appellant, and as the trial court declared, his act of receiving the hospitalization. One of them, Dennis Venturina, died from his injuries.
ransom money is sufficient conspiratorial act in the commission of the An information1 for murder, docketed as Criminal Case No. Q95-6113 3, was
kidnapping for ransom. The positive identification of the accused-appellant then filed against several members of the Scintilla Juris fraternity, namely, Danilo
constitutes direct evidence, and not merely circumstantial evidence."36 Feliciano, Jr., Julius Victor L. Medalla, Warren L. Zingapan, Robert Michael
With respect to the penalty imposed, we agree with the imposition by the RTC Beltran Alvir, Christopher L. Soliva, Reynaldo G. Ablanida, Carlo Jolette Fajardo,
and the CA on accused-appellant of the penalty of reclusion perpetua, George Morano, Raymund E. Narag, Gilbert Merle Magpantay, Benedict
considering the prohibition on the death penalty.37 To conform to recent Guerrero, and Rodolfo Penalosa, Jr. with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City,
jurisprudence,38 we hereby modify the exemplary damages awarded by Branch 219. The information reads:
increasing the amount from ₱50,000 to ₱100,000. That on or about the 8th day of December 1994, in Quezon City, Philippines, the
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. The assailed Decision of the above-named accused, wearing masks and/or other forms of disguise,
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-HC No. 03490 is AFFIRMED WITH conspiring, confederating with other persons whose true names, identities and
MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of whereabouts have not as yet been ascertained, and mutually helping one
another, with intent to kill, qualified with treachery, and with evident Soliva since they were not wearing any masks.25 After about thirty (30) seconds,
premeditation, taking advantage of superior strength, armed with baseball bats, they stopped hitting him.26
lead pipes, and cutters, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously He was lying on his back and when he looked up, he saw another group of four
attack, assault and employ personal violence upon the person of DENNIS F. (4) to five (5) men coming toward him, led by Benedict Guerrero. 27 This group
VENTURINA, by then and there hitting him on the head and clubbing him on also beat him up.28 He did not move until another group of masked men beat
different parts of his body thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal him up for about five (5) to eight (8) seconds.29
injuries which were the direct and immediate cause of his death, to the damage When the attacks ceased, he was found lying on the ground. 30 Several
and prejudice of the heirs of said DENNIS F. VENTURINA. (Emphasis supplied) bystanders brought him to the U.P. Infirmary where he stayed for more than a
Separate informations were also filed against them for the attempted murder of week for the treatment of his wounds and fractures.31
Sigma Rho fraternity members Cesar Mangrobang, Jr.,2 Cristobal Gaston, Jr.,3 and According to Cesar Mangrobang, Jr., member of Sigma Rho, he also looked back
Leandro Lachica,4 and the frustrated murder of Sigma Rho fraternity members when Venturina shouted and saw a group of men with baseball bats and lead
Mervin Natalicio5 and Amel Fortes.6 Only 11 of the accused stood trial since one pipes. Some of them wore pieces of cloth around their heads. 32 He ran when
of the accused, Benedict Guerrero, remained at large. they attacked, but two (2) men, whose faces were covered with pieces of cloth,
A trial on the merits ensued. blocked his way and hit him with lead pipes. 33 While running and parrying the
The facts, according to the prosecution, are as follows: blows, he recognized them as Gilbert Merle Magpantay and Carlo Jolette Fajardo
Leandro Lachica, Amel Fortes, Derinis Venturina, Mervin Natalicio, Cristobal because their masks fell off.34 He successfully evaded his attackers and ran to
Gaston, Jr., Felix Tumaneng,7 and Cesar Magrobang, Jr. are all members of the the Main Library.35 He then decided that he needed to help his fraternity
Sigma Rho Fraternity. On December 8, 1994, at around 12:30 to 1 :00 p.m., they brothers and turned back toward Beach House.36 There, he saw Venturina lying
were having lunch at Beach House Canteen, located at the back of the Main on the ground.37 Danilo Feliciano, Jr. was beating Venturina up with a lead pipe
Library of the University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City.8 Suddenly, while Raymund E. Narag was aiming to hit Venturina.38 When they saw him,
Dennis Venturina shouted, "Brads, brods!"9 they went toward his direction.39 They were about to hit him when somebody
According to Leandro Lachica, Grand Archon of Sigma Rho Fraternity, he looked shouted that policemen were coming. Feliciano and Narag then ran away.40
around when Venturina shouted, and he saw about ten (10) men charging Cesar Mangrobang, Jr. then saw Amel Fortes. Fortes accompanied him to his car
toward them.10 The men were armed with baseball bats and lead pipes, and so they could bring Venturina to the U.P. Infirmary. 41 When they brought the car
their heads were covered with either handkerchiefs or shirts.11 Within a few over, other people, presumably bystanders, were already loading Venturina into
seconds, five (5) of the men started attacking him, hitting him with their lead another vehicle.42 They followed that vehicle to the U.P. Infirmary where they
pipes.12 During the attack, he recognized one of the attackers as Robert Michael saw Natalicio.43 He stayed at the infirmary until the following morning.44
Beltran Alvir because his mask fell off.13 According to Cristobal Gaston, Jr., member of Sigma Rho, he immediately stood
Lachica tried to parry the blows of.his attackers, suffering scratches and up when he heard someone shout, "Brods!" 45 He saw a group of men charging
contusions.14 toward them carrying lead pipes and baseball bats.46 Most of them had pieces of
He was, however, able to run to the nearby College of Education. 15 Just before cloth covering their faces.47 He was about to run when two (2) of the attackers
reaching it, he looked back and saw Warren Zingapan and Julius Victor L. approached him.48 One struck him with a heavy pipe while the other stabbed
Medalla holding lead pipes and standing where the commotion was.16 Both of him with a bladed instrument.49 He was able to parry most of the blows from the
them did not have their masks on.17 He was familiar with Alvir, Zingapan, and lead pipe, but he sustained stab wounds on the chest and on his left forearm.50
Medalla because he often saw them in the College of Social Sciences and He was able to run away.51 When he sensed that no one was chasing him, he
Philosophy (CSSP) and Zingapan used to be his friend.18 The attack lasted about looked back to Beach House Canteen and saw Danilo Feliciano, Jr., Warren
thirty (30) to forty-five (45) seconds.19 Zingapan, and George Morano.52 He decided to go back to the canteen to help his
According to Mervin Natalicio, the Vice Grand Archon of Sigma Rho, he looked to fraternity brothers.53 When he arrived, he did not see any of his fraternity
his left when Venturina shouted.20 He saw about fifteen (15) to twenty (20) brothers but only saw the ones who attacked them.54 He ended up going to their
men, most of who were wearing masks, running toward them.21 He was stunned, hang-out instead to meet with his other fraternity brothers. 55 They then
and he started running.22 He stumbled over the protruding roots of a tree. 23 He proceeded to the College of Law where the rest of the fraternity was already
got up, but the attackers came after him and beat him up with lead pipes and discussing the incident.56
baseball bats until he fell down.24 While he was parrying the blows, he According to Amel Fortes, member of Sigma Rho, he also ran when he saw the
recognized two (2) of the attackers as Warren Zingapan and Christopher L. group of attackers coming toward them.57 When he looked back, he saw Danilo
Feliciano, Jr. hitting Venturina.58 He was also able to see Warren Zingapan and Gaston, Jr. he found "lacerated wounds on the anterior chest, left side, left
George Morano at the scene.59 forearm; swollen knuckles of both hands; contusions on the mid auxiliary left
Leandro Lachica, in the meantime, upon reaching the College of Education, side, left forearm and lacerated wound on the infra scapular area, left side."84
boarded a jeepney to the College of Law to wait for their other fraternity On September 18, 1997, after the prosecution presented its evidence-in-chief,
brothers.60 One of his fraternity brothers, Peter Corvera, told him that he the court granted the demurrer to evidence filed by Rodolfo Penalosa, Jr. on the
received information that members of Scintilla Juris were seen in the west wing ground that he was not identified by the prosecution's witnesses and that he
of the Main Library and were regrouping in SM North.61 Lachica and his group was not mentioned in any of the documentary evidence of the prosecution.85
then set off for SM North to confront Scintilla Juris and identify their attackers.62 Upon the presentation of their evidence, the defense introduced their own
When they arrived in SM North, pillboxes and stones were thrown at statement of the facts, as follows:
them.63 Lachica saw Robert Michael Beltran Alvir and Warren Zingapan and a According to Romeo Cabrera,86 a member of the U.P. Police, he was on foot
certain Carlo Taparan.64 They had no choice but to get away from the mall and patrol with another member of the U.P. Police, Oscar Salvador, at the time of the
proceed instead to U.P. where the Sigma Rho Fraternity members held a incident. They were near the College of Arts and Sciences (Palma Hall) when he
meeting.65 vaguely heard somebody shouting, "Rumble!" They went to the place where the
On the night of December 8, 1994, the officers of Sigma Rho advised the victims alleged rumble was happening and saw injured men being helped by
to lodge their complaints with the National Bureau of Investigation. 66 Their bystanders. They helped an injured person board the service vehicle of the
counsel, Atty. Frank Chavez, told the U.P. Police that the victims would be giving Beach House Canteen. They asked what his name was, and he replied that he
their statements before the National Bureau of Investigation, promising to give was Mervin Natalicio. When he asked Natalicio who hit him, the latter was not
the U.P. Police copies of their statements. In the meantime, Venturina was able to reply but instead told him that his attackers were wearing masks. Oscar
transferred from the U.P. Infirmary to St. Luke's Hospital on December 8, 1994. Salvador87 corroborated his testimony.
He died on December 10, 1994.67 On December 11, 1994, an autopsy was Benjamin Lato,88 a utility worker of the Beach House Canteen, likewise testified
conducted on the cadaver of Dennis Venturina.68 Dr. Rolando Victoria, a medico- that the identities of the attackers were unrecognizable because of their masks.
legal officer of the National Bureau of Investigation, found that Venturina had He, however, admitted that he did not see the attack; he just saw a man
"several contusions located at the back of the upper left arm and hematoma on sprawled on the ground at the time of the incident.
the back of both hands,"69 "two (2) lacerated wounds at the back of the Frisco Capilo,89 a utility worker of U.P. assigned to the Main Library, was buying
head,70 generalized hematoma on the skull,"71 "several fractures on the a cigarette at a vendor located nearby. From there, he allegedly saw the whole
head,"72 and "inter-cranial hemorrhage."73 The injuries, according to Dr. Victoria, incident. He testified that ten (10) men, wearing either masks of red and black
could have been caused by a hard blunt object.74 Dr. Victoria concluded that bonnets or with shirts covering their faces, came from a red car parked nearby.
Venturina died of traumatic head injuries.75 He also saw three (3) men being hit with lead pipes by the masked men. Two (2)
On December 12, 1994, Lachica, Natalicio, Mangrobang, Fortes, and Gaston of the men fell after being hit. One of the victims was lifting the other to help
executed their respective affidavits76 before the National Bureau of him, but the attackers overtook him. Afterwards, the attackers ran away. He
Investigation and underwent medico-legal examinations77 with their then saw students helping those who were injured. He likewise helped in
medicolegal officer, Dr. Aurelio Villena. According to Dr. Villena, he found that carrying one of the injured victims, which he later found out to be Amel Fortes.
Mervin Natalicio had "lacerated wounds on the top of the head, above the left A U.P. student and member of the Sigma Alpha Nu Sorority, Eda
ear, and on the fingers; contused abrasions on both knees; contusion on the left Panganiban,90 testified that she and her friends were in line to order lunch at the
leg and thigh,"78 all of which could have been caused by any hard, blunt object. Beach House Canteen when a commotion happened. She saw around fifteen
These injuries required medical attendance for a period of ten (10) days to (15) to eighteen (18) masked men attack a group of Sigma Rhoans. She did not
thirty (30) days from the date of infliction.79 see any mask fall off. Her sorority sister and another U.P. student, Luz
Dr. Villena found on Amel Fortes "lacerated wounds on the head and on the Perez,91 corroborated her story that the masked men were unrecognizable
right leg which could have been caused by a blunt instrument."80 These injuries because of their masks. Perez, however, admitted that a member of Scintilla
required hospitalization for a period of ten (10) days to thirty (30) days from Juris approached her to make a statement.
date of infliction.81 He also found on Cesar Mangrobang, Jr. a "healed abrasion on Another sorority sister, Bathalani Tiamzon,92 testified on substantially the same
the left forearm which could possibly be caused by contact with [a] rough hard matters as Panganiban and Perez. She also stated that she saw a person lying on
surface and would require one (1) to nine (9) days of medical attention."82 He the ground who was being beaten up by about three (3) to five (5) masked men.
found on Leandro Lachica "contusions on the mid auxiliary left side, left forearm She also stated that some of the men were wearing black masks while some
and lacerated wound on the infra scapular area, left side." 83 On Christopher
were wearing white t-shirts as masks. She did not see any mask fall off the faces wielding deadly weapons like baseball bats, lead pipes, pieces of wood and
of the attackers. bladed ones, and pounce on their hapless victims, run after them, and being
According to Feliciana Feliciano,93 accused-appellant Danilo Feliciano, Jr.'s present with one another at the scene of the crime during the assault. Although
motlier, her son was in Pampanga to visit his sick grandfather at the time of the each victim had a very strong motive to place his fraternity rivals permanently
incident. She alleged that her son went to Pampanga before lunch that day and behind bars, not one .of them testified against all of them. If the prosecution
visited the school where she teaches to get their house key from her. eyewitnesses, who were all Sigma Rhoans, were simply bent on convicting
According to Robert Michael Beltran Alvir,94 he had not been feeling well since Scintilla Juris members for that matter, they could have easily tagged each and
December 5, 1994. He said that he could not have possibly been in U.P. on every single accused as a participant in the atrocious and barbaric assault to
December 8, 1994 since he was absent even from work. He also testified that he make sure that no one else would escape conviction. Instead, each eyewitness
wore glasses and, thus, could not have possibly been the person identified by named only one or two and some were candid enough to say that they did not
Leandro Lachica. He also stated that he was not enrolled in U.P. at the time since see who delivered the blows against them.104
he was working to support himself. Because one of the penalties meted out was reclusion perpetua, the case was
According to Julius Victor Medalla,95 he and another classmate, Michael Vibas, brought to this court on automatic appeal. However, due to the amendment of
were working on a school project on December 8, 1994. He also claimed that he the Rules on Appeal,105 the case was remanded to the Court of Appeals.106 In the
could not have participated in the rumble as he had an injury affecting his Court of Appeals, the case had to be re-raffled several Times107 before it was
balance. The injury was caused by an incident in August 1994 when he was eventually assigned to Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. for the writing of
struck in the head by an unknown assailant. His testimony was corroborated by the decision.
Jose Victor Santos96 who stated that after lunch that day, Medalla played darts On December 26, 2010, the Court of Appeals, in a Special First Division of Five,
with him and, afterwards, they went to Jollibee. affirmed108 the decision of the Regional Trial Court, with three (3) members
Christopher Soliva,97 on the other hand, testified that he was eating lunch with concurring109 an one (1) dissenting.110
his girlfriend and another friend in Jollibee, Philcoa, on December 8, 1994. They The decision of the Court of Appeals was then brought to this court for review.
went back to U.P. before 1:00 p.m. and went straight to their fraternity hang-out The issue before this court is whether the prosecution was able to prove beyond
where he was told that there had been a rumble at the Main Library. He also met reasonable doubt that accused-appellants attacked private complainants and
several Sigma Rhoans acting suspiciously as they passed by the hang-out. They caused the death of Dennis Venturina.
were also told by their head, Carlo Taparan, not to react to the Sigma Rhoans On the basis, however, of the arguments presented to this court by both parties,
and just go home. Anna Cabahug,98 his girlfriend, corroborated his story. the issue may be further refined, thus:
Warren Zingapan99 also testified that he was not in U.P. at the time of the 1. Whether accused-appellants' constitutional rights were violated when the
incident. He claimed to have gone to SM North to buy a gift for a friend's information against them contained the aggravating circumstance of the use of
wedding but ran into a fraternity brother. He also alleged that some Sigma masks despite the prosecution presenting witnesses to prove that the masks fell
Rhoans attacked them in SM North that day. off; and
On February 28, 2002, the trial court rendered its decision100 with the finding 2. Whether the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals correctly ruled, on
that Robert Michael Alvir, Danilo Feliciano, Jr., Christopher Soliva, Julius Victor the basis of the evidence, that accused-appellants were sufficiently identified.
Medalla, and Warren Zingapan were guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder I
and attempted murder and were sentenced to, among other penalties, the An information is sufficient
penalty of reclusion perpetua.101 The trial court, however, acquitted Reynaldo when the accused is fully
Ablanida, Carlo Jolette Fajardo, Gilbert Magpantay, George Morano, and apprised of the charge against
Raymund Narag.102 The case against Benedict Guerrero was ordered archived by him to enable him to prepare
the court until his apprehension.103 The trial court, m evaluating the voluminous his defense
evidence at hand, concluded that: It is the argument of appellants that the information filed against them violates
After a judicious evaluation of the matter, the Court is of the considered view their constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
that of the ten accused, some were sufficiently identified and some were not. accusation against them. They argue that the prosecution should not have
The Court believes that out of the amorphous images during the pandemonium, included the phrase "wearing masks and/or other forms of disguise" in the
the beleaguered victims were able to espy and identify some of the attackers information since they were presenting testimonial evidence that not all the
etching an indelible impression in their memory. In this regard, the prosecution accused were wearing masks or that their masks fell off.
eyewitnesses were emphatic that they saw the attackers rush towards them
It is enshrined in our Bill of Rights that "[n]o person shall be held to answer for In any case, the accused were being charged with the crime of murder,
a criminal offense without due process of law."111 This includes the right of the frustrated murder, and attempted murder. All that is needed for the information
accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and "to be informed of the to be sufficient is that the elements of the crime have been alleged and that
nature and accusation against him."112 there are sufficient details as to the time, place, and persons involved in the
Upon a finding of probable cause, an information is filed by the prosecutor offense.
against the accused, in compliance with the due process of the law. Rule 110, II
Section 1, paragraph 1 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that: Findings of the trial court,
A complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the when affirmed by the
designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions appellate court, are entitled
complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended pary; the to great weight and credence
approximate date of the commission of the offense; and the place where the As a general rule, the findings of fact by the trial court, when affirmed by the
offense was committed. appellate court, are given great weight and credence on review. The rationale
In People v. Wilson Lab-ea,113 this court has stated that: for this was explained in People v. Daniel Quijada,118 as follows:
The test of sufficiency of Information is whether it enables a person of common Settled is the rule that the factual findings of the trial court, especially on the
understanding to know the charge against him, and the court to render credibility of witnesses, are accorded great weight and respect. For, the trial
judgment properly. x x x The purpose is to allow the accused to fully prepare for court has the advantage of observing the witnesses through the different
his defense, precluding surprises during the trial.114 indicators of truthfulness or falsehood, such as the angry flush of an insisted
Contrary to the arguments of the appellants, the inclusion of the phrase assertion or the sudden pallor of a discovered lie or the tremulous mutter of a
"wearing masks and/or other forms of disguise" in the information does not reluctant answer or the forthright tone of a ready reply;
violate their constitutional rights. or the furtive glance, the blush of conscious shame, the hesitation, the sincere or
It should be remembered that every aggravating circumstance being alleged the flippant or sneering tone, the heat, the calmness, the yawn, the sigh, the
must be stated in the information. Failure to state an aggravating circumstance, candor or lack of it, the scant or full realization of the solemnity of an oath, the
even if duly proven at trial, will not be appreciated as such.115 It was, therefore, carriage and mien.119
incumbent on the prosecution to state the aggravating circumstance of "wearing There are, of course, recognized exceptions to this rule. In People v. Leticia
masks and/or other forms of disguise" in the information in order for all the Labarias,120 this court stated that:
evidence, introduced to that effect, to be admissible by the trial court. It is the policy of this Court to sustain the factual findings of the trial court on
In criminal cases, disguise is an aggravating circumstance because, like the reasonable assumption that it is in a better position to assess the evidence
nighttime, it allows the accused to remain anonymous and unidentifiable as he before it, particularly the testimonies of the witnesses, who reveal much of
carries out his crimes. themselves by their deportment on the stand. The exception that makes the rule
The introduction of the prosecution of testimonial evidence that tends to prove is where such findings arc clearly arbitrary or erroneous as when they are
that the accused were masked but the masks fell off does not prevent them from tainted with bias or hostility or are so lacking in basis as to suggest that they
including disguise as an aggravating circumstance. 116 What is important in were reached without the careful study and perceptiveness that should
alleging disguise as an aggravating circumstance is that there was a characterize a judicial decision.121 (Emphasis supplied)
concealment of identity by the accused. The inclusion of disguise in the In criminal cases, the exception gains even more importance since the
information was, therefore, enough to sufficiently apprise the accused that in presumption is always in favor of innocence. It is only upon proof of guilt
the commission of the offense they were being charged with, they tried to beyond reasonable doubt that a conviction is sustained.
conceal their identity. In this case, a total of eleven (11) witnesses for the prosecution and forty-two
The introduction of evidence which shows that some of the accused were not (42) witnesses for the defense were put on the stand from 1995 to 2001. In an
wearing masks is also not violative of their right to be informed of their eighty-three (83)-page decision, the trial court acquitted six (6) and convicted
offenses. five (5) of the accused. On the basis of these numbers alone, it cannot be said
The information charges conspiracy among the accused. Conspiracy that the trial court acted arbitrarily or that its decision was "so lacking in basis"
presupposes that "the act of one is the act of all."117 This would mean all the that it was arrived at without a judicious and exhaustive study of all the
accused had been one in their plan to conceal their identity even if there was evidence presented.
evidence later on to prove that some of them might not have done so. Inasmuch, however, as the trial court's findings hold great persuasive value,
there is also nothing that precludes this court from coming to its own
conclusions based on an independent review of the facts and the evidence on According to their testimonies, Lachica was able to identify Alvir, Zingapan, and
record. Medalla;126
The accused were sufficiently Natalicio was able to identify Medalla, Zingapan, and Soliva; 127 and Fortes was
identified by the witnesses for able to identify Feliciano, Medalla, and Zingapan. 128 Their positive identification
the prosecution was due to the fact that they either wore no masks or that their masks fell off.
The trial court, in weighing all the evidence on hand, found the testimonies of It would be in line with human experience that a victim or an eyewitness of a
the witnesses for the prosecution to be credible. In its decision, the trial court crime would endeavor to find ways to identify the assailant so that in the event
stated that: that he or she survives, the criminal could be apprehended. It has also been
x x x. Although each victim had a very strong motive to place his fraternity rivals previously held that:
permanently behind bars, not one testified against all of them. If the prosecution It is the most natural reaction for victims of criminal violence to strive to see the
eyewitnesses, who were all Sigma Rhoans, were simply bent on convicting looks and faces of their assailants and observe the manner in which the crime
Scintilla Juris members for that matter, they could have easily tagged each and was committed. Most often the face of the assailant and body movements
every accused as a participant in the atrocious and barbaric assault to make thereof, creates a lasting impression which cannot be easily erased from their
sure no one would escape conviction. Instead, each eyewitness named only one memory.129
or two and some were candid enough to say that they did not see who delivered In the commotion, it was more than likely that the masked assailants could have
the blows against them. lost their masks. It had been testified by the victims that some of the assailants
Thus, the prosecution witnesses, Ernest Paulo Tan, Dennis Gaio and Darwin were wearing masks of either a piece of cloth or a handkerchief and that
Asuncion, testified to have seen it all but they could not, and did not, disclose Alvir,130 Zingapan,131 Soliva,132 and Feliciano133 had masks on at first but their
any name. Lachica, on the other hand, said that he did not have the opportunity masks fell off and hung around their necks.
to see and identify the person who hit him in the back and inflicted a two-inch Equally telling was the testimony of defense witness Frisco Capilo during cross-
cut. His forearm was also hit by a lead pipe but he did not see who did it. examination who observed that some of the attackers were wearing masks and
Natalicio, one of the other three who were hospitalized, was severely beaten by some were not, thus:
three waves of attackers totalling more than 15 but he could only name 3 of Q Mr. Capilo, do you know this Scintilla Juris Fraternity?
them. He added, however, that he would be able to recognize those he saw if he A No, sir.
would see them again. Of them, Mangrobang pointed to at least 5 but he Q During the incident of December 8, 1994, there were a lot of people eating in
stressed that he did not see Zingapan, Soliva, Guerrero, Del Rosario, Daraoay, the Beach House Canteen, and then running towards different directions, is it
Denoista, and Penalosa during the onslaught. Gaston could have named any of not?
the accused as the one who repeatedly hit him with a heavy pipe and stabbed A Yes, sir.
him but he frankly said their faces were covered. Like Natalicio, Fortes was Q And some people were wearing masks and some were not?
repeatedly beaten by several groups but did not name any of the accused as one A Yes, sir.134
of those who attacked him. The persons he identified were those leading the While the attack was swift and sudden, the victims would have had the presence
pack with one of them as the assailant of Venturina, and the two others who he of mind to take a look at their assailants if they were identifiable. Their positive
saw standing while he was running away. He added that he saw some of the identification, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, must be upheld to be
accused during the attack but did not know then their names. 122 (Emphasis credible.
supplied) It has been argued that the trial court did not give Mangrobang's testimony
We agree. credence while Gaston's testimony was found to be "hazy." This argument is
The trial court correctly held that "considering the swiftness of the unmeritorious.
incident,"123 there would be slight inconsistencies in their statements. In People It should be noted that it was the trial court itself that stated that the acquittal of
v. Adriano Cabrillas,124 it was previously observed that: the Scintilla Juris members identified by Mangrobang "should not be.
It is perfectly natural for different witnesses testifying on the occurrence of a misinterpreted to mean that the tt:'.stimony of Mangrobang was an absolute
crime to give varying details as there may be some details which one witness fabrication."135 The court went on to state that they "were exonerated merely
may notice while the other may not observe or remember. In fact, jurisprudence because they were accorded the benefit of the doubt as their identification by
even warns against a perfect dovetailing of narration by different witnesses as it Mangrobang, under tumultuous and chaotic circumstances were [sic] not
could mean that their testimonies were prefabricated and corroborated and their alibis, not refuted."136 There was, therefore, no basis to
rehearsed.125 (Emphasis supplied)
say that Mangrobang was not credible; it was only that the evidence presented The term res gestae has been defined as "those circumstances which are the
was not strong enough to overcome the presumption of innocence. undersigned incidents of a particular litigated act and which are admissible
Gaston's testimony, on the other hand, was considered "hazy" 137 by the trial when illustrative of such act." In a general way, res gestae refers to the
court only with regard to his identification of Zingapan's companion. Gaston circumstances, facts, and declarations that grow out of the main fact and serve
testified that he saw Zingapan with Morano, with Zingapan moving and Morano to illustrate its character and are so spontaneous and contemporaneous with
staying in place. Fortes, however, testified that both Zingapan and Morano were the main fact as to exclude the idea of deliberation and fabrication. The rule on
running after him. Lachica also testified that it was Medalla, not Morano, who res gestae encompasses the exclamations and statements made by either the
was with Zingapan. Because of this confusion, the trial court found that there participants, victims, or spectators to a crime immediately before, during, or
was doubt as to who was really beside Zingapan. The uncertainty resulted into immediately after the commission of the crime when the circumstances are such
an acquittal for Morano. Despite this, the court still did not" impute doubt in that the statements were made as a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired
their testimonies that Zingapan was present at the scene. by the excitement of the occasion and there was no opportunity for the
Be that as it may, the acquittals made by the trial court further prove that its declarant to deliberate and to fabricate a false statement. The test of
decision was brought about only upon a thorough examination of the evidence admissibility of evidence as a part of the res gestae is, therefore, whether the
presented: It accepted that there were inconsistencies in the testimonies of the act, declaration, or exclamation is so intimately interwoven or connected with
victims but that these were minor and did not affect their credibility. It ruled the principal fact or event that it characterizes as to be regarded as a part of the
that "[s]uch inconsistencies, and even probabilities, are not unusual 'for there is transaction itself, and also whether it clearly negatives any premeditation or
no person with perfect faculties or senses."'138 purpose to manufacture testimony.143
Evidence as part of the res There is no doubt that a sudden attack on a group peacefully eating lunch on a
gestae may be admissible but school campus is a startling occurrence. Considering that the statements of the
have little persuasive value in bystanders were made immediately after the startling occurrence, they are, in
this case fact, admissible as evidence given in res gestae.
According to the testimony of U.P. Police Officer Salvador,139 when he arrived at In People v. Albarido,144 however, this court has stated that "in accord to
the scene, he interviewed the bystanders who all told him that they could not ordinary human experience:"
recognize the attackers since they were all masked. This, it is argued, could be x x x persons who witness an event perceive the same from their respective
evidence that could be given as part of the res gestae. points of reference. Therefore, almost always, they have different accounts of
As a general rule, "[a] witness can testify only to the facts he knows of his how it happened. Certainly, we cannot expect the testimony of witnesses to a
personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception, x x crime to be consistent in all aspects because different persons have different
x."140 All other kinds of testimony are hearsay and are inadmissible as evidence. impressions and recollections of the same incident. x x x145
The Rules of Court, however, provide several exceptions to the general rule, and (Emphasis supplied)
one of which is when the evidence is part of res gestae, thus: The statements made by the bystanders, although admissible, have little
Section 42. Part of res gestae. - Statements made by a person while a starting persuasive value since the bystanders could have seen the events transpiring at
occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with different vantage points and at different points in time. Even Frisco Capilo, one
respect to the circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part of res of the bystanders at the time of the attack, testified that the attackers had their
gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, masks on at first, but later on, some remained masked and some were
and giving it a legal significance, may be received as part of the res gestae.141 unmasked.
In People v. Rodrigo Salafranca,142 this court has previously discussed the When the bystanders' testimonies are weighed against those of the victims who
admissibility of testimony taken as part of res gestae, stating that: witnessed the entirety of the incident from beginning to end at close range, the
A declaration or an utterance is deemed as part of the res gestae and thus former become merely corroborative of the fact that an attack occurred. Their
admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule when the following account of the incident, therefore, must be given considerably less weight than
requisites concur, to wit: (a) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling that of the victims.
occurrence; (b) the statements are made before the declarant had time to The belated identification by
contrive or devise; and (c) the statements must concern the occurrence in the victims do not detract from
question and its immediately attending circumstances. their positive identification of
xxxx the appellants
It is argued that the fact that the victims stayed silent about the incident to the The primary missions of the UPDP are to maintain peace and order, secure and
U.P. Police or the Quezon City Police but instead executed affidavits with the protect lives and property, enforce basic laws, applicable Quezon City
National Bureau of Investigation four (4) days after the incident gives doubt as Ordinances, and University Rules and Regulations including policies and
to the credibility of their testimonies. standards; and to perform such other functions relative to the general safety
U.P. Police Officer Romeo Cabrera146 testified that on their way to the U.P. and security of the students, employees, and residents in the U.P. Diliman
Infirmary, he interviewed the victims who all told him they could not recognize Campus. x x x.148 (Emphasis supplied)
the attackers because they were all wearing masks. Meanwhile, Dr. It can be seen that the U.P. Police is employed by U.P. primarily for campus
Mislang147 testified to the effect that when she asked Natalicio who attacked security. They are by no means an actual police force that is equipped to handle
them, Natalicio answered that he did not know because they were masked. a full-blown murder investigation. Fraternity-related violence in U.P. has also
It must be remembered that the parties involved in this case belong to rival increasingly become more frequent, which might possibly have desensitized the
fraternities. While this court does not condone their archaic and oftentimes U.P. Police in such a way that would prevent their objectivity in the conduct of
barbaric traditions, it is conceded that there are certain practices that are their investigations. The victims' reliance on the National Bureau of
unique to fraternal organizations. Investigation, therefore, is understandable.
It is quite possible that at this point in time, they knew the identities of their III
attackers but chose not to disclose it without first conferring with their other Alibi cannot prevail over the
fraternity brothers. This probability is bolstered by the actions of Sigma Rho positive identification of the
after the incident, which showed that they confronted the members of Scintilla victim
Juris in SM North. Because of the tenuous relationship of rival fraternities, it It is settled that the defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive
would not have been prudent for Sigma Rho to retaliate against the wrong identification of the victim.149 In People v. Benjamin Peteluna,150 this court stated
fraternity. that:
Their act of not disclosing the correct information to the U.P. Police or to Dr. It is a time-honored principle that the positive identification of the appellant by
Mislang does not make the police officer or the doctor's testimonies more a witness destroys the defense of alibi and denial. Thus:
credible than that of the victims. It should not be forgotten that the victims x x x. It is well-entrenched that alibi and denial are inherently weak and have
actually witnessed the entire incident, while Officer Salvador, Officer Cabrera, always been viewed with disfavor by the courts due to the facility with which
and Dr. Mislang were merely relaying secondhand information. they can be concocted. They warrant the least credibility or none at all and
The fact that they went to the National Bureau of Investigation four (4) days cannot prevail over the positive identification of the appellant by the
after the incident also does not affect their credibility since most of them had prosecution witnesses. For alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that
been hospitalized from their injuries and needed to recover first. appellant was somewhere else when the crime was committed; he must also
Since a fraternity moves as one unit, it would be understandable that they demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene
decided to wait until all of them were well enough to go to the National Bureau of the crime at the time of its commission. Unless substantiated by clear and
of Investigation headquarters in order to give their statements. convincing proof, such defense is negative, self-serving, and undeserving of any
Seniority is also often the norm in fraternities. It was upon the advice of their weight in law. Denial, like alibi, as an exonerating justification[,] is inherently
senior "brads" and their legal counsel that they executed their sworn statements weak and if uncorroborated regresses to blatant impotence. Like alibi, it also
before the National Bureau of Investigation four (4) days after the incident. constitutes self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater
The decision to report the incident to the National Bureau of Investigation evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on
instead of to the U.P. Police was the call of their legal counsel who might have affirmative matters.151
deemed the National Bureau of Investigation more equipped to handle the In this case, the victims were able to positively identify their attackers while the
investigation. This does not, however, affect the credibility of the witnesses accused-appellants merely offered alibis and denials as their defense. The
since they were merely following the legal advice of their counsel. credibility of the victims was upheld by both the trial court and the appellate
Indeed, there is reason to believe that the National Bureau of Investigation is court while giving little credence to the accused-appellants' alibis. There is, thus,
better equipped than the U.P. Police to handle the investigation of the case. As no reason to disturb their findings.
stated in the U.P. College of Economics website: Accused-appellants were
The UP Diliman Police (UPDP) is tasked with maintaining campus security. correctly charged with
Their station is located in front of the College of Architecture. murder, and there was
treachery in the commission This reasoning is clearly erroneous. The victims in this case were eating lunch
of the crime on campus. They were not at a place where they would be reasonably expected
According to the provisions of Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the to be on guard for any sudden attack by rival fraternity men.
accused-appellants were correctly charged with murder. Article 248 states: The victims, who were unarmed, were also attacked with lead pipes and
ART. 248. Murder.-Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article baseball bats. The only way they could parry the blows was with their arms. In a
246, shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by situation where they were unnamed and outnumbered, it would be impossible
reclusion perpetua, to death if committed with any of the following attendant for them to fight back against the attackers. The attack also happened in less
circumstances: than a minute, which would preclude any possibility of the bystanders being
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed able to help them until after the incident.
men, or employing means to weaken the defense, or of means or persons to The swiftness and the suddenness of the attack gave no opportunity for the
insure or afford impunity; victims to retaliate or even to defend themselves. Treachery, therefore, was
xxxx present in this case.
It is undisputed that on December 8, 1994, a group of men armed with lead The presence of conspiracy
pipes and baseball bats attacked Dennis Venturina and his companions, which makes all of the accused-
resulted in Venturina's death. appellants liable for murder
As correctly found by the trial court and the appellate court, the offense and attempted murder
committed against Dennis Venturina was committed by a group that took In the decision of the trial court, all of the accused-appellants were found guilty
advantage of its superior strength and with the aid of armed men. The appellate of the murder of Dennis Venturina and the attempted murder of Mervin
court, however, incorrectly ruled out the presence of treachery in the Natalicio, Cesar Mangrobang, Jr. Leandro Lachica, Arnel Fortes, and Cristobal
commission of the offense. Gaston, Jr. The appellate court, however, modified their liabilities and found that
It has been stated previously by this court that: the accused-appellants were guilty of attempted murder only against Natalicio
[T]reachery is present when the offender commits any of the crimes against and Fortes, and not against Mangrobang, Lachica, and Gaston.
persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution, which tend It is the appellate court's reasoning that because Lachica and Mangrobang "were
directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising no longer chased by the attackers,"157 it concluded that accused-appellants
from the defense which the offended party might make.152 "voluntary desisted from pursuing them and from inflicting harm to them,
Similarly, in People v. Leozar Dela Cruz,153 this court stated that: which shows that they did not have the intent to do more than to make them
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against suffer pain by slightly injuring them." 158 It also pointed out that the wound
persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution, which tend inflicted on Gaston "was too shallow to have been done with an intent to kill."159
directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising Thus, it concluded that the accused-appellants would have been guilty only of
from the defense which the offended party might make. The essence of slight physical injuries.
treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, This is erroneous.
and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting It should be remembered that the trial court found that there was conspiracy
victim no chance to resist or escape. For treachery to be considered, two among the accused-appellants160 and the appellate court sustainedthis
elements must concur: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the finding.161
persons attacked no opportunity to defend themselves or retaliate; and (2) the Conspiracy, once proven, has the effect of attaching liability to all of the accused,
means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.154 (Emphasis regardless of their degree of participation, thus: Once an express or implied
supplied) conspiracy is proved, all of the conspirators are liable as co-principals
The appellate court, in affirming the conviction of the accused-appellants, ruled regardless of the extent and character of their respective active participation in
that contrary to the findings of the trial court, there was no treachery involved. the commission of the crime or crimes perpetrated in furtherance of the
In particular, they ruled that although the attack was sudden and unexpected, conspiracy because in contemplation of law the act of one is the act of all. The
"[i]t was done in broad daylight with a lot of people who could see them" 155 and foregoing rule is anchored on the sound principle that "when two or more
that "there was a possibility for the victims to have fought back or that the persons unite to accomplish a criminal object, whether through the physical
people in the canteen could have helped the victims."156 volition of one, or all, proceeding severally or collectively, each individual whose
evil will actively contributes to the wrong-doing is in law responsible for the
whole, the same as though performed by himself alone." Although it is axiomatic
that no one is liable for acts other than his own, "when two or more persons This is not the first fraternity-related case to come to this court; neither will it
agree or conspire to commit a crime, each is responsible for all the acts of the be the last. Perhaps this case and many cases like it can empower those who
others, done in furtherance of the agreement or conspiracy." The imposition of have a better view of masculinity: one which valorizes courage, sacrifice and
collective liability upon the conspirators is clearly explained in one case where honor in more life-saving pursuits.
this Court held that "Giting at dangal" are words of the anthem of the University of the Philippines. It
... it is impossible to graduate the separate liability of each (conspirator) without colors the stories of many who choose to expend their energy in order that our
taking into consideration the close and inseparable relation of each of them with people will have better lives. Fraternity rumbles are an anathema, an immature
the criminal act, for the commission of which they all acted by common and useless expenditure of testosterone. It fosters a culture that retards
agreement ... The crime must therefore in view of the solidarity of the act and manhood. It is devoid of "giting at dangal."
intent which existed between the ... accused, be regarded as the act of the band This_ kind of shameful violence must stop.
or party created by them, and they are all equally responsible WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR N). 01158
Verily, the moment it is established that the malefactors conspired and dated November 26, 2010 is AFFIRMED insofar as the accused-appellants
confederated in the commission of the felony proved, collective liability of the Danilo Feliciano, Jr., Julius Victor Medalla, Christopher Soliva, Warren L.
accused conspirators attaches by reason of the conspiracy, and the court shall Zingapan, and Robert Michael Beltran Alvir are found GUILTY beyond
not speculate nor even investigate as to the actual degree of participation of reasonable doubt of Murder in. Criminal Case No. Q95-61133 with the
each of the perpetrators present at the scene of the crime. x x x.162 (Emphasis MODIFICATION that they be fouhd GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
supplied) Attempted Murder in Criminal Case Nos. Q95-61136, Q95-61135, Q95-61134,
The liabilities of the accused-appellants m this case arose from a single incident Q95-61138, and Q95-61137.
wherein the accused-appellants were armed with baseball bats and lead pipes, SO ORDERED.
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 G.R. No. 230778
moment of attack and that intent was shared by all of the accused-appellants PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee
alike when the presence of conspiracy was proven. It is, therefore, immaterial to vs.
distinguish between the seriousness of the injuries suffered by the victims to JUAN CREDO y DE VERGARA and DANIEL CREDO y DE VERGARA, Accused-
determine the respective liabilities of their attackers. What is relevant is only as Appellant
to whether the death occurs as a result of that intent to kill and whether there DECISION
are qualifying, aggravating or mitigating circumstances that can be appreciated. CARANDANG, J.:
The appellate court, therefore, erred in finding the accused-appellants guilty This is an Appeal 1 from the Decision2 dated October 13, 2016 of the Court of
only of slight physical injuries. It would be illogical to presume that despite the Appeals (CA) finding accused-appellants Juan Credo y De Vergara (Juan) and
swiftness and suddenness of the attack, the attackers intended to kill only Daniel Credo y De Vergara (Daniel) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder
Venturina, Natalicio, and Fortes, and only intended to injure Lachica, and frustrated murder as co-conspirators. Juan was also found guilty for
Mangrobang, and Gaston. Since the intent to kill was evident from the moment violation of Presidential Decree No. (P.D.) 1866,3 the dispositive portion of
the accused-appellants took their first swing, all of them were liable for that which reads:
intent to kill.1âwphi1 WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Regional Trial
For this reason, the accused-appellants should be liable for the murder of Court, Branch 219 of Quezon City dated 9 September 2013, is AFFIRMED.
Dennis Venturina and the attempted murder of Mervin Natalicio, Cesar SO ORDERED.4 (Emphasis in the original)
Mangrobang, Jr., Leandro Lachica, Arnel Fortes, and Cristobal Gaston, Jr. The Antecedents
A Final Note Juan and Daniel (collectively, accused-appellants) were charged with murder
It is not only the loss of one promising young life; rather, it is also the effect on and frustrated murder. The two separate Information 5 respectively read as
the five other lives whose once bright futures are now put in jeopardy because follows:
of one senseless act of bravado. There is now more honor for them to accept MURDER CASE NO. Q-04-125714
their responsibility and serve the consequences of their actions. There is, That on or about the 16th day of March, 2004, in Quezon City, Philippines, the
however, nothing that they can do to bring back Dennis Venturina or fully said accused, conspiring and confederating with four (4) other persons, whose
compensate for his senseless and painful loss. true names, identities and whereabouts have not as yet been ascertained, and
mutually helping one another, with intent to kill, qualified by evident Upon arraignment, accused-appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges filed
premeditation[,] treachery and taking advantage of superior strength, did then against them. 14 Trial thereafter ensued.
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and employ According to the prosecution witnesses, Spouses Antonio Asistin (Antonio) and
personal violence upon the person of ANTONIO ASISTIN y PALCO@ TONY, by Evangeline Asistin (Evangeline) operated a computer shop and a store at their
then and there stabbing him several times with a bladed weapon, hitting him on residence located at No. 5 Zodiac Ext. Sagittarius St., Remar Village, Bagbag,
the back and other parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon him serious and Novaliches, Quezon City. Daniel and Juan, brothers, are nephews of Evangeline.
mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his untimely At around lunch time on March 16, 2004, Daniel, an assistant at the computer
death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the said ANTONIO ASISTIN y shop, entertained male customers who wanted to rent tapes. Evangeline
PALCO @ TONY. instructed Daniel to let the male customers in. Evangeline got up and asked the
CONTRARY TO LAW.6 men where they are from. One of the men replied, "ano nga bang lugar iyon?."
FRUSTRATED MURDER CASE No. 0-04-125715 Evangeline then told them that if they are not from the area, they could just buy
That on or about the 16th day of March, 2004, in Quezon City, Philippines, the the tapes. Evangeline went back to the table and continued eating her lunch. 15
said accused, conspiring and confederating with four (4) other persons, whose When Evangeline stood up to get water from the refrigerator, Daniel and the
true names, identities and whereabouts have not as yet been ascertained and two unidentified men suddenly appeared. One of the unidentified men strangled
mutually helping one another, with intent to kill, with evident premeditation her. Without saying anything, he pressed the lanseta and started stabbing her.
and treachery, did then and there willfully (sic), unlawfully and feloniously Evangeline struggled and resisted until she fell to the floor while that person
attack, assault and employ personal violence upon the person of EVANGELINE continued to stab her. Evangeline kicked him so he would not reach her body.
CIELOS-ASISTIN@ Vangie, by then and there stabbing her several times with a Thereafter, the men who assaulted her left. Evangeline recalled that she
bladed weapon, hitting her on the different parts of her body, thereby inflicting sustained eight stab wounds. 16
upon her serious and grave wounds, thus performing all the acts of execution Once the two unidentified men left, Evangeline stood up and saw Antonio
which would produce the felony of MURDER as consequence, but nevertheless, standing at the gate with several stab wounds. Upon seeing Antonio, Evangeline
did not produce it by reason of some causes or accident independent of the told Daniel to chase the two men who had just left. According to Evangeline,
medical attendance rendered to the will of the said accused, that is, the timely Daniel did not help her and even watched while she was being stabbed. He did
and ablesaid victim, to the damage and prejudice of the said EVANGELINE not go out to chase the two men. 17
CIELOS-ASISTIN@VANGIE. After being stabbed, Antonio was able to walk to the door of the computer
CONTRARY TO LAW. 7 shop. 18 Evangeline and Rufo Baguio (Baguio), a neighbor, allegedly saw Daniel
Juan was additionally charged with violation of Section 32, in relation to Section carry Antonio about two feet from the ground and then drop him, causing his
36 of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 71668 and Section 264 of Batas Pambansa Blg. head to hit the ground. 19 A few minutes later, Antonio was carried to the vehicle
(B.P.) 881, 9 and Commission on Election Resolution No. 6446; 10 and violation of of a neighbor while Evangeline took a tricycle with neighbor Roy Bischotso to
P.D. 1866. 11 The Information against Juan states: the hospital. 20 Antonio was declared dead on arrival.
VIOLATION OF GUN BAN CASE NO. 0-04-125717 Medico-Legal Report No. M-1171-04 21 revealed that the cause of Antonio's
That on or about the 16th day of March, 2004 in Quezon City, Philippines, the death is "multiple stab wounds on the back, chest, and neck."22 On the other
said accused, without any authority of law, did then and there willfully, hand, Evangeline's Medico-Legal Certificate 23 showed that she suffered multiple
unlawfully and feloniously bear, carry or transport [a] firearm, more stab wounds specified below:
particularly described as follows: one (1) homemade shotgun (sumpak) in a FINDINGS:
public place, private vehicle or public conveyance, without written authority GS-conscious, coherent, stretcher-borne.
from the COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. 1. Multiple stab wounds located at the following areas:
CONTRARY TO LAW.12 a. 2.0 cm, epigastric area;
VIOLATION OF P.D. NO. 1866 CASE NO. 0-04-125717 b. 4.0 cm, left upper quadrant, abdomen;
That on or about the 16th day of March, 2004 in Quezon City, Philippines, the c. 2.0 cm and 3.0 cm, left anterior pectoral area;
said accused, without any authority of law, did then and there willfully, d. 2.0 cm, level of T5-T6, anterior axillary line, left;
unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession and under his custody and e. 3 .0 cm, left antero-medical axillary area;
control one (1) homemade shotgun (sumpak), without first having secured the f. 2.0 cm and 3.0 cm, proximal-third, postero-lateral, left brachial region;
necessary license/ permit issued by the proper authorities. g. 3.0 cm, left scapular region;
CONTRARY TO LAW.13 h. 3.0 cm, left infra-scapular region.
CONLUSION: armed policeman appeared with his brother Daniel who was in handcuffs. He
Under normal condition without subsequent complications and/or deeper was asked to go with them to the police station where he was allegedly tortured
involvement present but not clinically apparent at the time of examination, the into admitting committing the crimes he is charged with. 36 He also denied that a
above-described physical injuries shall require medical attention or shall shotgun or sumpak was confiscated from him.37
incapacitate the patient/ victim for a period not less than 31 days x x x.24 On the other hand, Daniel testified that at around 11:00 am on March 16, 2004,
Incidentally, Baguio testified that at around 1:45 pm on March 16, 2004, he was he was painting the roof of the house of Spouses Asistin when he suddenly
in his house located at No. 3 Zodiac Street, Remarville Subdivision, Bagbag, heard Evangeline shouting for help. Daniel immediately went down from the
Novaliches, Quezon City. While watching pool players with his grandchild Roy, roof and saw Antonio lying covered with blood on the ground near the
he saw Juan and another person carrying a heavy bag. Thereafter, two other garage. 38 He was shocked upon seeing Antonio's state.39 Daniel testified that he
men arrived. 25 Baguio noticed that Juan pointed to the direction of the raised Antonio when he saw him wounded but the latter stood up, went out, and
residence of Spouses Asistin. The two men proceeded to the house of Spouses kept cursing. When he went inside, he fell to the ground so Daniel carried him to
Asistin, and, later on, Juan and the other man followed. 26 a taxi.40
Meanwhile, prosecution witness Reynante Ganal (Ganal) testified that he was Ruling of the RTC
outside Spouses Asistin's residence when he saw Juan and Daniel talking to each After trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 219 rendered
other in a vacant room together with three other male companions. Although he its Decision41 dated September 9, 2013, the dispositive portion of which reads:
was merely four arms-length away, he did not hear the conversation of the MURDER CASE NO. 0-04-125714
group. 27 Juan came up to him and asked how much he was renting his place. 28 A WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused Juan Credo y de
few minutes later, while he was preparing to take a bath, he saw Juan walking Vergara and Daniel Credo y de Vergara guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
with an unidentified person. 29 Juan asked permission to urinate at the back of crime of Murder and they are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty
the house. 30 Thereafter, someone shouted "nasaksak sila tatay at nanay." Then, of reculsion perpetua for the death of Antonio Asistin y Palco.1âшphi1
his sister-in-law told him that two persons climbed the fence. 31 Accused Juan Credo y de Vergara and Daniel Credo y de Vergara are further
In a sworn statement of Felipe Roque (Roque), Bantay Bay an Chairman, he adjudged to pay jointly and severally, the heirs of Antonio Asistin y Palco,
stated that he responded at the crime scene and assisted in rushing the victims represented by his widow, Evangeline Cielos-Asistin, and his daughter, Juliet
to Bernardino Hospital. Roque claimed that at the emergency room, Evangeline Asistin, the following amounts:
told him that Daniel was present when she and her husband were brutally 1) Php 75,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto;
stabbed and that he did not do anything to help them. 32 He went back to the 2) Php 50,000.00 as moral damages;
crime scene where he found Daniel cleaning broken plates. He then turned 3) Php 30,000.00 as exemplary damages; and
Daniel over to the responding barangay officials who later brought him to the 4) Php 53,800.00 as actual damages.
police station for investigation. 33 FRUSTRATED MURDER CASE NO. 0-04-125715
On March 17, 2004, a follow-up operation was conducted by the police led by WHEREFORE, the accused Juan Credo y de Vergara and Daniel Credo y de
Police Officer 2 (PO2) Victorio B. Guerrero (PO2 Guererro) after Daniel allegedly Vergara are hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
implicated his brother Juan to the crime. The operation resulted to the arrest of Frustrated Murder committed against Evangeline Cielos-Asistin, and they are
Juan at his rented room. In his sworn statement, PO2 Guerrero alleged that Juan hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of 10
was nabbed while stashing in his bag a homemade shot gun (sumpak). The bag years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 12 years and 1 day of reclusion
also contained clothing, two live ammunitions for shotgun and a fan knife temporal as maximum.
measuring approximately seven inches long. He was allegedly in the process of The accused Juan Credo y de Vergara and Daniel Credo y de Vergara are also
absconding when he was apprehended. 34 sentenced to pay, jointly and severally, the victim, Evangeline Cielos-Asistin, the
Juan and Daniel denied the allegations against them. Juan maintained that he sum of P207,277,89.00 (sic) as actual damages and moral damages in the sum of
sought employment with Spouses Asistin but was rejected. Juan accepted their P20,000.00.
decision without any ill-feelings. 35 On March 16, 2004, at around 1:30 pm, Juan VIOLATION OF GUN BAN CASE NO. 0-04-125716
watched television at his rented place in Luzon, Fairview, Quezon City. WHEREFORE, the Court hereby acquits the accused Juan Credo y de Vergara of
Thereafter, from 3:00 pm to 5:00 pm, he watched a basketball game about 14 the offense of violation of Section 32 in relation to Section 36 of Republic Act No.
meters away from the room he was renting. Then, at around 6:30 pm to 6:45 7166 and Section 264 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 and COMELEC Resolution No.
pm, he again watched television at his place. It was at this time that he heard a 6446, for lack of evidence.
noise coming from outside. Suddenly, someone kicked the door of his room. An VIOLATION OF P.D. NO. 1866 CASE NO. 0-04-125717
WHEREFORE, the accused Juan Credo y de Vergara is found guilty beyond held that the sworn statement of PO2 Guerrero sufficiently established Juan's
reasonable doubt of simple illegal possession of firearm and ammunitions under guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violation of P.D. 1866. The CA also found the
Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866 and he is hereby imposed an indeterminate sentence circumstantial evidence the prosecution presented sufficient to convict Juan and
of imprisonment ranging from ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision Daniel of conniving to commit murder and frustrated murder.51 The CA did not
mayor as minimum, up to eighteen (18) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day consider Daniel's non flight as a badge of innocence sufficient to exculpate him
of reclusion temporal as maximum. from criminal liability. 52
The subject firearm and ammunitions shall be turned over to the Firearms and While the CA did not find treachery and abuse of superior strength attendant in
Explosives Division of the Philippine National Police for disposal. the case, evident premeditation was considered because Juan and Daniel were
No cost is adjudged in any of these cases.42 seen with the other unidentified co-conspirators gathering near the scene of the
In convicting Juan, the RTC gave credence to the testimonies of the prosecution crime. 53 Hence, this appeal.
witnesses. The RTC found that Juan and Daniel merely made a general denial Juan and Daniel filed a Notice of Appeal 54 on November 3, 2016. The Court
and failed to support their respective alibis. Consequently, they filed their notified the parties to file their supplemental briefs. 55 However, Juan and Daniel
appeal with the CA. opted not to file a supplemental brief since they believe that they had
In their Brief, 43 Juan and Daniel impugned the findings of the RTC and raised the exhaustively discussed the assigned errors in their brief.56 For its part, the Office
following errors: of the Solicitor General manifested that it is adopting its brief for the plaintiff-
I appellee. 57
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED- Issues
APPELLANTS DESPITE THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE PROSECUTION'S 1) Whether Juan and Daniel are guilty of murder;
EVIDENCE. 2) Whether Juan and Daniel are guilty of frustrated murder; and
II 3) Whether Juan should be held criminally liable for violation of P.D. 1866.
ASSUMING THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS INFLICTED THE FATAL Our Ruling
INJURIES UPON THE VICTIMS, THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN The appeal is meritorious.
APPRECIATING TREACHERY AND ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH TO As a rule, the trial court's findings of fact are entitled great weight and will not
QUALIFY THE CRIMES TO MURDER AND FRUSTRATED MURDER.44 be disturbed on appeal. However, this rule does not apply where facts of weight
Juan and Daniel argued that their presence, without executing any overt act, and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied in a case
does not prove conspiracy in inflicting of fatal injuries to Spouses Asistin. 45 The under appeal. 58 After a judicious examination of the records, this Court found
defense emphasized that Daniel's alleged failure to help the victims does not material facts and circumstances that the lower courts had overlooked or
constitute positive act of assent or cooperation in the commission of the crimes misappreciated which, if properly considered, would justify a conclusion
charged. 46 The defense pointed out that the testimonies of the prosecution different from that arrived by the lower courts.
witnesses even confirmed that Daniel actually helped in carrying Murder Case No. Q-04-125714 & Frustrated Murder Case No. Q-04-125715
Antonio. 47 Also, Juan and Daniel did not flee. Daniel remained at the house of The Court cites Rule 133, Section 5 of the Rules of Court in stating that
Spouses Asistin and cleaned the place while Juan was found watching television "[c]ircumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction if (i) there is more
at his rented place.48 Moreover, the defense insists that no motive can be than one circumstance; (ii) the facts from which the inference is derived are
attributed to Daniel or Juan to conspire with strangers to commit the crimes. proven; and (iii) the combination of all circumstances is such as to produce
For the defense, Antonio's refusal to accommodate Juan in their house is a conviction beyond reasonable doubts. 59 Here, careful scrutiny of the
shallow reason to provoke them to kill Spouses Asistin. The defense also testimonies of the prosecution witnesses reveals flaws and inconsistencies that
maintained that the admission of his arrest does not suffice to warrant a cast serious doubt on the veracity and truthfulness of their allegations and
conviction under P.D. 1866. The defense merely admitted the fact of Juan's would merit the acquittal of Juan and Daniel.
arrest effected by PO2 Guerrero and nothing more. There was no admission Evangeline admitted that neither Daniel nor Juan stabbed her and that she did
with regard to the confiscation of a shotgun or sumpak, ammunitions, or fan not see Juan during the incident.60 Their complicity was merely based on
knife from his possession. Hence, his conviction based on his supposed circumstantial evidence, having been allegedly seen near the residence of
admission constitutes a reversible error.49 Spouses Asistin, talking to strangers, before the incident took place. The
Ruling of the Court of Appeals prosecution witnesses admitted to not knowing nor hearing what Daniel, Juan,
In a Decision 50 dated October 13, 2016, the CA denied Juan and Daniel's appeal and the other men were discussing. They also admitted not seeing who killed
and affirmed their respective convictions. In affirming their convictions, the CA Antonio.61
As We have held in Macapagal-Arroyo v. People,62 to wit: Ganal allegedly saw Juan and Daniel climb the fence of the compound of Spouses
xxxx Asistin 's residence moments after they were stabbed. 66 However, this
Conspiracy transcends mere companionship, and mere presence at the scene of allegation was belied by his subsequent testimony quoted below:
the crime does not in itself amount to conspiracy. Even knowledge of, or PROS ONG:
acquiescence in or agreement to cooperate is not enough to constitute one a Q What did you find out, if any?
party to a conspiracy, absent any active participation in the commission of the A When I went out of the house I heard a shout repeatedly saying "si tatay at
crime with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose. Hence, nanay nasaksak and my sister in law told me that two male persons
conspiracy must be established, not by conjecture, but by positive and "umakyat sa bakod".
conclusive evidence. Q When your hipag told you that there were two persons "umakyat sa bakod"
In terms of proving its existence, conspiracy takes two forms. The first is the did she point to you the direction of that bakod?
express form, which requires proof of an actual agreement among all the co- A Yes, ma'am.67 (Emphasis ours)
conspirators to commit the crime. However, conspiracies are not always shown It is evident from the above-quoted testimony that he was testifying on a matter
to have been expressly agreed upon. Thus, we have the second form, the implied not perceived by his very own senses as he did not see Juan and Daniel climb
conspiracy. An implied conspiracy exists when two or more persons are shown the fence. He merely relied on what his sister-in-law told him.
to have aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful Moreover, Ganal's statement that Juan and Daniel climbed a fence is belied by
object, each doing a part so that their combined acts, though apparently the claim of Baguio that he guarded Daniel while waiting for him to be
independent, were in fact connected and cooperative, indicating closeness of arrested. 68 His statement is difficult to believe since even Roque mentioned in
personal association and a concurrence of sentiment. Implied conspiracy is his Sinumpaang Salaysay69 that upon returning to the scene of the crime, he
proved through the mode and manner of the commission of the offense, or from found Daniel cleaning broken plates. Thus, We cannot rely on Ganal's testimony
the acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of crime to corroborate the claim of the prosecution that they tried to escape.
indubitably pointing to a joint purpose, a concert of action and a community of Anent the strange behavior of Daniel, We find the degree of interference or
interest. participation of Daniel by allegedly standing still while Evangeline was being
But to be considered a part of the conspiracy, each of the accused must be stabbed and failing to come to her and Antonio's aid, insufficient to warrant the
shown to have performed at least an overt act in pursuance or in conclusion that he is a co-conspirator. His conduct during and immediately after
furtherance of the conspiracy, for without being shown to do so none of the stabbing incident cannot be equated to a direct or overt act in furtherance of
them will be liable as a co-conspirator, and each may only be held the criminal design of the two unidentified men.
responsible for the results of his own acts. 63 (Citations omitted; emphasis While it may be true that Daniel acted differently from what was expected of
ours) him in the given situation, We cannot fault him for reacting the way he did. We
In this case, We find that the prosecution failed to present sufficient proof of have held that "different people react differently to a given stimulus or type of
concerted action before, during, and after the commission of the crime which situation, and there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is
would demonstrate accused-appellants' unity of design and objective. There is confronted with a strange or startling or frightful experience."70 Certainly, a
no direct proof nor reliable circumstantial evidence establishing that Juan and stabbing incident unfolding before his very eyes, involving his aunt and uncle at
Daniel conspired with the unidentified men who stabbed Spouses Asistin. that, was a frightful experience for Daniel. He should not be faulted for being in
The circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution - testimonies of a state of shock after witnessing a gruesome event.
Baguio and Ganal claiming that they saw Juan and Daniel talking to each other Neither Evangeline nor any of the other prosecution witnesses saw who stabbed
moments before the crimes were committed do not prove conspiracy. Baguio Antonio.71 The glaring fact that her statements are not consistent with each
and Ganal insisted seeing three (3) unidentified men and Juan enter the house of other and that her conclusion was not supported by evidence is shown in the
Spouses Asistin. However, neither of the witnesses could confirm to the Court exchange quoted below:
that these men were the same men who stabbed Spouses Asistin nor could they Q And, then what happened, Madam Witness? [sic]
confirm that they heared their conversation. Furthermore, the claim of Baguio A Afterwards, he left me and when I saw that he was gone, I stood up and I saw
and Ganal that three (3) unidentified men entered the house of Spouses Asistin my husband standing at the gate. But, before that he already sustained several
contradicts the statement of Evangeline that only two (2) unidentified men stab wounds because I think Daniel and the other man help out in stabbing him.
were allowed by Daniel to enter their house, 64 and that she did not see Juan.65 Prosecutor Macaren
Q And, when you saw your husband bloodied standing by your gate, what
happened next?
A When I saw him standing I saw blood in his mouth and I told Daniel to help the crimes charged. The presumption of innocence in their favor has not been
me in chasing the two (2) men because they had just left but Daniel did not help overcome by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
me. And even before that, I already asked him while we were being stabbed but Violation of P.D. No. 1866 (Case No. Q-04-125717)
he didn't help us and instead just watched us being stabbed. Juan's conviction of violation of P.D. 1866, based solely on the testimony of
Prosecutor Macaren arresting officer PO2 Guerrero, is erroneous. We cannot ignore the possibility
Q And, then what did you [sic] after asking Daniel to chase these two (2) that the shotgun, ammunitions, and knife confiscated from Juan were merely
persons who he let in? planted. It is too coincidental that at the very moment the police conducted a
A He didn't go out? follow-up operation and made a protective search at the room where Juan was
Q And, what happened then? staying, he was caught packing a bag filled with the seized items.
A I was even the first one (1) to go out of the house and that's why the As pointed out by the defense, PO2 Guerrero only admitted the fact of Juan's
neighbors learned that I was stabbed, Sir. 72 (Emphasis ours) arrest and nothing more. There was no admission with regard to the
If she really thought at that moment that Daniel conspired with the two confiscation of a shotgun or sumpak, ammunitions or fan knife from Juan's
unidentified men in stabbing them, then it is illogical for her to ask Daniel to possession. 76 Juan cannot be convicted solely on the basis of the self-serving
help in chasing the two men. Moreover, considering that Antonio was at the gate statement of PO2 Guerrero 77 who was not even presented during trial. Even the
outside of the house and Daniel was inside the house while Evangeline was shotgun and the ammunitions confiscated were not presented during the trial.
being stabbed, Evangeline could not have known who stabbed Antonio. Thus, The non-presentation of PO2 Guerrero and the seized items was suspicious, and
Evangeline's statement that Daniel watched her being stabbed inside the house should have alerted the lower courts to be more circumspect in examining the
negates her own claim that Daniel helped out in stabbing Antonio who was at records, considering the persistent claim of Juan of having been a victim of
the gate of the house. frame-up. In view of the possibility of that the shotgun and ammunitions were
Interestingly, the claim ofEvangeline73 and Baguio74that Daniel carried Antonio planted, We find PO2 Guerrero's statement insufficient to convict Juan of
and suddenly dropped him, causing the latter to sustain a head injury, is belied violation of P.D. 1866.
by the Medico-legal Report. The report did not indicate that Antonio sustained Furthermore, even if the weapons seized from Juan were not planted, it does not
any head injury at the time of his death. 75 Moreover, this assertion contradicts follow that the prosecution proved Juan's purported participation in the crimes
Evangeline's other claim that Daniel did not assist nor come to their aid after the charged against him. Contrary to what the prosecution would like Us to believe,
stabbing incident. Considering that she and Baguio admitted seeing Daniel there appears to be no direct relation between the seized articles and the
carrying Antonio, We find no other reasonable explanation for him to carry weapons used to inflict the stab wounds on Evangeline and Antonio. It was not
Antonio at that moment other than to come to the aid of Antonio. shown during trial that the weapons allegedly confiscated from Juan were the
It is also contrary to ordinary human experience to remain at the crime scene same objects used in stabbing Evangeline and Antonio. In view of the dismissal
after the victims were brought to the hospital. One who is guilty would have of the criminal cases for murder and frustrated murder, there is no reason to
immediately fled the scene of the crime to avoid being arrested by the consider the items seized from Juan during an alleged protective search on the
authorities. If Daniel really conspired with the two unidentified men, he would person of Juan pursuant to a follow-up operation PO2 Guerrero conducted.
have done acts that would consummate the crime and he would have escaped to In conclusion, We recognize that the evidence for the defense is not strong
avoid being identified. A person with a criminal mind would have ensured because Daniel and Juan merely denied participating in the brutal stabbing of
Evangeline's death and immediately fled the scene of the crime. Contrary to the Spouses Asistin. Their testimonies were uncorroborated by any other evidence.
observation of the lower court, his non-flight is sufficient ground to exculpate Admittedly, the defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been viewed with
him from criminal liability. His non-flight, when taken together with the disfavor. Nevertheless, the apparent weakness of Juan and Daniel's defense does
numerous inconsistencies in the circumstantial evidence the prosecution not add any strength nor can it help the prosecution's cause. If the prosecution
presented, provides the Court sufficient basis to acquit Daniel. cannot establish, in the first place, Juan and Daniel's guilt beyond reasonable
To Our mind, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, when taken as a doubt, the need for the defense to adduce evidence in its behalf in fact never
whole, failed to present a coherent and consistent narration of the facts. Absent arises. However weak the defense evidence might be, the prosecution's whole
any proof sufficient to connect/relate Daniel and Juan to the criminal design of case still falls. The evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own
killing Spouses Asistin, it cannot be concluded that Daniel and Juan were in weight and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the
conspiracy with the unidentified aggressors in committing murder and defense.
frustrated murder. With their inconclusive conduct and participation, We WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated September 9, 2013
cannot conscientiously declare that they were principals or even accomplices in of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 219 in Criminal Case Nos. Q-
04-125714, Q-04-125715, Q-04-125717, as well as the Decision dated October from the front door, passed by him and went out of the back door.7 A few
13, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06428 are minutes later, he heard a commotion from Apartment No. 3. He headed to said
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-Appellants Juan Credo y De unit to check. He peeped through a screen door and saw Bokingco hitting
Vergara and Daniel Credo y De Vergara are ACQUITTED for failure to prove something on the floor. Upon seeing Vitalicio, Bokingco allegedly pushed open
their guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and are ORDERED to be immediately the screen door and attacked him with a hammer in his hand. A struggle ensued
released unless they are being held for some other valid or lawful cause. The and Vitalicio was hit several times. Vitalicio bit Bokingco’s neck and managed to
Director of Prisons is DIRECTED to inform this Court of the action taken hereon push him away. Bokingco tried to chase Vitalicio but was eventually subdued by
within five (5) days from receipt hereof. a co-worker. Vitalicio proceeded to his house and was told by his wife that
SO ORDERED. 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
G.R. No. 187536               August 10, 2011 and Vitalicio were brought to the hospital. Pasion expired a few hours later
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, while Vitalicio was treated for his injuries.8
vs. Elsa testified that she was in the master’s bedroom on the second floor of the
MICHAEL BOKINGO alias "MICHAEL BOKINGCO" and REYNANTE house when she heard banging sounds and her husband’s moans. She
COL, Accused-Appellants. immediately got off the bed and went down. Before reaching the kitchen, Col
DECISION blocked her way. Elsa asked him why he was inside their house but Col
PEREZ, J.: suddenly ran towards her, sprayed tear gas on her eyes and poked a sharp
For review is the Amended Decision1 dated 14 November 2008 of the Court of object under her chin. Elsa was wounded when she bowed her head to avoid the
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00658, finding appellants Michael tear gas.9 Col then instructed her to open the vault of the pawnshop but Elsa
Bokingco2 (Bokingco) and Reynante Col (Col) guilty as conspirators beyond informed him that she does not know the combination lock. Elsa tried offering
reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and sentencing them to suffer the him money but Col dragged her towards the back door by holding her neck and
penalty of reclusion perpetua. pulling her backward. Before they reached the door, Elsa saw Bokingco open the
On 31 July 2000, an Information3 was filed against appellants charging them of screen door and heard him tell Col: "tara, patay na siya."10 Col immediately let
the crime of murder committed as follows: her go and ran away with Bokingco. Elsa proceeded to Apartment No. 3.
That on or about the 29th day of February, 2000 in the City of Angeles, Thereat, she saw her husband lying on the floor, bathed in his own blood.11
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- PO3 Quirino Dayrit (PO3 Dayrit) was stationed at Police Station No. 4 in
named accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping Barangay Salakot, Balibago, Angeles City. At 1:20 a.m. of 29 February 2000, he
each other, armed with a claw hammer and with intent to kill by means of received a phone call regarding the incident. He, together with a certain P/Insp.
treachery, evident premeditation, abuse of confidence, and nighttime, did then Maniago, proceeded to Apartment No. 3 and conducted an investigation. He
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and maul NOLI noticed a pool of blood on the cemented floor of the kitchen. He also saw a claw
PASION, by hitting and beating his head and other parts of his body with said hammer with a green lead pipe handle approximately 13 inches long near the
hammer, thereby inflicting upon said NOLI PASION fatal wounds on his head kitchen sink. A lead pipe measuring 40 inches and a chisel were also found in
and body which caused his death.4 the nearby construction site. The police went to Angeles University Medical
On arraignment, Bokingco entered a guilty plea while Col pleaded not guilty. Center afterwards. PO3 Dayrit saw Pasion lying in one of the beds while Vitalicio
During the pre-trial, Bokingco confessed to the crime charged.5 was still loitering around the emergency room. He approached Vitalicio and Elsa
The victim, Noli Pasion (Pasion) and his wife, Elsa, were residing in a house who both informed him of the incident.12 He prepared a police report on the
along Mac Arthur Highway in Balibago, Angeles City. Pasion owned a pawnshop, same day narrating the result of his investigation.13
which formed part of his house. He also maintained two (2) rows of apartment Evelyn Gan, the stenographic reporter of Prosecutor Lucina Dayaon, jotted
units at the back of his house. The first row had six (6) units, one of which is down notes during the preliminary investigation. She attests that Bokingco
Apartment No. 5 and was being leased to Dante Vitalicio (Vitalicio), Pasion’s admitted that he conspired with Col to kill Pasion and that they planned the
brother-in-law, while the other row was still under construction at the time of killing several days before because they got "fed up" with Pasion.14
his death. Appellants, who were staying in Apartment No. 3, were among the 13 The necropsy report prepared by Dr. Joven G. Esguerra (Dr. Esguerra),
construction workers employed by Pasion.6 contained the following findings:
The prosecution’s evidence show that at around 1:00 a.m. on 29 February 2000, 1. Marked pallor of lips and nailbeds
Vitalicio was spin-drying his clothes inside his apartment when Pasion came 2. Body in rigor mortis
3. Contusion with hematoma, right medial infraorbital region extending to the awakened by Pasion who appeared to be intoxicated. The latter wanted to know
right of the root of the nose. why he did not see Bokingco at the construction site on 28 February 2000.
4. Contusion with hematoma, left post-auricular region. When Bokingco replied that he just stayed at the apartment the whole day,
5. Contusion with hematoma, right angle of mandible. Pasion suddenly hit him in the head. This prompted Bokingco to take a hammer
6. Contusion with hematoma, right mandibular region. and hit Pasion. They both struggled and Bokingco repeatedly hit Pasion.
7. Contusion with hematoma, left occipital region. Bokingco escaped to Manila right after the incident. He was subsequently
8. Contusion with hematoma, right fronto-parietal region. arrested in Mindanao on 11 June 2000.17 During the cross-examination,
9. Contusion with hematoma, right supraorbital region. Bokingco admitted that he harbored ill feelings towards Pasion.18
10. Abrasions, linear, confluent, proximal third, right leg anterior 2 ½ x 6 ½ cm. Col confirmed that he was one of the construction workers employed by Pasion.
11. Contusion with hematoma, left shoulder, level of head of left humerus. He however resigned on 26 February 2000 because of the deductions from his
12. Stab wound, anterior chest along the anterior median line, 7 cm above the salary. He went home to Cainta, Rizal, where he was apprehended and brought
nipple line, 0.8cm length, 0.5 cm wide and 1 cm deep, hitting and puncturing the to Camp Olivas. Upon reaching the camp, he saw Bokingco who pointed to him
manubrium sterni, not entering the thoracic cavity. Both extremities round. as the person who killed Pasion. He insisted that he doesn’t know Bokingco very
13. 2 stab wounds, non-penetrating, anterior chest, 13 cm to the left of the well.19
anterior median line, 3 cm below injury (12) 14 cm the right of the anterior On 16 December 2004, the trial court rendered judgment 20 finding appellants
median line 4 ½ on below injury (12). Wound 0.8 cm in length, both extremities guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, viz:
round. WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused MICHAEL BOKINGO alias MICHAEL
14. Lacerated wound, semi-lunar shape, 3 cm length, left shoulder. BOKINGCO and REYNANTE COL guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
15. Lacerated wound, right eyebrow area, C-shaped 2 ½ cm length. MURDER, defined and penalized in Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code, and there
16. Lacerated wound, lateral angle, right eye, 0.8 cm length. being the two aggravating circumstances of nighttime and abuse of confidence
17. Lacerated wound, right supraorbital region, medial aspect, 2 cm length. to be considered against both accused and the mitigating circumstance of
18. Lacerated wound, semi-lunar, 5 cm length, occipital region 5 cm length voluntary plea of guilty in favor of accused Bokingo only, hereby sentences each
involving all layers of the scalp with brain tissue seen on the gaping wound. of them to suffer the penalty of DEATH. Each accused is ordered to indemnify
19. Lacerated wound, 4 cm length, C-shaped 2 ½ cm to the right of injury (18) 1 the heirs of victim Noli Pasion in the amount of Seventy five thousand pesos
½ cm below, wound involving the whole scalp. (P75,000.00) to pay the heirs of the victim Seventeen thousand six hundred
20. Lacerated wound, left post-auricular region, C-shaped 4 cm length, 3 cm pesos (P17,600.00) as actual damages, Fifteen thousand pesos (P15,000.00) as
length. attorney’s fees, Twenty five thousand pesos (P25,000.00) as exemplary
21. Lacerated wound left post-auricular region, region of the squamous part of damages, and to pay the costs.21
the left temporal bone, C-shaped (2) 3.5 cm and 4 cm lengths. In its Decision dated 24 July 2008, the Court of Appeals affirmed the findings of
22. Lacerated wound, right mandibular region 4 cm length, 1 cm wide. the trial court but reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua in view of Republic
23. Lacerated wound, stellate, 5.5 x 5 x 5 cm, right fronto-parietal region with Act No. 7659, thus:
brain tissue out of the gaping wound. WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
24. Lacerated wound, right submandibular region 0.3 x 3.5 cm. Accused-appellant REYNANTE COL is found GUILTY as conspirator beyond
25. Lacerated wound, right cheek 0.8 cm length. reasonable doubt of MURDER as defined in Article 248 of the Revised Penal
26. Depressed, complete fracture, occipital bone right with stellate linear Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, qualified by treachery and evident
extensions, with gaping, with brain tissue maseration. premeditation and with the attendant aggravating circumstances of nighttime
27. Skull fracture, right fronto-parietal region, depressed, complete, C-shaped and abuse of confidence, with no mitigating circumstances. The proper
with linear extensions, with gaping of bone with brain tissue maceration and imposable penalty would have been death. However, pursuant to Republic Act
expulsion. No. 9346, appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua.
28. Hemorrhage, massive, subdural and epidural. Accused-appellant is further ordered to indemnify the heirs of victim Noli
29. Brain tissue damage.15 Pasion in the amount of Seventy five thousand pesos (₱75,000.00); Fifty
Dr. Esguerra concluded that the injuries sustained by Pasion on his skull proved thousand pesos (₱50,000.00) as moral damages; Twenty five thousand pesos
fatal.16 (₱25,000.00) as exemplary damages; Twenty five thousand pesos (₱25,000.00)
Appellants testified on their own behalf. Bokingco recalled that he was sleeping as temperate damages; Fifteen thousand pesos (₱15,000.00) as attorney’s fees;
in Apartment No. 3 at around 1:20 a.m. on 29 February 2000 when he was and to pay the costs.22
Appellants filed a Motion for Reconsideration23 and called the appellate court’s On the basis of his extrajudicial confession, Bokingco was charged for murder
attention on the omission to rule on Bokingco’s fate when it rendered the qualified by evident premeditation and treachery.
challenged decision. Appellants also noted the absence of other evidence, aside Appellants maintain that they could not be convicted of murder. They question
from Bokingco’s admission, to prove that conspiracy existed in the instant case. the presence of treachery in the commission of the crime considering that no
Appellants maintained that the admission made by Bokingco cannot be used as one from the prosecution witnesses testified on how Pasion was attacked by
evidence against his alleged co-conspirator. Appellants also took exception to Bokingco. They also submit that evident premeditation was not proven in the
the findings of the lower courts that the aggravating circumstances of treachery, case. They belittle Bokingco’s extrajudicial admission that he and Col planned
evident premeditation, nighttime and abuse of confidence attended the the killing. The attendance of the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and
commission of the crime.24 abuse of confidence was likewise assailed by appellants. They aver that
The Court of Appeals merely modified its Decision by including the criminal nighttime was not purposely sought but it was merely co-incidental that the
liability of Bokingco in its dispositive portion of its Amended Decision, which crime took place at that time. Neither has trust and confidence been reposed on
reads: appellants by the victim to aggravate the crime by abuse of confidence.
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellants claim that they were living in an apartment owned by Pasion, not
Accused-appellants MICHAEL BOKINGCO and REYNANTE COL are found because the latter trusted them but because they worked in the construction of
GUILTY as conspirators beyond reasonable doubt of MURDER as defined in the victim’s apartment.
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, On the other hand, the OSG emphasizes that the prosecution has established
qualified by treachery and evident premeditation and with the attendant that Pasion was defenseless when fatally attacked by Bokingco and there was no
aggravating circumstances of nighttime and abuse of confidence, with no opportunity for him to defend himself from the unexpected assaults of
mitigating circumstances. The proper imposable penalty would have been Bokingco. The OSG agrees as well with the trial court’s findings that evident
death. However, pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346, the accused-appellant are premeditation, nighttime, and abuse of confidence attended the commission of
sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua without the possibility of the crime.
parole (in accordance with Section 3 of the said law). Each of the accused- We agree with appellants that treachery cannot be appreciated to qualify the
appellants is further ordered to indemnify the heirs of victim Noli Pasion in the crime to murder in the absence of any proof of the manner in which the
amount of Seventy five thousand pesos (₱75,000.00); Fifty thousand pesos aggression was commenced. For treachery to be appreciated, the prosecution
(₱50,000.00) as moral damages; Twenty five thousand pesos (₱25,000.00) as must prove that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to
exemplary damages; Twenty five thousand pesos (₱25,000.00) as temperate defend himself, and that the offender consciously adopted the particular means,
damages; Fifteen thousand pesos (₱15,000.00) as attorney’s fees; and to pay the method or form of attack employed by him.29 Nobody witnessed the
costs.25 commencement and the manner of the attack. While the witness Vitalicio
Appellants filed a notice of appeal. In its Resolution dated 26 October 2009, this managed to see Bokingco hitting something on the floor, he failed to see the
Court required the parties to submit their Supplemental Briefs within 30 days victim at that time.30
from notice thereof if they so desire.26 Appellants manifested that they are no Bokingco admitted in open court that he killed Pasion. 31 But the admitted
longer filing a Supplemental Brief and are adopting their arguments in the manner of killing is inconsistent with evident premeditation. To warrant a
Appellant’s Brief submitted before the Court of Appeals.27 The appellee likewise finding of evident premeditation, the prosecution must establish the confluence
manifested that it is dispensing with the filing of a Supplemental Brief.28 The of the following requisites: (a) the time when the offender was determined to
instant case was thus submitted for deliberation. commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that the offender clung to his
In seeking the reversal of the Court of Appeals’ Amended Decision, two issues determination; and (c) a sufficient interval of time between the determination
were raised: 1) whether the qualifying circumstances were properly and the execution of the crime to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of
appreciated to convict appellant Bokingco of murder and 2) whether appellant his act.32 It is indispensable to show how and when the plan to kill was hatched
Col is guilty beyond reasonable doubt as a co-conspirator. or how much time had elapsed before it was carried out. 33 In the instant case,
There is no question that Bokingco attacked and killed Pasion. Bokingco made no proof was shown as to how and when the plan to kill was devised. Bokingco
two (2) separate and dissimilar admissions: first, in his extrajudicial confession admitted in court that he only retaliated when Pasion allegedly hit him in the
taken during the preliminary investigation where he admitted that he and Col head.34 Despite the fact that Bokingco admitted that he was treated poorly by
planned the killing of Pasion; and second, when he testified in open court that Pasion, the prosecution failed to establish that Bokingco planned the attack.
he was only provoked in hitting Pasion back when the latter hit him in the head. It was during the preliminary investigation that Bokingco mentioned his and
Col’s plan to kill Pasion.35 Bokingco’s confession was admittedly taken without
the assistance of counsel in violation of Section 12, Article III of the 1987 maximum. The range of prision mayor is from 6 years and 1 day to 12 years,
Constitution, which provides: while reclusion temporal in its medium period, ranges from 14 years, 8 months
Section 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months. Therefore, the indeterminate penalty of six
shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to 14 years, eight months and
competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person one day of reclusion temporal, as maximum is appropriate under the
cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These circumstances.39 The award of exemplary damages should be deleted as no
rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. aggravating circumstance was proven.
xxxx Col, on the other hand, was charged as a co-conspirator. He contends that to
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hold him guilty as co-conspirator, it must be established that he performed an
hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Applying Section 30, Rule 130 of the
In People v. Sunga,36 we held that "the right to counsel applies in certain pretrial Rules of Court, Col asserts that Bokingco’s uncounselled testimony that
proceedings that can be deemed ‘critical stages’ in the criminal process. The appellants planned to kill Pasion bears no relevance considering the fact that
preliminary investigation can be no different from the in-custody interrogations there was no other evidence which will prove the conspiracy. Col also claims
by the police, for a suspect who takes part in a preliminary investigation will be that Elsa’s statements during trial, such as the presence of Col inside her house
subjected to no less than the State's processes, oftentimes intimidating and and his forcing her to open the vault of the pawnshop, as well as the alleged
relentless, of pursuing those who might be liable for criminal prosecution."37 In statement she heard from Bokingco "Tara, patay na siya," are not adequate to
said case, Sunga made an uncounselled admission before the police. He later support the finding of conspiracy.
acknowledged the same admission before the judge in a preliminary The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) justifies Col’s conviction of murder by
investigation. Sunga was thrust into the preliminary investigation and while he conspiracy by mentioning that starting from the declaration of Bokingco, the
did have a counsel, for the latter’s lack of vigilance and commitment to Sunga’s victim’s wife, Elsa, also positively declared that Col blocked and attacked her
rights, he was virtually denied his right to counsel. Thus, the uncounselled with a knife when she tried to check on her husband. She was left alone by Col
admission was held inadmissible.38 In the instant case, the extrajudicial when he was told by Bokingco that the victim was already dead. For the OSG,
confession is inadmissible against Bokingco because he was not assisted at all appellants’ acts are indicative of conspiracy. The OSG contends that the
by counsel during the time his confession was taken before a judge. prosecution witnesses had no ill-motive to lie and falsely accuse appellants of
The finding that nighttime attended the commission of the crime is anchored on the crime of murder.
the presumption that there was evident premeditation. Having ruled however The lower courts concluded that there was conspiracy between appellants.
that evident premeditation has not been proved, the aggravating circumstance We disagree.
of nighttime cannot be properly appreciated. There was no evidence to show This Court is well aware of the policy to accord proper deference to the factual
that Bokingco purposely sought nighttime to facilitate the commission of the findings of the trial court, owing to their unique opportunity to observe the
offense. witnesses firsthand and note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under
Abuse of confidence could not also be appreciated as an aggravating grueling examination.40 However, this rule admits of exceptions, namely: 1)
circumstance in this case. Taking into account that fact that Bokingco works for when the trial court’s findings of facts and conclusions are not supported by the
Pasion, it may be conceded that he enjoyed the trust and confidence of Pasion. evidence on record, or 2) when certain facts of substance and value likely to
However, there was no showing that he took advantage of said trust to facilitate change the outcome of the case have been overlooked by the lower court, or 3)
the commission of the crime. when the assailed decision is based on a misapprehension of facts. 41 The second
A downgrade of conviction from murder to homicide is proper for Bokingco for exception obtains in this case.
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
Under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, the applicable penalty for before us, it is necessary that conspiracy between him and Bokingco be proved.
homicide is reclusion temporal. There being no mitigating or aggravating Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement to commit
circumstance alleged and proven in the instant case, the penalty should be an unlawful act. It may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before,
applied in its medium period pursuant to Article 64(1) of the Revised Penal during, and after the commission of the crime. Conspiracy may be deduced from
Code, which ranges from a minimum of 14 years, 8 months and 1 day to a the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated or inferred from the
maximum of 17 years and 4 months. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, acts of the accused evincing a joint or common purpose and design, concerted
the imposable penalty shall be within the range of prision mayor in any of its action, and community of interest.42 Unity of purpose and unity in the execution
periods as minimum to reclusion temporal in its medium period as the of the unlawful objective are essential to establish the existence of conspiracy.43
As a rule, conspiracy must be established with the same quantum of proof as the Q: What did you feel when your eyes was (sic) sprayed with tear gas?
crime itself and must be shown as clearly as the commission of the crime.44 A: It was "mahapdi" (painful).
The finding of conspiracy was premised on Elsa’s testimony that appellants fled Q: When you felt pain in your eyes, how were you able to see something or a
together after killing her husband and the extrajudicial confession of Bokingco. sharp weapon under your chin?
Nobody witnessed the commencement of the attack. Col was not seen at the A: Before he sprayed the tear gas to my eyes, I was able to see him poke the
apartment where Pasion was being attacked by Bokingco. In fact, he was at sharp object under my chin and I bowed my head a little to avoid the tear gas. I
Elsa’s house and allegedly ordering her to open the pawnshop vault, thus: was wounded under my chin and I felt the sharpness of the object.45
Q: Do you remember any unusual incident that happened on that time and date xxxx
when you were in your master’s bedroom? Q: What else happened while he was doing that to you?
A: I heard a bumping sound (kalabog) at the back portion of our building where A: He sprayed tear gas in my eyes and told me to be silent.
we reside. Q: What else, if any, did he tell you?
xxxx A: To open the combination of the vault.
Q: What did you do when you heard those sounds in the wee hours of the Q: Did you comply to his order that you open the combination of the vault?
morning on that day when you were in your master’s bedroom? A: No, sir. I do not know the combination.
A: I wondered why and I immediately went down to the kitchen since the door Q: What vault are you referring to?
of the kitchen was directly leading to the back door or back portion of the A: Vault of the pawnshop.
building where the apartments were situated. Q: Where is that pawnshop located with reference to your residence?
Q: Why, on what floor is this master’s bedroom located? A: At the first floor is the pawnshop and at the back is our kitchen.
A: Second floor. Q: When you refused to open the vault of the pawnshop, what did Reynante Col
Q: Were you actually able to go down and see what was happening? do about it?
A: Yes, sir, but I was only able to reach the stairs leading to the kitchen. I was not A: He did not say anything.
able to go out of the kitchen because I was blocked. Q: How about you, was there anything else you did?
Q: You were blocked by whom? A: I offered him money so he will not kill me.
A: By Reynante Col. Q: When you offered him money so he will not kill you, did he agree?
Q: Are you referring to the same Reynante Col, the accused in this case? A: No, sir.
A: Yes, sir. Q: What else happened next when he did not agree to your offer of money?
xxxx A: He dragged me going towards the back door.46
Q: You said you were blocked by Reynante Col. How did he block you? Based on these acts alone, it cannot be logically inferred that Col conspired with
A: As soon as I reached the stairs, I was blocked by Reynante Col and he was Bokingco in killing Pasion. At the most, Col’s actuations can be equated to
situated near the back door of the pawnshop. There is a pawnshop in the front attempted robbery, which was actually the initial information filed against
portion of our residence. appellants before it was amended, on motion of the prosecution, for murder.47
Q: When you saw him near the door of your pawnshop, did you confront him? Elsa testified that she heard Bokingco call out to Col that Pasion had been killed
A: Yes, sir. and that they had to leave the place. This does not prove that they acted in
Q: How did you confront him? concert towards the consummation of the crime. It only proves, at best, that
A: I asked him, Reynante, what are you doing here? there were two crimes committed simultaneously and they were united in their
Q: What was the reaction of Reynante Col? efforts to escape from the crimes they separately committed.
A: He ran towards me and sprayed something into my eyes and he put a sharp Their acts did not reveal a unity of purpose that is to kill Pasion. Bokingco had
object under my chin. (Witness demonstrating by putting her hand under her already killed Pasion even before he sought Col. Their moves were not
chin) coordinated because while Bokingco was killing Pasion because of his pent-up
Q: How far was he before he attacked you? anger, Col was attempting to rob the pawnshop.1avvphi1
A: Probably, from the witness stand up to the chair of Fiscal Hilario. Maybe two In as much as Bokingco’s extrajudicial confession is inadmissible against him, it
steps away from him. (Around 3 meters) is likewise inadmissible against Col, specifically where he implicated the latter
Q: Were you able to identify what this spray is and what part of your body was as a cohort. Under Section 28, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, the rights of a
hit? party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration or omission of another. Res
A: My eyes were sprayed with tear gas. inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet. Consequently, an extrajudicial
confession is binding only on the confessant, is not admissible against his or her 95-86, finding appellants Elizabeth Castillo ("Castillo") and Evangeline
co-accused, and is considered as hearsay against them.48 An exception to the res Padayhag ("Padayhag") guilty of Qualified Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
inter alios acta rule is an admission made by a conspirator. Section 30, Rule 130 Detention2 and sentencing them to death.
of the Rules of Court provides that the act or declaration of the conspirator The Information3 charging Castillo, Padayhag and Imelda Wenceslao with the
relating to the conspiracy and during its existence may be given in evidence crime of kidnapping, reads:
against the co-conspirator provided that the conspiracy is shown by evidence That on or about March 1, 1995, in Parañ aque, Metro Manila, Philippines, and
other than by such act or declaration.49 In order that the admission of a within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, said accused ELIZABETH
conspirator may be received against his or her co-conspirators, it is necessary CASTILLO and EVANGELINE PADAYHAG, conspiring together, confederating,
that first, the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the admission and mutually helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
itself; second, the admission relates to the common object; and third, it has been feloniously kidnap, carry away, and seriously detain HORACIO CEBRERO IV @
made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the conspiracy.50 As we "Rocky", a five years old child (sic), which kidnapping or serious detention
have previously discussed, we did not find any sufficient evidence to establish lasted for more than three (3) days thereby depriving him of his liberty, and
the existence of conspiracy. Therefore, the extrajudicial confession has no which was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the parents of
probative value and is inadmissible in evidence against Col. the victim, to the damage and prejudice of the victim himself and his parents.
Bokingco’s judicial admission exculpated Col because Bokingco admitted that he The said accused IMELDA CASTILLO WENCESLAO, without having participated
only attacked Pasion after the latter hit him in the head. in the said crime as a principal, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
All told, an acquittal for Col is in order because no sufficient evidence was feloniously participated (sic) in the execution of the crime by previous and
adduced to implicate him. simultaneous acts by allowing and furnishing the use of her residence where
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in victim Horacio Cebrero IV was kept knowing him to have been taken by
CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00658 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant Reynante Col principal accused Elizabeth Castillo and Evangeline Padayhag without the
is ACQUITTED on ground of reasonable doubt. The Bureau of Corrections is consent of his parents.
ordered to cause the immediate release of accused-appellant, unless he is being CONTRARY TO LAW.
lawfully held for another cause, and to inform this Court of action taken within Upon arraignment on 10 May 1995, both Castillo and Padayhag initially pleaded
ten (10) days from notice. guilty. However, on 18 May 1995, Castillo and Padayhag withdrew their plea of
Appellant Michael Bokingco is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt. They entered a plea of not guilty on 3 August 1995. Imelda Wenceslao
crime of Homicide. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of six years (6) remains at large.
and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to 14 years, eight (8) months and The prosecution submitted documentary evidence and presented eight
one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum Appellant is further ordered to witnesses, namely: (1) Horacio Cebrero IV ("Rocky"), the victim; (2) Rosanna
indemnify the heirs of Noli Pasion in the amount of Seventy five thousand pesos Baria, the victim’s "yaya"; (3) Luis Cebrero, the victim’s father; (4) Sandra
(₱75,000.00); Fifty thousand pesos (₱50,000.00) as moral damages; Twenty five Cebrero, the victim’s mother; (5) Staff Sgt. Alejandro Delena of the Philippine
thousand pesos (₱25,000.00) as temperate damages; Fifteen thousand pesos National Police ("PNP"); (6) Wivino Demol, a member of the Armed Forces of
(₱15,000.00) as attorney’s fees; and to pay the costs. the Philippines ("AFP") Intelligence Security Group, army surveillance and
SO ORDERED. search team; (7) Capt. Raniel Ramiro, also of the AFP Intelligence Security
G.R. No. 132895             March 10, 2004 Group; (8) and Staff Sgt. Manual Iglesias of the PNP.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, The defense presented only two witnesses: Castillo and Padayhag themselves.
vs. The Office of the Solicitor General ("OSG") summarized the prosecution’s
ELIZABETH CASTILLO and EVANGELINE PADAYHAG, appellants. version of the incident in the appellee’s brief, as follows:
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 Classic Homes, B.
DECISION F. Parañ aque, Metro Manila (p. 26, tsn, August 3, 1995). 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 (p.
PER CURIAM:
28, supra). At about 8:00 a.m., a tricycle arrived. On board was a woman, whom
Before us on automatic review is the Decision1 of the Regional Trial Court of
Baria pointed to in court and who gave her name as Evangeline Padayhag (p.
Parañ aque, Branch 260, National Capital Judicial Region, in Criminal Case No.
26, supra). Baria assisted Rocky to board the tricycle. The tricycle brought the street beside it going to a chapel and to drop the money on the chapel’s
Rocky and the woman, whom Rocky pointed to in court and who gave her name terrace (p. 19, supra).
as Evangeline Padayhag (p. 9, tsn, August 3, 1995), to a nearby "Mcdonald’s". Informed of the place for the pay-off, on March 4, 1995, Major Ronnie Eleazar,
Thereat, they were joined by another woman (p. 13, supra) whom Rocky Commanding Officer of the Intelligence Security Group (ISG), Philippine Army,
pointed to in court and who gave her name as Elizabeth Castillo (p. 9, supra). briefed his men on Rocky’s kidnapping and assigned them their respective tasks
The three proceeded to a house far from the "Mcdonald’s" (p. 13, supra) where in the stakeout they will undertake around the pay-off area (pp. 6-7 tsn, January
Rocky slept "four times" (p. 14, supra). 30, 1996). At about 11:00 p.m. of March 4, 1995, Sgt. Alejandro Delena and his
At about 5:30 p.m. of March 1, 1995, Luis Cebrero arrived home from work. ISG team, proceeded to Obando, Bulacan for the stakeout. After positioning
When his son DJ arrived, he informed his father that Rocky did not attend themselves near the stakeout site, a car arrived and stopped in front of the
school. Luis Cebrero asked Baria (pp. 4-5, tsn, August 22, 1995) who told him chapel. The man alighted and placed a bag in front of the chapel and
that Rocky was fetched at home by a woman to attend a birthday party (p. immediately left (p. 10, supra). After about forty (40) minutes, two women
5, supra). Informed thereof, Mr. Cebrero then called up his friends and went to appeared, proceeded to where the bag was dropped. On seeing the bag, the
the police station to report that his son was missing (p. 9, supra). women laughed and left. After about two (2) minutes, the two women returned,
At about 7:30 p.m. that night, Luis Cebrero received a telephone call from a picked up the bag and immediately left (pp. 11-12, supra). The ISG team
woman saying, "Ibigay mo sa akin ang ATM card mo o ang bata" (p. 10, supra). searched the area around the drop-off place but the two women were nowhere
Luis replied, "Kailangan ko ang bata". The woman asked how much money was to be found (p. 17, supra). In court, Sgt. Delena pointed to and identified Castillo
in his ATM and Luis replied P40,000.00. Luis then requested to talk to his son and Padayhag as the two women he saw in front of the chapel in Obando,
but the woman said, "Hindi puwede, malayo dito ang anak mo at tatawag na Bulacan and who, later on, picked up the bag dropped by Luis Cebrero (p.
lang uli ako" (p. 10, supra). 12, supra).
Luis Cebrero decided to connect a tape recorder to his phone. On March 2, 1995, Puzzled by the sudden disappearance of the two women, Sgt. Delena and his
at about 7:20 p.m., his phone rang. The caller was a woman telling him, "Bigyan team remained at the stake-out area. The team befriended the residents of the
mo ako nang isang million", to which he replied, "Hindi ko kayang ibigay ang place, one of whom was a certain Joselito Torres who claimed to be the former
isang million". The caller told Luis that she will call back later on (pp. 11- boyfriend of Elizabeth Castillo whom he recognized from the picture shown to
12, supra). him by Sgt. Delena. Torres informed the ISG team that Castillo had already left
The Cebreros informed the authorities that two of their maids were hired from for Mindanao. Sgt. Delena immediately communicated the information,
an agency, the General Services, Inc. at Parañ aque. Major Ordoyo of the including the address of Gigi Padayhag in Navotas, to his commanding officer (p.
Intelligence Security Group, Philippine Army (PA) sent Sergeants Rempillo and 19, supra).
Iglesias to the agency to verify this. The two were furnished by General Services, At about 9:00 p.m. of March 5, 1995, Luis Cebrero was at home when a tricycle
Inc. with the personal data of the maids named Elizabeth Castillo and Jasmine stopped in front of his house. Somebody knocked at the door and when Luis
Nuñ ez (pp. 13-14, tsn, March 12, 1996). Cebrero opened it, he saw his son, Rocky (pp. 23-24, tsn, August 22, 1995).
When the caller did not contact Luis Cebrero the following day, March 3, 1995, On March 12, 1995, an ISG team headed by Sgt. Manuel Iglesias was dispatched
he instructed his wife to raise some money. From the bank, Mrs. Cebrero to Navotas to locate "Gigi" Padayhag at the address furnished by Sgt. Delena.
withdrew P800,000.00 in P1,000.00 denomination. The bank provided Mrs. The team found Padayhag who upon being apprised of the kidnapping of Rocky
Cebrero a list containing the serial numbers of the money withdrawn (pp. 15- Cebrero, voluntarily went with the ISG team to Camp Crame to clear her name
16, supra). (p. 14, tsn, May 22, 1996).
On March 4, 1995, at about 9:30 p.m., Luis Cebrero received a telephone call. Upon the instruction of the ISG, Sgts. Delena and Demo were ordered to proceed
The caller was a woman who asked, "Ano nasa iyo na ba ang pera"? Luis to Dipolog City to look for Castillo (pp. 20-21, tsn, January 30, 1996). Sgt. Delena
answered, "Hindi ko kayang ibigay sa iyo ang halagang iyon, kalahati lang ang arrived in Dipolog City on March 13, 1996. He was briefed and shown the area
kaya kong ibigay". The caller said, "Sige, puede na yan (p. 17, supra) and where Castillo could be found (p. 23, supra).
instructed Luis Cebrero to be in Paco, Obando, Bulacan, alone, at about 2:00 When Sgt. Demol arrived in Dipolog City, he and Sgt. Delena coordinated with
a.m.; that at Paco, Obando, Bulacan, is a "Farmacia Dilag" and beside it is a street the PNP stationed at Barangay Tulong, Rizal, Zamboanga del Norte (p. 41, tsn,
which Luis must follow until he reaches the church called "Sabadista" where he March 12, 1996). Thereat, Sgt. Demol requested for the assistance of persons
should drop the money (p. 18, supra). Luis Cebrero received another call on that from Barangay Mitimos, where Castillo was believed to be hiding. The PNP
same night instructing him to stop in front of the Farmacia Dilag and walk on assigned them two barangay officials of Mitimos who, when shown the picture
of Castillo, said that the woman in the picture is in Barangay Mitimos (p. 7. Having reached only elementary education, Castillo believed that the only
46, supra). effective way for her to claim back her unpaid wages is to use Rocky, son of the
Upon the request of the police, the two barangay officials conducted a daily Cebrero Spouses;
surveillance on Castillo. On March 18, 1995, Sgt. Demol reported to the ISG 8. On 1 March 1995 Castillo called Padayhag, telling the latter that her boyfriend
headquarters that Castillo was in Barangay Mitimos. In turn, Sgt. Demol was is sick. At that time, Padayhag was already working at Jelaya St., B.F. Homes,
advised that ISG will be sending him, through JRS Express, copies of the list of Parañ aque under the employ of Lulu Sablan. Castillo fetched Padayhag. The two,
serial numbers of the bills used as pay-off and a DOJ subpoena (p. 54, supra). however, did not go to see Padayhag’s boyfriend but instead they went to a
Upon receipt of said documents, Sgt. Demol applied for a search warrant (p. playground;
58, supra) which was granted by the Dipolog City Regional Trial Court on March 9. Castillo then instructed Padayhag to fetch Rocky from his house at Cesar
21, 1995 (p. 57, supra). The search warrant was shown to Elizabeth Castillo and Virata St., B.F. Homes, Parañ aque, Manila. When Padayhag asked why she
her father who signed the same (pp. 60-61, supra). The search yielded a black wanted to see Rocky, Castillo answered that she missed the boy. Padayhag
bag placed in a carton inside the house (pp. 61-62) containing money in obliged to the request, knowing that the latter would not do any harm to the
P1,000.00 bills in the total amount of P277,000.00 (p. 68, supra). The serial boy;
numbers of the recovered money bills appeared in the list furnished to Sgt. 10. It was only the first time that Padayhag saw Rocky;
Demol by ISG (pp. 88-89, supra). Thereafter, the money was deposited with the 11. She brought the child to a market at B.F. Parañ aque, where Castillo was
Regional Trial Court at Dipolog City (p. 89, supra). waiting. The three went on a stroll. Thereafter, they went to the house of Imelda
Prosecuted for kidnapping and serious illegal detention, Evangeline Padayhag Wenceslao, Castillo’s sister, at Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City. Castillo noticed that
and Elizabeth Castillo initially pleaded guilty upon arraignment and were each Rocky had a fever, so she requested Vangie to buy a medicine;
meted the penalty of life imprisonment (p. 4, tsn, August 3, 1995). The trial 12. Padayhag was not told by Castillo as to when the latter would return the
court, however, on motion based on improvident plea, ordered the withdrawal boy. Padayhag did not sense anything wrong with what had happened as she
of the plea of guilty and directed the re-arraignment of Castillo and Padayhag. believed that Castillo only took Rocky for a stroll;
After trial, Castillo and Padayhag were convicted of kidnapping and serious 13. Imelda Wenceslao asked why they brought a child along with them. Castillo
illegal detention as charged.4 answered that she just wanted to see the boy. Wenceslao then asked if they
Appellants maintain their innocence and present their own version of the asked permission from the parents, and Castillo answered "no";
events in their brief, as follows: 14. At night, Castillo talked to Mr. Luis Cebrero over the phone to inform him
1. Accused ELIZABETH CASTILLO was a househelper at the Cebrero household that Rocky was with her. Mr. Cebrero told her not to harm the boy. No threat or
from December 1993 to January 1995. She did the cleaning of the house, demand for ransom was ever made by the accused to the Cebrero spouses. She
laundry of dirty clothes, and also took care of Rocky, son of Luis and Sandra never asked Mr. Cebrero how much money he had in the bank;
Cebrero; 15. The following day, 2 March 1995, Castillo called Mr. Cebrero again to tell
2. Accused Evangeline Padayhag, also a househelper, is a friend of Elizabeth him that she could not yet return Rocky because he still had a slight fever. She
Castillo. The two met sometime in 1994 at Paco, Ubando, Bulacan, when also told Mr. Cebrero: "Hindi nyo ako sinusuwelduhan". He asked her: "Magkano
Padayhag worked in the household of Julito Lawagon, the latter being the ba ang kailangan mo?" She did not answer. Then Mr. Cebrero said: "May pera
neighbor of Helen Lim, Elizabeth Castillo’s sister; ako rito, kalahating milyon." At that moment, Castillo hanged-up the phone;
3. Upon assumption from work, Castillo was promised by Mrs. Sandra Cebrero a 16. Castillo denied in her Sinumpaang Salaysay dated 25 August 1999, attached
monthly salary of one thousand two hundred pesos (P1,200.00); as Annex "A" and made an integral part hereof, that she demanded one million
4. Castillo, however, was never given compensation during her entire (P1,000,000.00) from the Cebrero spouses;
employment in the Cebrero household; 17. On the evening of 4 March 1995, when Castillo called Mr. Cebrero, he asked
5. Castillo was also not treated nicely by the Cebrero spouses. When something them where they were. The accused told him that they were in Paco, Ubando,
gets lost in the house, she was always the one being blamed, although the Bulacan, near a Protestant Church. Mr. Cebrero then said: "Pupunta ako riyan
children were the ones getting the things. Besides, they say bad words against bandang 2:00 ng madaling araw (March 5, 1999) na may bitbit na pera at
her. Thus, she has no other choice but to leave her work; ilalapag ko ito sa may simbahan";
6. Castillo had been consistently demanding from the Cebrero spouses her 18. On 5 March 1995, at around 4:30 a.m. Castillo and Padayhag went out to buy
unpaid wages for one year; but her demands remained unheeded; "pandesal". They noticed that at a post near a Church, a dog was trying to pull a
black plastic bag. They picked it up and brought it home. When they opened it,
they found five bundles of money, in P1,000.00 denomination;
19. At about 9:00 p.m. of the same day, Mr. Cebrero heard a tricycle stop in front 30. Castillo vehemently denied in her Sinumpaang Salaysay (par. No. 14) that
of their house. Someone knocked at the door, and when he opened the door, he she returned only P227,000.00;
saw Rocky; 31. Castillo and her escorts were fetched in Manila by a van. Inside the van, they
20. On 11 March 1995, Capt. Raniel Ramiro, Intelligence Security Group of the blindfolded her. They removed her blindfold when they reached Camp Crame;
Philippine Army, together with his men, after coordinating with Caloocan Police, 32. Major Meneses and SPO1 Larry Pablo investigated her. She was slapped by
arrested Evangeline Padayhag at her residence at Dagat-Dagatan, Caloocan City. Pablo, forcing her to admit where the money is;
The military men did not have a warrant of arrest at this particular operation; 33. During the investigation, Pablo poked a gun on her, then forced her to write
21. The military were civilian-dressed. They pretended to be Padayhag’s cousins what he would say to her. He instructed her to write: "Na kapag hindi ko isasauli
who came from abroad, and they "invited her to a birthday party". However, ang lahat ng pera ay pwede n’yo na akong patayin". Castillo followed the
they brought her to Fort Bonifacio for interrogation. It was only then that instructions because of fear.5
Padayhag learned that her companions were military men; In an 11-page Decision, of which nine pages were devoted to the recital of facts,
22. At Fort Bonifacio, the police coerced Padayhag to confess to the crime, the trial court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses more credible
threatening her: "Pag hindi ka pa umamin, kami na mismo and bibitay sa iyo". and gave no weight to Castillo and Padayhag’s defenses. The trial court
Padayhag, however, did not confess to the commission of the crime. She was convicted appellants on 17 December 1997 and imposed on them the death
then brought to Camp Crame at Quezon City on that same date; penalty, thus:
23. The following day, 12 March 1995, during the custodial investigation, a Originally, both accused pleaded guilty to the offense and were meted the
certain Major Meneses was exerting pressure on Padayhag to reveal where the penalty of life imprisonment. However, shortly thereafter, they moved to
P500,000.00 is. She told Major Meneses: "Wala akong pera na ganoon kalaki." withdraw their plea claiming it was precipitate, which the court allowed and
He said to her: "Pag hindi ka umamin, papatayin na kita talaga!" Her answer proceeded with a full-blown trial.
was: "Patayin nyo man ako, hindi ako aamin dahil wala akong ganoong kalaking Accused Elizabeth Castillo demanded money from Rocky’s parents for the
pera." Major Meneses then slapped Padayhag and hit her with a stool on her leg; release of the latter. She told his father to bring the money to Obando Bulacan.
24. Major Meneses also threatened Padayhag that if she would not confess to The Court can only imagine the pain, worry, fear and anxiety of the boy’s
the crime, he would submerge her on a drum. They forcibly brought her to a parents while their youngest son was under detention.
toilet room. She saw there two big drums. Major Meneses then told her: "Iyong Ransom is money, price or consideration demanded for the redemption of a
mga hindi umamin, nilulublob namin dito sa drum". Padayhag shouted. captured person or persons, a payment that releases from captivity" (Corpus
Thereafter, someone knocked at the door and said: "Pakawalan n’yo na iyan Juris Secundum 458). The testimony of Elizabeth Castillo that she did not know
dahil marami nang tao". They brought her out of the room and handcuffed her; about the money cannot be given weight. Two hundred Seventy Seven
25. SPO1 Larry Pablo was likewise threatening Padayhag: "Pag hindi ka pa Thousand (P277,000.00) Pesos was found among her things, the bills bearing
umamin, ihuhulog na kita sa bintanang ito!" (They were on the third floor of a the same serial number as the money paid to her.
building) "Alam mo ba kung ilan na ang naihulog namin diyan? Panlabindalawa The court has taken a hard look in determining the liability of Evangeline
ka na sa ihuhulog namin diyan!"; Padayhag as it seems that her only participation in the crime was picking up the
26. During the custodial investigation, Padayhag was not assisted by a counsel, boy from his house. Although she did not get part of the ransom the fact is that
nor has she waived her right to counsel. She was coerced by the police into she fully and directly cooperated and did her part to carry out the resolution of
signing an extrajudicial confession without even explaining to her the contents her co-accused. Under these facts there was conspiracy to extort ransom. People
thereof; versus Kamad Akiran, 18 SCRA 239.
27. Atty. Eranio Sedillo only arrived one hour (1 hr.) after Padayhag had already The Court is convinced that the prosecution has established the guilt of the
signed the questioned extrajudicial confession; accused beyond reasonable doubt.
28. Elizabeth Castillo was arrested at Mitimos, Rizal, Zamboanga del Norte on or WHEREFORE, ELIZABETH CASTILLO and EVANGELINE PADAYHAG are
about 21 March 1995. Police officers came to her house, and when they sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty of death. Further, they are hereby
informed her that they were looking for the money, she voluntarily gave it to ordered to pay jointly and severally the sum of Five Hundred Thousand
them; (P500,000.00) Pesos as moral damages and Five Hundred Thousand
29. The approximate amount of money taken by Castillo was only twenty (P500,000.00) Pesos as exemplary damages plus costs of litigation.
thousand (P20,000.00) She returned the rest of the money to the police who SO ORDERED.6
arrested, her; Appellants seek the reversal of their conviction by raising the following
assignments of error:
I two simple maids managed to give 5 carloads of police officers the slip severely
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN MISAPPRECIATING (SIC) THE FACTS OF THE discredits their account of what happened that day.
CASE. Rocky’s testimony, however, leaves no room for doubt. Only six years of age
II when he testified, Rocky was candid and direct in his recollection, narrating
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THERE WAS CONSPIRACY events as a young boy saw them happen, thus:
TO EXTORT RANSOM IN THIS CASE. COURT
III Alright. Rocky, when Vangie went to fetch you from your house.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE UNCOUNSELLED A       Yes.
CONFESSION OF EVANGELINE PADAYHAG. COURT
IV You took a tricycle.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN IMPOSING THE DEATH PENALTY IN A       Yes.
THE CASE AT BAR.7 COURT
We affirm the trial court’s judgment convicting Castillo. However, we acquit her Where did you go?
co-accused Padayhag. A       I do not know.
To sustain a conviction for Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention under PROS. FONACIER
Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code,8 the prosecution must establish the Your Honor, please, may we request that the rule on evidence be not strict on
following: (1) the offender is a private individual; (2) he kidnaps or detains this boy. The witness is of tender age.
another or in any other manner deprives the victim of his liberty; (3) the act of ATTY. SOLUREN
kidnapping or detention is illegal; and (4) in the commission of the offense any There is no strict implementation as to what the Honorable Prosecutor stated.
of the following circumstances is present: (a) the kidnapping or detention lasts There is no strict implementation of the rules of court. In fact, we are very
for more than three days; (b) it is committed by simulating public authority; (c) lenient but the fact is, the child said he does not know. But the question is – he
serious physical injuries are inflicted on the victim or threats to kill are made; or was giving the answer to this witness.
(d) the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female or a public officer.9 COURT
Appellant Castillo’s Liability Ask another question.
Castillo asserts that the victim’s parents did not pay her wages when she Q       Rocky, nang sumakay kayo ni Vangie sa tricycle, nakita mo ba si Beth
worked as a maid of the victim’s family. 10 She claims that it was this injustice, Castillo?
her educational level and her ignorance of the law, which impelled her to take A       Nakita namin si Beth sa McDonalds. Malapit sa amin.
Rocky. She faults the trial court for refusing to consider this. Castillo is mistaken. Q       Rocky, nakita ninyo si Beth. Ngayon, tatlo na kayo, ikaw, si Beth at si
Whether or not her employer failed to pay her salary is irrelevant. No amount of Vangie?
perceived injustice can serve as justification for any person to retaliate through A       Yes.
the commission of another crime. The trial court was therefore correct in Q       Rocky, noong magkasama na kayong tatlo, saan kayo nagpunta?
disregarding Castillo’s claim that Rocky’s parents committed injustice on her. A       Nasundo namin si Beth.
Castillo’s claim of injustice cannot justify in any way her demand for ransom. Q       Noong nasundo na ninyo si Beth, saan kayo nagpunta?
Ransom is "money, price or consideration paid or demanded for redemption of A       Sa bahay nila.
a captured person or persons, a payment that releases from captivity."11 Thus, Q       Kaninong bahay?
even if she had a right to demand payment of her unpaid wages, the money she A       Hindi ko alam.
actually demanded and eventually received, is still ransom. Q       Malayo ba sa McDonald o malapit. Sinabi mo kanina, nagpunta kayo sa
Castillo’s reliance on her low educational level is similarly unavailing. The bahay nila?
penalty for kidnapping for ransom is the singular and indivisible penalty of A       Yes.
death. This bars the application of any alternative, mitigating or aggravating Q       Iyong bahay na pinuntahan ninyo, malayo sa McDonald?
circumstance.12 A       Malayo.
Mr. Cebrero admitted that he was unable to identify his son Rocky’s abductors. Q       Anong sinakyan ninyo?
De Lena and Iglesias, the police officers who did the stake-out during the "pay- A       Hindi ko alam.
off," testified that the two women suddenly disappeared after retrieving the Q       Noong dumating kayo doon sa bahay na hindi ninyo, bahay, natulog ka ba
plastic bag containing the ransom. The police officers’ inability to explain how doon?
A       Yes. T       Hindi tinanong ni Imelda kung bakit pinasyal nyo ang bata, kung may
Q       Ilang beses ka natulog doon? paalam yong bata doon sa kanyang magulang?
A       4 sleeps. S       Tinanong po.
Q       Pinakakain ka ba sa bahay na pinuntahan ninyo? T       Ano naman ang sinabi mo sa kanya?
A       Yes. S       Sinabi ko gusto ko lang makita si Rocky.
Q       Ano ang pinakakain sa iyo? T       Pero, ano ang sinabi mo noong tinanong kung may paalam ang bata sa
A       Champorado and fish. kanyang magulang, anong naging sagot mo sa katanungan niya?
Q       Sino ang nagpapakain sa iyo? S       Ang sabi niya baka daw pagalitan kami.
A       Vangie. T       Ano naman ang naging sagot mo?
Q       Sino si Vangie. Puede mo bang ituro sa amin? Your Honor, may we asked (sic) the witness to be more responsive with her
PROS. FONACIER answer.
The witness is pointing to accused Evangeline Padayhag as the Vangie he was COURT
referring to. What was the question, please?
Q       Doon sa 4 sleeps mo sa bahay na iyon, saan ka pa nila dinala? Stenographer:
A       Pinauwi na ako. (Reading back the question)
Q       Sinong kasama mo noong pinauwi ka? T       Noong tinanong ni Imelda kung may paalam ang bata sa mga
A       Wala, pero mula sa McDonald, naiwan na ako sa tricycle hanggang sa magulang, ano ang sagot mo?
bahay.13 S       Ang sabi ko po hindi, walang paalam.
Unshaken by rigorous cross-examination, Rocky’s testimony would have been T       Ano ang naging reaction ng iyong kapatid na si Imelda?
more than enough to convict Castillo. The testimony of a single witness, if S       Bakit daw hindi nagpaalam.16 (Emphasis supplied)
credible and positive, is sufficient to convict.14 But there is more. The evidence Castillo testified that, during the period of Rocky’s detention she called Rocky’s
on record amply supports the factual findings of the trial court. Both the father, Mr. Cebrero, to wit:
evidence of the prosecution and the defense establish the commission of the Q       What happened next Miss witness?
crime. A       Tinawagan ko po ang mga Cebrero.
Castillo admitted she instructed Padayhag to fetch Rocky on 1 March 1995: Q       Who of the Cebreros did you call up?
Q       And as a result of sitting at the palaruan, Miss witness, what A       Si Luis Cebrero po, mam.
happened next? Q       What happened next after that?
A       Pinasundo ko si Rocky kay Vangie, mam. A       Pagtawag ko po kay Mr. Luis Cebrero tinanong po niya sa akin kung nasaan
Q       And why did you ask Vangie to fetch Rocky, Miss witness? si Rocky, mam.
A       Kasi po naalala ko pagnamamalengke ako at kasama ko si Rocky, lagi po Q       And what is your reply?
kaming pumupunta sa palaruan, mam A       Sinabi ko po na nandidito sa amin, mam.
Q       And then what happened next, Miss witness? Q       After that what happened next?
A       Sinundo po ni Vangie si Rocky, mam. A       Nagalit po si Luis Cebrero sa akin, mam.
Q       Whom did Vangie fetch, Miss witness? Q       And what did you do when Luis Cebrero got angry?
A       Si Rocky po, mam. A       Tinanong po niya ako kung magkano ang kailangan ko, mam.
Q       And after Rocky fetched by Vangie, what happened next? Q       And what else did he say, Miss witness?
A       Ipinasyal po namin si Rocky, mam.15 (Emphasis supplied) A       Sinabi po niya sa akin na huwag ko raw pong sasaktan si Rocky, mam.
She also testified that she had no permission from Rocky’s parents to take the Q       And then what else?
child with her: A       Pinipilit po niya ako na kung magkano daw ang kailangan namin na
T       Saan kayo nananghalian? pera, pagkatapos hindi ko na po sinagot ang tanong niya, mam.
S       Doon po sa bahay ng kapatid ko. Q       And then what happened next?
T       Noong dumating kayo doon, ano naman ang sinabi ng kapatid mo sayo? A       Binaba ko na po iyong telepono, mam.17 (Emphasis supplied)
S       Ang sabi niya, bakit daw may kasama kaming bata. The number and time of these calls coincided with the calls Mr. Cebrero
T       Ano naman ang naging sagot mo kay Imelda? received from Castillo telling him that she had Rocky and instructing him to pay
S       Sabi ko pinasyal lang po namin. the ransom for Rocky’s release.
Additionally, Castillo by her own admission placed herself at the time and place The same can be said of her inability to explain how the ransom money was
where the "pay-off" occurred: found in her possession when she was caught by policemen in Dipolog. Castillo
T       Sa pangatlong araw naman, nandoon ka pa rin ba at saka si Rocky? plainly contradicts herself on this point. In Castillo’s brief, she admitted going to
S       Opo. the "pay-off" site on the day Mr. Cebrero was told to leave the ransom for
T       Sa bahay ni Imelda? Rocky’s release. Castillo admitted she found at the site a black plastic bag filled
S       Nagpaalam po ako sa kapatid ko na maghahanap muna ako ng trabaho. with money and brought it home.19 However in her testimony before the trial
T       Si Vangie, saan naman siya noon? court, she maintained that the first time she saw the same plastic bag was when
S       Nandoon pa rin sa Dagat-dagatan po. it mysteriously appeared in her luggage when she went to Dipolog:
T       Si Rocky naman? Q       And thereafter, Miss witness, what happened next?
S       Andoon po sa bahay ng kapatid ko. A       Hinanap ko iyong mga kagamitan ko po, mam.
T       Mga anong oras yon na nagpaalam ka na maghanap ng trabaho? Q       And for what purpose you looked at your things, Miss witness?
S       Umaga po ako nagpaalam. A       Para ayusin po iyong mga kagamitan ko para makapagpahinga na po ako,
T       Kung ganoon umalis ka ng umagang yan? mam.
S       Opo. Q       What happened next, Miss witness?
T       Saan ka naman pumunta? A       May nakuha ako na isang plastic bag sa loob ng aking bag, mam.
S       Naghanap po ako ng trabaho. Q       And what is this plastic bag about, Miss witness?
T       Saan ka naghanap ng trabaho? A       May laman po na pera, mam.
S       Sa may bandang Bulacan po. Q       And how much money was there in that plastic bag, Miss witness?
T       Sa may Paco Obando, doon ka ba pumunta? A       Hindi ko po alam.
S       Hindi po. Q       And what did you observe about the money in the plastic bag?
T       Saang parte ka ng Bulacan pumunta? A       Nagulat po ako, mam.
S       Malapit po sa may – Hindi ko na po matandaan yong pinuntahan namin. Q       And why were you surprised?
T       Malapit sa may? A       Hindi ko po kasi lubos na maisip na ang bag na aking dala dala ay may
S       Papunta na po ng Obando, pero hindi nakarating doon. laman na isang malaking halaga na pera, mam.
T       Saan ka pumunta doon para maghanap ka ng trabaho? Q       And what did you do after learning that there was money inside your bag,
ATTY. SOLUREN Miss witness?
Already answered, Your Honor, that the place papunta ng Obando pero hindi pa A       Pinabayaan ko na lang po at inaantay na may kumuha na lang po niyon sa
nakakarating sa Obando. akin mam.20 (Emphasis supplied)
STATE PROSECUTOR FONACIER Castillo insists that she took Rocky simply because she missed him, and wanted
That is why I am asking. to spend time with him. At the same time, in her brief Castillo claims that what
COURT spurred her to take Rocky was her desire to get her unpaid wages from the
What place is that? Witness may answer. Cebreros.21
T       Anong detalyadong lugar? Castillo also points out that Rocky came along freely with them, was not
S       Sa may Julo po. harmed, and was even cared for during his detention. This argument is
T       Ano yong Julo? pointless. The essence of kidnapping is deprivation of liberty. For kidnapping to
S       Malapit po iyan sa Obando exist, it is not necessary that the offender kept the victim in an enclosure or
COURT treated him harshly.22 Where the victim in a kidnapping case is a minor, it
Saang bayan ng Bulacan yon? becomes even more irrelevant whether the offender forcibly restrained the
S       Yon lang po ang alam ko.18 (Emphasis supplied) victim. Leaving a child in a place from which he did not know the way home,
Beyond a feeble excuse that she was in Obando in order to look for employment, even if he had the freedom to roam around the place of detention, would still
Castillo provides no other plausible reason why her presence at that place, at amount to deprivation of liberty. For under such a situation, the child’s freedom
such an opportune time should not be taken against her as additional evidence remains at the mercy and control of the abductor.
of her guilt. To attribute this to coincidence, as Castillo would probably have us Next, Castillo explains that she called Mr. Cebrero not to ask for ransom but to
do, taxes one’s credulity. tell him that Rocky was with her and unharmed. Castillo admitted that Mr.
Cebrero pleaded with her not to harm Rocky. Castillo failed to explain, however,
why she did not inform Mr. Cebrero of their exact whereabouts so that Mr. We reiterate the doctrine that an appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case
Cebrero could fetch Rocky. Her failure to inform Mr. Cebrero clearly shows she for review on any question including those not raised by the parties. 25 This
kept Rocky in detention considering she called Mr. Cebrero several times while becomes even more imperative in cases where the penalty imposed is death.
she had physical control over Rocky. Padayhag’s sole involvement in this entire episode is her act of fetching Rocky
Castillo’s explanation that she decided to return Rocky only when he was no and bringing him to where Castillo was waiting for them. Padayhag then went
longer sick is also implausible. In the first place, she failed to explain why she strolling with the two, went to the house of Castillo’s sister together with
did not return the child the moment she found out he was sick. That would have Castillo and Rocky, and then later left the house. From this fact alone, the
been the more prudent course of action at that time. However, one day after the prosecution would have us rule that Padayhag acted in conspiracy with Castillo.
"pay-off" on 4 March 1995, Rocky suddenly appeared by himself at the The prosecution contends that without Padayhag’s help, Castillo could not have
Cebreros’ home on 5 March 1995. Any reasonable person would conclude that abducted Rocky.
the pay-off and the return of the child were related events. Castillo would have We are not persuaded.
us attribute this to coincidence. There must be positive and conclusive evidence that Padayhag acted in concert
Castillo would also have us believe that what prompted her sudden departure with Castillo to commit the same criminal act. To hold an accused guilty as a co-
for Dipolog, where she was eventually captured, was her inability to find principal by conspiracy, there must be a sufficient and unbroken chain of events
employment in Manila. And yet Castillo does not explain why she tried to bring that directly and definitely links the accused to the commission of the crime
Padayhag along with her to Dipolog. without any space for baseless suppositions or frenzied theories to filter
Finally, Castillo points out that the prosecution coached Rocky’s testimony. through.26 Indeed, conspiracy must be proven as clearly as the commission of
True, Rocky admitted he did not know the contents of the document he signed the crime itself.27
in front of the fiscal.23 Rocky also stated that he was told to testify that Padayhag Conspiracy is established by the presence of two factors: (1) singularity of
forced him to go with her, and finally, that he must accuse both appellants as his intent; and (2) unity in execution of an unlawful objective. The two must concur.
abductors.24 These admissions, damaging as they may sound, are of little use to Performance of an act that contributes to the goal of another is not enough. The
appellants. The reason is simple. The facts to which Rocky’s testimony pertains act must be motivated by the same unlawful intent. Neither joint nor
to are the very same facts Castillo herself admitted on the witness stand. Even if simultaneous action is per se sufficient indicium of conspiracy, unless proved to
we were to discredit Rocky’s testimony entirely, the facts of his kidnapping have been motivated by a common design.28
stand proven by no less than Castillo’s own admission on the witness stand and Padayhag’s act of fetching Rocky is not conclusive proof of her complicity with
in her brief. Castillo’s plan, a plan Padayhag did not even know. Both appellants testified that
With the evidence Castillo’s own testimony established, the prosecution’s Padayhag met Castillo only because Castillo told Padayhag that Padayhag’s
witnesses did little more than corroborate what Castillo herself had admitted. boyfriend was sick. It was precisely on the pretext that they were to visit
Since Castillo admitted in open court that she instructed Padayhag to fetch Padayhag’s boyfriend that the two met. When they met, Padayhag realized that
Rocky even without the parents’ permission, we find her explanations futile. Her Castillo had deceived her:
allegations of torture and of signing a sworn statement without counsel are Q       Why? (sic) Elizabeth Castillo fetched you on February 28, 1995 and why
useless. After claiming to have been tortured into making her sworn statement, did you decide to leave your employment?
logic would have it that Castillo should have debunked the contents of that A       Kasi sabi po niya sa akin ang boyfriend ko raw ay maysakit, sir.
statement through her testimony. Instead, she freely and voluntarily recounted Q       And could you tell us who is that boyfriend of yours?
events as she narrated them in her sworn statement. Moreover, there is no A       Si Jessie Mercader po, sir.
allegation that the trial court decided her guilt based on her sworn statement. Q       And what is the address of Jessie Mercader, at that time, February 28,
The trial court based its decision on the testimonies of all the witnesses, 1995?
including Castillo’s. A       Sa Caloocan City po, sir.
In sum, the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt Castillo’s Q       And you said he was sick. What was his sickness?
guilt. ATTY. SOLUREN
Appellant Padayhag’s Liability Your Honor, that is misleading.
The same cannot be said of Padayhag. Our review of the evidence on record COURT
shows that the prosecution failed to prove Padayhag’s guilt beyond reasonable Reform your question.
doubt. Q       Madam witness, you said that you were informed that your boyfriend was
sick. Did you go and see your boyfriend?
A       Sumama po ako kay Elizabeth Castillo pero hindi na po kami natuloy COURT
pumunta doon, sir. Kailan ka ba umalis kay Mr. Julito Luwagon?
Q       For what reason you did not go? A       Hindi ko pa matandaan, Your Honor.
A       Hindi po sinabi sa akin ni Elizabeth Castillo, sir. COURT
Q       So, you did not come to find out what was the sickness of your boyfriend? Pero sabi mo kanina ay pitong buwan ka doon?
A       Hindi na po sir. A       Opo pitong buwan ako roon pero hindi ko po matandaan kung anong
Q       Are we made to understand, madam witness, when you left your employer buwan, Your Honor.
on 28 February 1995 for the reason that your boyfriend was sick, you did not ATTY. SOLUREN
actually go and see your boyfriend? She only finished Grade II, Your Honor.
A       Opo, sir.29 COURT
After the two spent the day together, Castillo beseeched Padayhag to fetch Yes I know it but she would know that she works for seven (7) months. Alam mo
Rocky citing as reason her love for the child and a desire to spend time with the ba na December 1994 ka nagsimula mangamuhan kay Julito Luwagon?
boy. Padayhag is a young lass from the province who only finished Grade Two. A       Opo, Your Honor.
Padayhag was thus easily misled by the more worldly Castillo. Padayhag’s COURT
testimony reveals her naiveté: Enero, Pebrero, Marso, Abril, Mayo, Hunyo at Hulyo tama ba iyon?
COURT A       Opo, Your Honor.
Q       Ano ang sinabi sa iyo bakit mo susunduin ang bata? COURT
A       Namimiss na raw po niya iyong bata at nais niyang makita, Your Honor. Papaano nangyari noong Enero 1995 ikaw ay nagtratrabaho na kay Lulu
COURT Sablan?
Tapos ikaw ang pinasundo niya doon sa bata? A       Itinuro po sa akin ni Elizabeth Castillo na mag-apply ng trabaho sa may BF
A       Opo, Your Honor. Homes, Your Honor.
COURT COURT
Tapos noon dalhin sa Caloocan, ano pa, sinabi pa rin niya namimiss niya ang Kailan kayo nagkita nitong si Elizabeth Castillo?
bata ganoon uli ang sinabi niya sa iyo? A       Noong January lang po, Your Honor.
A       Wala na po siyang sinabi sa akin, Your Honor. COURT
COURT Saan kayo nagkita?
Hindi ka ba nakahalata na may mali doon sa pangyayaring iyon? A       Pinaalis niya po ako doon sa pinagtratrabahuan ko sa may Dagat Dagatan,
A       Ang pagkakaalam ko po ay ipapasyal lamang niya ang bata, Your Honor. Your Honor.
Q       Sa Caloocan? COURT
A       Opo, Your Honor. Alam mo ba kung ilang buwan mayroon ang isang taon?
COURT A       Hindi ko po alam, Your Honor.
Tapos umalis ka na pagkatapos ninyong kumain doon ng kapatid niya? COURT
A       Opo, Your Honor. Pero alam mo ang mga buwan, Enero, Pebrero.. alam mo iyon?
COURT A       Opo, Your Honor.
Ipinasyal ba niya ang bata? COURT
A       Hindi ko na po alam kasi umalis nga po pagkatapos namin kumain, Your Sige nga sabihin mo nga sa akin kung anu-ano ang mga buwan?
Honor. A       Enero, Pebrero, Marso, Abril, Mayo, Hunyo, Hulyo, Agosto, Setyembre,
COURT Oktubre, Nobyembre at Disyembre po, Your Honor.31
Kailan niya sinabi sa iyo na ibabalik ang bata? Padayhag’s confusion in the way she answered the questions propounded to her
A       Wala po siyang sinabi kung kailan, Your Honor. only highlights the fact that she was not aware of Castillo’s plans and was
COURT vulnerable to the latter’s manipulation. Her straightforward and wide-eyed
Ganoon ba ang alam mo sa pamamasyal? admission of facts that incriminate her demonstrate a level of honesty that can
A       Siya naman po ang nagyaya, Your Honor.30 only be found in those who do not know the art of deceit. Far from a cold and
Her ignorance and susceptibility to confusion becomes more evident in the calculating mind, Padayhag strikes us as one whose innocence often leaves her
following exchange: 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 co-accused concurs with the latter. Mere commission of an act which aids the
Castillo asked of her is up for speculation. What matters is that her motivation perpetrator is not enough. As we explained in People v. Cual:41
in fetching Rocky was not to kidnap the boy. To impose criminal liability, the The cooperation that the law punishes is the assistance knowingly rendered,
law requires that there be intentional participation in the criminal act, 32 not the which cannot exist without the previous cognizance of the criminal act intended
unwitting cooperation of a deceived individual. to be executed. It is therefore required in order to be liable as an accomplice,
In its brief the prosecution itself cites that any inquiry as to the liability of an that the accused must unite with the criminal design of the principal by direct
individual as a conspirator should focus on all acts before, during and after the participation.
commission of the crime.33 We have done precisely that, and it is precisely why There was therefore a need for clear and convincing proof that this single act
we rule for her innocence. After her stroll with Castillo and Rocky, she left when was committed to kidnap the child. The prosecution failed to prove this.
Castillo brought the boy to her sister’s house in Caloocan.34 She never visited nor Padayhag explained that Castillo coaxed her into fetching Rocky through
contacted Castillo afterwards. She remained at her house and refused to go with another deception and by playing on her feelings of sympathy and friendship.
Castillo when the latter suddenly tried to coax her to go to Dipolog. None of the Castillo corroborated this on the witness stand. The prosecution failed to prove
money used as ransom was found in her possession. Her involvement in the otherwise.
"pay-off" was never established. The testimony of two prosecution witnesses, The facts as established show that the only thing Castillo told Padayhag was to
Sgt. De Lena and Sgt. Iglesias, claiming that Padayhag was with Castillo when the fetch Rocky because Castillo missed her former ward. Upon reaching the house
latter picked up the ransom in Obando, is contradicted by Castillo’s admission in of the Cebreros, the boy’s nanny handed over to Padayhag the child. There is no
open court that she brought along a certain "Mila" and not Padayhag. 35 In allegation or evidence that Padayhag knew the criminal plan of Castillo. Neither
addition, the testimonies of these two police officers suffer from their failure to is there any hint that Castillo told Padayhag to abduct the boy, or to
explain how they suddenly lost track of the two women who took the ransom in misrepresent herself or use means that would have led Padayhag to suspect that
front of their very eyes. Castillo had some criminal design. Nor was there any proof that Padayhag knew
All these circumstances illustrate the absence of any hint of conspiracy. We also that Castillo had no permission from the boy’s parents. The appearance of the
find that the prosecution failed to prove Padayhag’s guilt beyond reasonable boy itself, newly bathed and dressed for a stroll, would have led Padayhag to
doubt. In People v. Gonzales36 we held: believe whatever story Castillo contrived to ask her in fetching the boy.
In the absence of conspiracy, if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are A criminal conviction must stand on the strength of the evidence presented by
capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the the prosecution, and not on the weakness of the defense of the accused. The
innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the prosecution should have done more to establish Padayhag’s guilt. Instead, the
evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to prosecution left a lot of room for other possible scenarios besides her guilt. This
support a conviction. is a fatal error. The presumption of innocence imposes a rule of evidence, a
Every person accused has the right to be presumed innocent until the contrary degree of proof that demands no less than total compliance. As we explained
is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence stands as a in United States v. Reyes:42
fundamental principle of both constitutional and criminal law.37 Thus, the The presumption of innocence can be overborne only by proof of guilt beyond
prosecution has the burden of proving every single fact establishing reasonable doubt, which means proof, to the satisfaction of the court and
guilt.38 Every vestige of doubt having a rational basis must be removed.39 The keeping in mind the presumption of innocence, as precludes every reasonable
defense of the accused, even if weak, is no reason to convict. 40 Within this hypothesis except that which it is given to support. It is not sufficient for the
framework, the prosecution must prove its case beyond any hint of uncertainty. proof to establish a probability, even though strong, that the fact charged
The defense need not even speak at all. The presumption of innocence is more is more likely true than the contrary. It must establish the truth of the fact to
than sufficient. a reasonable and moral certainty- a certainty that convinces and satisfies the
The failure to prove Padayhag’s involvement as a conspirator reveals how reason and conscience of those who are to act upon it. (Emphasis supplied)
tenuous the evidence is linking her to the crime. Padayhag’s culpability hinges On the other hand, we find Padayhag’s explanation sufficiently supported by
on how her act of fetching Rocky and bringing him to Castillo formed part of a circumstances aside from Castillo’s testimony. Padayhag’s acts before, during
concerted effort to kidnap the child. The act of fetching the boy, by itself, does and after the crime all point to the conclusion that she was no more than an
not constitute a criminal offense. By itself, it is not even sufficient to make her unwitting tool of Castillo. Castillo misled her into a meeting. Castillo again
an accomplice. For a person to be considered an accomplice there must be a misled her into fetching Rocky. Castillo never met or contacted her after the day
community of design, that is, knowing the criminal design of the principal, the of Rocky’s abduction. Castillo also testified that she did not bring Padayhag
along with her when she went to Obando on the day that coincided with the
"pay-off." The only circumstance linking Padayhag to that event is the shaky the Sandiganbayan on April 6, 2015 and September 10, 2015; GRANTS the
account of two police officers who admitted that their quarry inexplicably petitioners' respective demurrers to evidence; DISMISSES Criminal Case No. SB-
disappeared before their very eyes. Even the presumption of regularity in the 12-CRM-0174 as to the petitioners GLORIAMACAPAGAL-
performance of official duty, by itself, cannot prevail over the constitutional ARROYO and BENIGNOAGUAS for insufficiency of evidence; ORDERS the
presumption of innocence.43 Nothing links Padayhag to the demand for ransom. immediate release from detention of said petitioners; and MAKES no
She never received any part of the ransom, precisely because she did not even pronouncements on costs of suit.
know it existed. SO ORDERED. 1
Penalty and Damages On August 3, 2016, the State, through the Office of the Ombudsman, has moved
Under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code,44 the penalty of death is imposed for the reconsideration of the decision, submitting that:
upon proof that the kidnapping was committed to extort ransom from the I. THIS HONORABLE COURT'S GIVING DUE COURSE TO A CERTIORARI
victim or any other person. We find that the prosecution has established ACTION ASSAILING AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER DENYING DEMURRER TO
Castillo’s guilt for this crime beyond reasonable doubt. However, Castillo’s EVIDENCE VIOLA TES RULE 119, SECTION 23 OF THE RULES OF COURT,
pecuniary liability must be modified to conform with jurisprudence. The award WHICH PROVIDES THAT AN ORDER DENYING THE DEMURRER TO
of exemplary damages must be deleted in the absence of any aggravating EVIDENCE SHALL NOT BE REVIEWABLE BY APPEAL OR BY
circumstance. Mr. Cebrero testified that their family suffered serious anxiety at CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT.
the possibility of not seeing Rocky again.45 The pain and anguish they II. THE HONORABLE COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ERRORS WHICH AMOUNT
experienced justifies the award of moral damages. However, we reduce the trial TO A VIOLATION OR DEPRIVATION OF THE STATE'S FUNDAMENTAL
court’s award of moral damages to P100,000 in line with current RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
jurisprudence.46 A. THE DECISION REQUIRES ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS IN THE PROSECUTION
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Parañ aque, Branch OF PLUNDER, VIZ. IDENTIFICATION OF THE MAIN
260, National Capital Judicial Region, in Criminal Case No. 95-86 convicting PLUNDERER AND PERSONAL BENEFIT TO HIM/HER, BOTH OF WHICH ARE
appellant Elizabeth Castillo is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant NOT PROVIDED IN THE TEXT OF REPUBLIC ACT (R.A.) NO. 7080.
Elizabeth Castillo is sentenced to suffer the penalty of DEATH and to pay the B. THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION WAS NOT FULLY
victim P100,000 as moral damages. The award for exemplary damages is TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
deleted for lack of legal basis. The trial court’s Decision convicting appellant THE IRREGULARITIES IN THE CONFIDENTIAL/INTELLIGENCE FUND (CIF)
Evangeline Padayhag is REVERSED. We ACQUIT Evangeline Padayhag and order DISBURSEMENT PROCESS, QUESTIONABLE PRACTICE OF CO-MINGLING OF
her immediate RELEASE from confinement unless held for another lawful cause. FUNDS AND AGUAS' REPORTS TO THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COA)
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to report to the Court, THAT BULK OF THE PHP365,997,915.00 WITHDRAWN FROM THE
within five days from notice, compliance with this Decision. PHILIPPINE CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES OFFICE'S (PCSO) CIF
In accordance with Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section WERE DIVERTED TO THE ARROYO-HEADED OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT.
25 of Republic Act No. 7659, upon finality of this decision, let certified true C. ARROYO AND AGUAS, BY INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION, IN
copies of the records of this case be forwarded to the President of the CONSPIRACY WITH THEIR COACCUSED IN SB-12-CRM-0174, COMMITTED
Philippines for the possible exercise of the pardoning power. PLUNDER VIA· A COMPLEX ILLEGAL SCHEME WHICH DEFRAUDED PCSO IN
SO ORDERED. HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF PESOS.
D. EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE ELEMENTS OF PLUNDER WERE NOT
G.R. No. 220598 PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY
GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO, Petitioner, THE PEOPLE SHOWS, BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, THAT ARROYO,
vs. AGUAS AND THEIR COACCUSED IN SB-12-CRM-0174 ARE GUILTY OF
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN, (First MALVERSATION.2
Division), Respondents In contrast, the petitioners submit that the decision has effectively barred the
RESOLUTION consideration and granting of the motion for reconsideration of the State
BERSAMIN,, J.: because doing so would amount to the re-prosecution or revival of the charge
On July 19, 2016, the Court promulgated its decision, disposing: against them despite their acquittal, and would thereby violate the
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petitions for certiorari; ANNULS and constitutional proscription against double jeopardy.
SETS ASIDE the resolutions issued in Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-0174 by
Petitioner Gloria M. Macapagal-Arroyo (Arroyo) points out that the State The Court holds that it should take cognizance of the petitions
miserably failed to prove the corpus delicti of plunder; that the Court correctly for certiorari because the Sandiganbayan, as shall shortly be demonstrated,
required the identification of the main plunderer as well as personal benefit on gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
the part of the raider of the public treasury to enable the successful prosecution The special civil action for certiorari is generally not proper to assail such an
of the crime of plunder; that the State did not prove the conspiracy that justified interlocutory order issued by the trial court because of the availability of
her inclusion in the charge; that to sustain the case for malversation against her, another remedy in the ordinary course of law. Moreover, Section 23, Rule 119 of
in lieu of plunder, would violate her right to be informed of the accusation the Rules of Court expressly provides that "the order denying the motion for
against her because the information did not necessarily include the crime of leave of court to file demurrer to evidence or the demurrer itself shall not be
malversation; and that even if the information did so, the constitutional reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before judgment." It is not an insuperable
prohibition against double jeopardy already barred the re-opening of the case obstacle to this action, however, that the denial of the demurrers to evidence of
for that purpose. the petitioners was an interlocutory order that did not terminate the
Petitioner Benigno B. Aguas echoes the contentions of Arroyo in urging the proceedings, and the proper recourse of the demurring accused was to go to
Com1 to deny the motion for reconsideration. trial, and that in case of their conviction they may then appeal the conviction,
In reply, the State avers that the prohibition against double jeopardy does not and assign the denial as among the errors to be reviewed. Indeed, it is doctrinal
apply because it was denied its day in court, thereby rendering the decision that the situations in which the writ of certiorari may issue should not be
void; that the Court should re-examine the facts and pieces of evidence in order limited, because to do so -
to find the petitioners guilty as charged; and that the allegations of the x x x would be to destroy its comprehensiveness and usefulness. So wide is the
information sufficiently included all that was necessary to fully inform the discretion of the com1 that authority is not wanting to show that certiorari is
petitioners of the accusations against them. more discretionary than either prohibition or mandamus. In the exercise of
Ruling of the Court oursuperintending control over other courts, we are to be guided by all
The Court DENIES the motion for reconsideration for its lack of merit. the circumstances of each particular case 'as the ends of justice may
To start with, the State argues' that the consolidated petitions require.' So it is that the writ will be granted where necessary to prevent a
for certiorari were improper remedies in light of Section 23, Rule 119 of substantial wrong or to do substantial justice.
the Rules of Court expressly prohibiting the review of the denial of their The Constitution itself has imposed upon the Court and the other courts of
demurrer prior to the judgment in the case either by appeal or justice the duty to correct errors of jurisdiction as a result of capricious,
by certiorari; that the Court has thereby limited its own power, which should arbitrary, whimsical and despotic exercise of discretion by expressly
necessarily prevent the giving of due course to the petitions for certiorari, as incorporating in Section 1 of Article VIII the following provision:
well as the undoing of the order denying the petitioners' demurrer to evidence; Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such
that the proper remedy under the Rules of Court was for the petitioners to lower courts as may be established by law.
proceed to trial and to present their evidence-in-chief thereat; and that even if Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
there had been grave abuse of discretion attending the denial, the controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
Court's certiorari powers should be exercised only upon the petitioners' enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave
compliance with the stringent requirements of Rule 65, particularly with the abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part
requirement that there be no plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. The exercise of this
course of law, which they did not establish. power to correct grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
Section 23, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court, pertinently provides: jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
Section 23. Demurrer to evidence. – xxx Government cannot be thwarted by rules of procedure to the contrary or
xxxx for the sake of the convenience of one side. This is because the Court has
The order denying the motion for leave of court to file demurrer to the bounden constitutional duty to strike down grave abuse of
evidence or the demurrer itself shall not be reviewable by appeal or discretion whenever and wherever it is committed. Thus, notwithstanding
by certiorari before judgment. (n) the interlocutory character and effect of the denial of the demurrers to
The argument of the State, which is really a repetition of its earlier submission, evidence, the petitioners as the accused could avail themselves of the
was squarely resolved in the decision, as follows: remedy of certiorari when the denial was tainted with grave abuse of
discretion. As we shall soon show, the Sandiganbayan as the trial court
was guilty of grave abuse of discretion when it capriciously denied the
demurrers to evidence despite the absence of competent and sufficient consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons, amasses,
evidence to sustain the indictment for plunder, and despite the absence of accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of
the factual bases to expect a guilty verdict.3 overt criminal acts as described in Section 1 (d) hereof in the aggregate amount
We reiterate the foregoing resolution, and stress that the prohibition contained or total value of at least Fifty million pesos (₱50,000,000.00) shall be guilty of
in Section 23, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court is not an insuperable obstacle to the the crime of plunder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death. Any
review by the Court of the denial of the demurrer to evidence person who participated with the said public officer in the commission of an
through certiorari. We have had many rulings to that effect in the past. For offense contributing to the crime of plunder shall likewise be punished for such
instance, in Nicolas v. Sandiganbayan,4the Court expressly ruled that the petition offense. In the imposition of penalties, the degree of participation and the
for certiorari was the proper remedy to assail the denial of the demurrer to attendance of mitigating and extenuating circumstances, as provided by the
evidence that was tainted with grave abuse of discretion or excess of Revised Penal Code, shall be considered by the court. The court shall declare
jurisdiction, or oppressive exercise of judicial authority. any and all ill-gotten wealth and their interests and other incomes and assets
Secondly, the State submits that its right to due process was violated because including the properties and shares of stocks derived from the deposit or
the decision imposed additional elements for plunder that neither ' Republic Act investment thereof forfeited in favor of the State. [As Amended by Section 12,
No. 7080 nor jurisprudence had theretofore required, i.e., the identification of Republic Act No. 7659 (The Death Penalty Law)]
the main plunderer, and personal benefit on the part of the accused committing Section l(d) of Republic Act No. 7080 provides:
the predicate crime of raid on the public treasury. The State complains that it Section 1. Definition of terms. - As used in this Act, the term:
was not given the opportunity to establish such additional elements; that the xxxx
imposition of new elements fu1iher amounted to judicial legislation in violation d. "Ill-gotten wealth" means any asset, property, business enterprise or material
of the doctrine of separation of powers; that the Court nitpicked on the different possession of any person within the purview of Section two (2) hereof, acquired
infirmities of the information despite the issue revolving only around the by him directly or indirectly through dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates
sufficiency of the evidence; and that it established all the elements of plunder and/or business associates by any combination or series of the following means
beyond reasonable doubt. or similar schemes:
The State cites the plain meaning rule to highlight that the crime of plunder did 1. Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public
not require personal benefit on the part of the raider of the public treasury. It funds or raids on the public treasury;
insists that the definition of raids on the public treasury, conformably with the 2. By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage,
plain meaning rule, is the taking of public money through fraudulent or kickbacks or any/or entity in connection with any government contract or
unlawful means, and such definition does not require enjoyment or personal project or by reason of the office or position of the public officer concerned;
benefit on the part of plunderer or on the part of any of his co-conspirators for 3. By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to
them to be convicted for plunder. the National Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or
The submissions of the State are unfounded. instrumentalities or government-owned or controlled corporations and their
The requirements for the identification of the main plunderer and for personal subsidiaries;
benefit in the predicate act of raids on the public treasury have been written in 4. By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock,
R.A. No. 7080 itself as well as embedded in pertinent jurisprudence. This we equity or any other form of interest or participation including the promise of
made clear in the decision, as follows: future employment in any business enterprise or undertaking;
A perusal of the information suggests that what the Prosecution sought to show 5. By establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or other
was an implied conspiracy to commit plunder among all of the accused on the combinations and/or implementation of decrees and orders intended to benefit
basis of their collective actions prior to, during and after the implied agreement. particular persons or special interests; or
It is notable that the Prosecution did not allege that the conspiracy among all of 6. By taking undue advantage of official positi0n, authority, relationship,
the accused was by express agreement, or was a wheel conspiracy or a chain connection or influence to unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense
conspiracy. and to the damage and prejudice
This was another fatal flaw of the Prosecution. The law on plunder requires that a particular public officer must be
In its present version, under which the petitioners were charged, Section 2 of identified as the one who amassed, acquired or accumulated ill-gotten
Republic Act No. 7080 (Plunder Law) states: wealth because it plainly states that plunder is committed by any public
Section 2. Definition of the Crime of Plunder: Penalties. - Any public officer who, officer who, by himself or in connivance with members of his family,
by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or
other persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth in the the act of raiding the public treasury cannot be divided into parts. This is to
aggregate amount or total value of at least ₱50,000,000.00 through differentiate the predicate act of raids on the public treasury from other offenses
a combination or series of overt criminal acts as described in Section l(d) involving property, like robbery, theft, or estafa. Considering that R.A. No. 7080
hereof. Surely, the law requires in the criminal charge for plunder against does not expressly define this predicate act, the Court has necessarily resorted
several individuals that there must be a main plunderer and her co- to statutory construction. In so doing, the Court did not adopt the State's
conspirators, who may be members of her family, relatives by affinity or submission that personal benefit on the part of the accused need not be alleged
consanguinity, business associates, subordim1tes or other persons. In and shown because doing so would have defeated the clear intent of the law
other words, the allegation of the wheel conspiracy or express conspiracy itself,6 which was to punish the amassing, accumulating, or acquiring of ill-
in the information was appropriate because the main plunderer would gotten wealth in the aggregate amount or total value of at least ₱150,000,000.00
then be identified in either manner. Of course, implied conspiracy could by any combination or series of acts of misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or
also identify the main plunderer, but that fact must be properly alleged malversation of public funds or raids on the public treasury.
and duly proven by the Prosecution. As the decision has observed, the rules of statutory construction as well as the
This interpretation is supported by Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, where the Court deliberations of Congress indicated the intent of Congress to require personal
explained the nature of the conspiracy charge and the necessity for the main benefit for the predicate act of raids on the public treasury, viz.:
plunderer for whose benefit the amassment, accumulation and acquisition was The phrase raids on the public treasury is found in Section 1 (d) of R.A. No. 7080,
made, thus: which provides:
There is no denying the fact that the "plunder of an entire nation resulting in Section l .Definition of Terms. – xxx
material damage to the national economy" is made up of a complex and xxxx
manifold network of crimes. In the crime of plunder, therefore, different parties d) Ill-gotten wealth means any asset, prope1iy, business enterprise or material
may be united by a common purpose. In the case at bar, the different accused possession of any person within the purview of Section Two (2) hereof,
and their different criminal acts have a commonality - to help the former acquired by him directly or indirectly through dummies, nominees, agents,
President amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth. Sub-paragraphs (a) to subordinates and/or business associates by any combination or series of the
(d) in the Amended Information alleged the different participation of each following means or similar schemes:
accused in the conspiracy. The gravamen of the conspiracy charge, 1) Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public
therefore, is not that each accused agreed to receive protection money from funds or raids on the public treasury;
illegal gambling, that each misappropriated a portion of the tobacco excise tax, xxxx
that each accused ordered the GSIS and SSS to purchase shares of Belle To discern the proper import of the phrase raids on the public
Corporation and receive commissions from such sale, nor that each unjustly treasury, the key is to look at the accompanying words: misappropriation,
enriched himself from commissions, gifts and kickbacks; rather, it is that each conversion, misuse or malversation of public funds. This process is
of them, by their individual acts, agreed to participate, directly or conformable with the maxim of statutory construction noscitur a sociis, by
indirectly, in the amassing, accumulation and acquisition of ill-gotten which the correct construction of a particular word or phrase that is
wealth of and/or for former President Estrada. 5 [bold underscoring ambiguous in itself or is equally susceptible of various meanings may be
supplied for emphasis] made by considering the company of the words in which the word or
Indeed, because plunder is a crime that only a public official can commit by phrase is found or with which it is associated. Verily, a word or phrase in a
amassing, accumulating, or acquiring ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate amount statute is always used in association with other words or phrases, and its
or total value of at least ₱50,000,000.00, the identification in the information of meaning may, therefore, be modified or restricted by the latter.
such public official as the main plunderer among the several individuals thus To convert connotes the act of using or disposing of another's property as if it
charged is logically necessary under the law itself. In particular reference to were one's own; to misappropriate means to own, to take something for one's
Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-0174, the individuals charged therein - including own benefit; misuse means "a good, substance, privilege, or right used
the petitioners - were 10 public officials; hence, it was only proper to identify improperly, unforcsccably, or not as intended;" and malversation occurs when
the main plunderer or plunderers among the 10 accused who herself or himself "any public officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for
had amassed, accumulated, or acquired ill-gotten wealth with the total value of public funds or property, shall appropriate the same or shall take or
at least ₱50,000,000.00. misappropriate or shall consent, through abandonment or negligence, shall
The phrase raids on the public treasury  as used in Section 1 (d) of R. A. No. 7080 permit any other person to take such public funds, or property, wholly or
is itself ambiguous. In order to ascertain the objective meaning of the phrase, partially." The common thread that binds all the four terms together is that the
public officer used the property taken. Considering that raids on the public As a result, not only did the Prosecution fail to show where the money went but,
treasury is in the company of the four other terms that require the use of the more importantly, that GMA and Aguas had personally benefited from the same.
property taken, the phrase raids on the public treasury similarly requires such Hence, the Prosecution did not prove the predicate act of raids on the public
use of the property taken. Accordingly, the Sandiganbayan gravely erred in treasury beyond reasonable doubt. 8
contending that the mere accumulation and gathering constituted the forbidden Thirdly, the State contends that the Court did not appreciate the totality of its
act of raids on the public treasury. Pursuant to the maxim of noscitur a sociis, evidence, particularly the different irregularities committed in the
raids on the public treasury requires the raider to use the property taken disbursement of the PCSO funds, i.e., the commingling of funds, the non-
impliedly for his personal benefit.7 compliance with LOI No. 1282, and the unilateral approval of the
The Prosecution asserts that the Senate deliberations removed personal disbursements. Such totality, coupled with the fact of the petitioners'
benefit as a requirement for plunder. In not requiring personal benefit, indispensable cooperation in the pilfering of public funds, showed the existence
the Sandiganbayan quoted the following exchanges between Senator Enrile and of the conspiracy to commit plunder among all of the accused.
Senator Tafiada, viz.: The contention lacks basis.
Senator Enrile. The word here, Mr. President, "such public officer or person who As can be readily seen from the decision, the Court expressly granted the
conspired or knowingly benefited". One does not have to conspire or petitioners' respective demurrers to evidence and dismissed the plunder case
rescheme. The only element needed is that he "knowingly benefited". A against them for insufficiency of evidence because:
candidate for the Senate for instance, who received a political contribution from x x x the Sandiganbayan as the trial court was guilty of grave abuse of discretion
a plunderer, knowing that the contributor is a plunderer and therefore, he when it capriciously denied the demurrers to evidence despite the absence of
knowingly benefited from the plunder, would he also suffer the penalty, Mr. competent and sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment for plunder,
President, for life imprisonment? and despite the absence of the factual bases to expect a guilty verdict. 9
Senator Tafiada. In the committee amendments, Mr. President, we have deleted Such disposition of the Court fully took into consideration all the evidence
these lines 1 to 4 and part of line 5, on page 3. But, in a way, Mr. President, it is adduced against the petitioners. We need not rehash our review of the evidence
good that the Gentleman is bringing out these questions, I believe that under the thus adduced, for it is enough simply to stress that the Prosecution failed to
examples he has given, the Court will have to... establish the corpus delicti of plunder - that any or all of the accused public
Senator Enrile. How about the wife, Mr. President, he may not agree with the officials, particularly petitioner Arroyo, had amassed, accumulated, or acquired
plunderer to plunder the country but because she is a dutiful wife or a faithful ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate amount or total value of at least
husband, she has to keep her or his vow of fidelity to the spouse. And, of course, ₱50,000,000.00.
she enjoys the benefits out of the plunder. Would the Gentleman now impute to Fourthly, in accenting certain inadequacies of the allegations of the information,
her or him the crime of plunder simply because she or he knowingly benefited the Court did not engage in purposeless nitpicking, and did not digress from the
out of the fruits of the plunder and, therefore, he must suffer or he must suffer primary task of determining the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the
the penalty of life imprisonment? State against the petitioners. What the Court thereby intended to achieve was to
The President. That was stricken out already in the Committee amendment. highlight what would have been relevant in the proper prosecution of plunder
Senator Tañ ada. Yes, Mr. President. Lines 1 to 4 and part of line 5 were stricken and thus enable itself to discern and determine whether the evidence of guilt
out in the Committee amendment. But, as I said, the examples of the Minority was sufficient or not. In fact, the Court categorically clarified that in discussing
Floor Leader are still worth spreading the Record. And, I believe that in those the essential need for the identification of the main plunderer it was not harping
examples, the Court will have just to take into consideration all the other on the sufficiency of the information, but was only enabling itself to search for
circumstances prevailing in the case and the evidence that will be submitted. and to find the relevant proof that unequivocally showed petitioner Arroyo as
The President. In any event, 'knowingly benefited' has already been stricken the "mastermind" - which was how the Sandiganbayan had characterized her
off." participation - in the context of the implied conspiracy alleged in the
The exchanges between Senator Enrile and Senator Tañ ada reveal, therefore, information. But the search came to naught, for the information contained
that what was removed from the coverage of the bill and the final version that nothing that averred her commission of the overt act necessary to implicate her
eventually became the law was a person who was not the main plunderer or a in the supposed conspiracy to commit the crime of plunder. Indeed, the Court
co-conspirator, but one who personally benefited from the plunderers' action. assiduously searched for but did not find the sufficient incriminatory evidence
The requirement of personal benefit on the part of the main plunderer or his co- against the petitioners. Hence, the Sandiganbayan capriciously and oppressively
conspirators by virtue of their plunder was not removed. denied their demurrers to evidence.
Fifthly, the State posits that it established at least a case for malversation this Honorable Court, accused GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, then the
against the petitioners. President of the Philippines, ROSARIO C. URIARTE, then General Manager and
Malversation is defined and punished under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Vice Chairman, SERGIO 0. VALENCIA, then Chairman of the Board of Directors,
Code, which reads thusly: MANUEL L. MORA TO, JOSE R. TARUC V, RAYMUNDO T. ROQUERO, MA. FATIMA
Article 217. Malversation of public funds or property; Presumption of AS. VALDES, then members of the Board of Directors, BENIGNO B. AGUAS, then
malversation. - Any public officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is Budget and Accounts Manager, all of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office
accountable for public funds or property, shall appropriate the same or shall (PCSO), REYNALDO A. VILLAR, then Chairman, and NILDA B. PLARAS, then
take or misappropriate or shall consent, through abandonment or negligence, Head of Intelligence/Confidential Fund Fraud Audit Unit, both of the
shall permit any other person to take such public funds, or property, wholly or Commission on Audit, all public officers committing the offense in relation to
partially, or shall otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of their respective offices and taking undue advantage of their respective official
such funds or property, shall suffer: positions, authority, relationships, connections or influence, conniving,
1. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the conspiring and confederating with one another, did then and there willfully,
amount involved in the misappropriation or malversation does not exceed two unlawfully and criminally 'amass,, accumulate and/or acquire directly or
hundred pesos. indirectly, ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate amount or total value of THREE
2. The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if the HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE MILLION NINE HUNDRED NINETY SEVEN THOUSAND
amount involved is more than two hundred pesos but does not exceed six NINE HUNDRED FIFTEEN PESOS (PHP365,997,915.00), more or less, through
thousand pesos. any or a combination or a series of overt or criminal acts, or similar schemes or
3. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in means, described as follows:
its minimum period, if the amount involved is more than six thousand pesos but (a) diverting in several instances, funds from the operating budget of PCSO to its
is less than twelve thousand pesos. Confidential/Intelligence Fund that could be accessed and withdrawn at any
4. The penalty of reclusion temporal,  in its medium and maximum periods, if the time with minimal restrictions, and converting, misusing, and/or illegally
amount involved is more than twelve thousand pesos but is less than twenty- conveying or transferring the proceeds drawn from said fund in the
two thousand pesos. If the amount exceeds the latter, the penalty shall aforementioned sum, also in several instances, to themselves, in the guise of
be reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua. fictitious expenditures, for their personal gain and benefit;
In all cases, persons guilty of malversation shall also suffer the penalty of (b) raiding the public treasury by withdrawing and receiving, in several
perpetual special disqualification and a fine equal to the amount of the funds instances, the above-mentioned amount from the Confidential/Intelligence
malversed or equal to the total value of the property embezzled. Fund from PCSO's accounts, and or unlawfully transferring or conveying the
The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or same into their possession and control through irregularly issued disbursement
property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized vouchers and fictitious expenditures; and
officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or (c) taking advantage of their respective official positions, authority,
property to personal use. (As amended by RA 1060). relationships, connections or influence, in several instances, to unjustly enrich
The elements of malversation are that: (a) the offender is an accountable public themselves in the aforementioned sum, at the expense of, and the damage and
officer; (b) he/she is responsible for the misappropriation of public funds or prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines.
property through intent or negligence; and (c) he/she has custody of and CONTRARY TO LAW.
received such funds and property by reason of his/her office. 10 In thereby averring the predicate act of malversation, the State did not
The information in Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-017411 avers: sufficiently allege the aforementioned essential elements of malversation in the
The undersigned Assistant Ombudsman and Graft Investigation and Prosecution information. The omission from the information of factual details descriptive of
Officer III, Office of the Ombudsman, hereby accuse GLORIA MACAPAGAL- the aforementioned elements of malversation highlighted the insufficiency of
ARROYO, ROSARIO C. URIARTE, SERGIO O. VALENCIA, MANUEL L. MORATO, the allegations. Consequently, the State's position is entirely unfounded.
JOSE R. TARUC V, RAYMUNDO T. ROQUERO, MA. FATIMA AS. VALDES, BENIGNO Lastly, the petitioners insist that the consideration and granting of the motion
B. AGUAS, REYNALDO A. VILLAR and NILDA B. PLARAS, of the crime for reconsideration of the State can amount to a violation of the constitutional
of PLUNDER, as defined by, and penalized under Section 2 of Republic Act (R.A.) prohibition against double jeopardy because their acquittal under the decision
No. 7080, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, committed, as follows: was a prior jeopardy within the context of Section 21, Article III (Bill of
That during the period from January 2008 to June 2010 or sometime prior or Rights)  of the 1987 Constitution, to wit:
subsequent thereto, in Quezon City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
Section 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same acquittal; protection against a second prosecution for the same offense after
offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal conviction; and protection against multiple punishments for the same
under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act. offense.  15The rationale for the three protections is expounded in United States v.
The insistence of the petitioners is fully warranted. Indeed, the consideration Wilson:  16
and granting of the motion for reconsideration of the State will amount to the The interests underlying these three protections arc quite similar. When a
violation of the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy. defendant has been once convicted and punished for a particular crime,
The Court's consequential dismissal of Criminal Case No. SB-12- CRM-0174 as to principles of fairness and finality require that he not be subjected to the
the petitioners for insufficiency of evidence amounted to their acquittal of the possibility of further punishment by being again tried or sentenced for the
crime of plunder charged against them. In People v. Tan,  12the Court shows why: same offense. Ex pa rte Lange, 18 Wall 163 (1874); In re Nielsen, 131 U.S. 176
In People v. Sandiganbayan, this Com1 explained the general rule that the grant (1889). When a defendant has been acquitted of an offense, the Clause
of a demurrer to evidence operates as an acquittal and is, thus, final and guarantees that the State shall not be permitted to make repeated
unappealable, to wit: attempts to convict him,
The demurrer to evidence in criminal cases, such as the one at bar, "thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal, and
is ''filed after tile prosecution had rested its case," and when the same is compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as
granted, it calls "for an appreciation of the evidence adduced by the well as enhancing the possibility that, even though innocent, he may be
prosecution and its sufficiency to warrant conviction beyond reasonable found guilty."
doubt, resulting in a dismissal of the case on the merits, tantamount to an Green v. United States,  355 U.S. 184, 187-188 (1957).
acquittal of the accused." Such dismissal of a criminal case by the grant of The policy of avoiding multiple trials has been regarded as so important
demurrer to evidence may not be appealed, for to do so would be to place that exceptions to the principle have been only grudgingly allowed.
the accused in double jeopardy. The verdict being one of acquittal, the Initially, a new trial was thought to be unavailable after appeal, whether
case ends there. requested by the prosecution or the defendant. See United States v.
xxxx Gibert, 25 F. Cas. 1287 (No. 15,204) (CCD Mass. 1834) (Story, J.). It was not
The rule on double jeopardy, however, is not without exceptions. In People v. until 1896 that it was made clear that a defendant could seek a new trial
Laguio, Jr., this Court stated that the only instance when double jeopardy will after conviction, even though the Government enjoyed no similar
not attach is when the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion, thus: right. United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662. (Bold underscoring supplied for
... The only instance when double ,jeopardy will not attach is when the trial emphasis)
court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the motion for reconsideration for lack of
jurisdiction, such as where the prosecution was denied the opportunity to merit.
present its case or where the trial was a sham. However, while certiorari may be SO ORDERED.
availed of to correct an erroneous acquittal, the petitioner in such an
extraordinary proceeding must clearly demonstrate that the trial court blatantly G.R. No. 145927               August 24, 2007
abused its authority to a point so grave as to deprive it of its very power to SIMON FERNAN, JR. and EXPEDITO TORREVILAS, 1 Petitioners,
dispense justice. 13 vs.
The constitutional prohibition against placing a person under double jeopardy PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
for the same offense bars not only a new and independent prosecution but also DECISION
an appeal in the same action after jeopardy had attached. 14 As such, VELASCO, JR., J.:
every acquittal becomes final immediately upon promulgation and cannot be The instant petition under Rule 45 originated from 119 criminal cases2 filed
recalled for correction or amendment. With the acquittal being immediately with the Sandiganbayan (SB) involving no less than 36 former officials and
final, granting the State's motion for reconsideration in this case would violate employees of the then Ministry of Public Highways (MPH) and several suppliers
the Constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy because it would of construction materials for defalcation of public funds arising from numerous
effectively reopen the prosecution and subject the petitioners to a second transactions in the Cebu First Highway Engineering District in 1977. Because of
jeopardy despite their acquittal. the sheer magnitude of the illegal transactions, the number of people involved,
It is cogent to remind in this regard that the Constitutional prohibition against and the ingenious scheme employed in defrauding the government, this
double jeopardy provides to the accused three related protections, infamous 86 million highway scam has few parallels in the annals of crime in the
specifically: protection against a second prosecution for the same offense after country.
The Case expenditures were taken from obligations of the current year (1978) because all
Petitioners Simon Fernan, Jr. and Expedito Torrevillas seek the reversal of the the supporting papers of the payment vouchers were dated in that year. The
December 4, 1997 Decision3 of the SB in the consolidated Criminal Case Nos. entries in the journal vouchers filed with the MPH Regional Office were adjusted
1640, 1641, 1642, 1643, 1818, 1819, 1820, 1821, 1822, 1823, 1879, 1880, 1881, every month to 8-81-400 (unliquidated or prior years obligation), 8-83-000
1882, 1883, 1884, 1885, 1886, 1887, 1888, 1889, 2839, 2840, 2841, 2842, 2843, (liquidated or current year obligations) and 8-70-700 (Treasury/Agency
2844, 2845, 2846, 2847, 2848, 2849, 2850, 2851, 2852, 2853, 2854, 2855, 2856, Account). All of these were approved for the Finance Officer by Chief Accountant
2857, 2858, 2859, 2860, 2861, 2862, 2863, 2864, 2865, 2866, 2867, 2868, 2869, Rolando Mangubat. Mangubat, however, had no authority to approve them
2870, 2871, 2872, 2873, 2874, 2875, 2876, 2877, 2878, 2879, 2880, 2881, 2882, because since October 1977, he had already been detailed to the MPH Central
2883, 2884, 2885, 2886, 2887, 2888, 2889, 2890, 2891, 2892, 2893, 2894, 2895, Office. There were indications that the practice had been going on for years.
2896, 2897, 2898, 2899, 2900, 2901, 2902, 2903, 2904, 2905, 2906, 2907, 2908, xxxx
2909, 2910, 2911, 2912, 2913, 2915, 2917, 2918, 2919, 2920, 2921, 2922, 2923, Due to these serious irregularities, then President Marcos created a Special
2924, 2925, 2926, 2927, 2928, 2929, 2930, 2931, 2932, 2936, 2937, 2938, and Cabinet Committee on MPH Region VII "Ghost Projects Anomalies" which in
2939,4 all entitled People of the Philippines v. Rocilo Neis, et al., finding them turn organized a Special Task Force composed of representatives from the
guilty of multiple instances of estafa through falsification of public Finance Ministry Intelligence Bureau (FMIB), National Bureau of Investigation
documents;5 and the subsequent August 29, 2000 SB Resolution which denied (NBI), the Bureau of Treasury and the Commission on Audit. The mission of the
their separate pleas for reconsideration. task force was to conduct a wider and more extended investigation in all the
Petitioner Fernan, Jr. disputes the adverse judgment in only six (6) cases, fifteen (15) highway engineering districts of MPH Region VII, including the Cebu
namely: 2879, 2880, 2881, 2885, 2914, and 2918; while petitioner Torrevillas First Highway Engineering District, the 1977 questionable disbursements of
seeks exoneration in nine (9) cases, namely: 2855, 2856, 2858, 2859, 2909, which are the subject matter of these cases.
2910, 2914, 2919, and 2932. xxxx
Both petitioners assert their strong belief that their guilt has not been For a better understanding of these highways cases, the flow in the release of
established beyond reasonable doubt and, hence, exculpation is in order. funds to the various agencies of the government and the control devices set up
The Facts for disbursement and accounting of public funds should first be explained. A
The SB culled the facts6 this way: chart (Exhibit B) graphically shows the flow of allotments from the Ministry
On June 21, 1978, COA Regional Director Sofronio Flores Jr. of COA Regional down to the district level.
Office No. 7, directed auditors Victoria C. Quejada and Ruth I. Paredes to verify On the basis of appropriation laws and upon request made by heads of agencies,
and submit a report on sub-allotment advises issued to various highway the then Ministry of Budget released funds to the various agencies of the
engineering districts in Cebu, particularly, the Cebu City, Cebu 1st, Cebu 2nd and government by means of an Advice of Allotment (AA) and a Cash Disbursement
the Mandaue City Highway Engineering Districts. Complying with the directive, Ceiling (CDC). The Advice of Allotment is an authority for the agency to incur
they conducted an investigation and in due course submitted their findings. obligations within a specified amount in accordance with approved programs
Their report (Exhibit C) confirmed the issuance of fake Letters of Advice of and projects. The Cash Disbursement Ceiling is an authority to pay. Upon receipt
Allotments (LAAs) in the districts mentioned. They discovered that two sets of of the AA and CDC from the Budget, the Central Office of the agency prepares the
LAAs were received by the districts. One set consists of regular LAAs which Sub-Advice of Allotment (SAA) and the Advice of Cash Disbursement Ceiling
clearly indicated the covering sub-allotment advices and were duly signed by (ACDC) for each region, in accordance with the disbursement allotment. These
Mrs. Angelina Escañ o, Finance Officer of the MPH Regional Office. The LAAs are sent to the Regional Office. Upon receipt, the Budget Officer of the region
were numbered in proper sequence and duly recorded in the logbook of the prepares the corresponding Letters of Advice of Allotment (LAA) which are
Accounting, Budget and Finance Division. The other set consists of fake LAAs forwarded to the various districts of the region (The amount that goes to each
which do not indicate the covering sub-allotment advice and were signed by district is already indicated in the Advice of Allotment). Only upon receipt of the
Chief Accountant Rolando Mangubat and Engr. Jose Bagasao, instead of the LAA is the district office authorized to incur obligations.
Finance Officer. These fake LAAs were not numbered in proper sequence; they Now, how are funds released by the Regional Office to the different districts and
were mostly undated and were sometimes duplicated. They could not be traced ultimately paid out to contractors, the District Engineer submits to the Regional
to the files and records of the Accounting, Budget and Finance Division. The Director a request for allotment in accordance with the program of work
accounting entry for the disbursements made on the fake LAAs was debited to prepared by the former. This procedure starts with the preparation of a
the Accounts-Payable Unliquidated Obligations (8-81-400) and credited to the Requisition for Supplies and Equipment (RSE) in the District Office by the
Checking Account with the Bureau of Treasury (8-70-790). Nevertheless, the Senior Civil Engineer, approved by the District Engineer, and signed by the Chief
Accountant of the Highway Engineering District, who certifies as to the Cruz (Clerk II), all of MPH Region VII, met at the Town and Country Restaurant
availability of funds. The RSE is then submitted to the Regional Director for in Cebu City and hatched an ingenious plan to siphon off large sums of money
approval. Once it is approved, a Request for Obligation of Allotment (ROA) is from government coffers. Mangubat had found a way to withdraw government
prepared by the Chief Accountant of the district Senior Civil Engineer. The ROA money through the use of fake LAAs, vouchers and other documents and to
signifies that a certain amount of district funds has been set aside or earmarked conceal traces thereof with the connivance of other government officials and
for the particular expenditures stated in the RSE. On the basis of the ROA, the employees. In fine, the fraudulent scheme involved the splitting of LAAs and
District Office puts up advertisements, [conducts] biddings, makes awards and RSEs so that the amount covered by each general voucher is less than
prepares purchase orders which are served on the winning bidder. The District P50,000.00 to do away with the approval of the Regional Auditor; the charging
Office also prepares a summary of deliveries with the corresponding delivery of disbursements to unliquidated obligations due the previous year to provide
receipts and tally sheets, conducts inspection and prepares the General Voucher the supposed source of funds; and the manipulation of the books of account by
for the payment of deliveries. Once the General Voucher (GV) has been negation or adjustment, i.e., the cancellation of checks through journal vouchers
prepared, the corresponding check in the form of a Treasury Check Account for to conceal disbursements in excess of the cash disbursement ceiling (CDC), so as
Agency (TCAA) is drawn by the Disbursing Officer and finally released to the not to reflect such disbursements in the trial balances submitted to the Regional
contractor. Office.
At the end of every month, the Report of Checks Issued by Deputized Disbursing Mangubat enticed Preagido, Cruz and Sayson to join him. All three agreed to
Officer (RCIDD) is prepared, listing all the checks issued during that period. The help him carry out his plan. They typed the fake LAAs during Saturdays. Cruz
RCIDDO is submitted to the accounting division of the region. Upon receipt of and Sayson also took charge of negotiating or selling the fake LAAs to
the RCIDDO, the Regional Office draws a journal voucher, debiting the account contractors at 26% of the gross amount. Preagido on her part manipulated the
obligation (liquidated or unliquidated obligation, whichever is applicable), and General Ledger, Journal Vouchers and General Journal thru negative entries to
crediting the account Treasury Check Account for Agency (TCAA). The RCIDDO conceal the illegal disbursements. Thus, in the initial report of the auditors
is recorded in the Journal of Checks Issued by Deputized Disbursing Officers (Exhibit D), it was discovered that the doubtful allotments and other anomalies
(JCIDDO) and posted in the general ledger at the end of each month. escaped notice due to the following manipulations:
Simultaneous with the flow of the RCIDDO, the ROAs are summarized in the "The letter-advices covering such allotments (LAA) were generally not signed
Reports of Obligations Incurred (ROI) in the District Office, once or twice a by the Finance Officer nor recorded in the books of accounts. Disbursements
month, depending upon the volume of transactions. The ROI is then submitted made on the basis of these fake LAAs were charged to the unliquidated
to the Regional Office. Upon receipt of the ROI, the accountant of the Regional Obligations (Account 8-81-400), although the obligations being paid were not
Office draws a journal voucher taking up the following entry: debiting the among those certified to the unliquidated obligations (Account 8-81-400) at the
appropriation allotted (0-90-000) and crediting the obligation incurred (0-82- end of the preceding year. To conceal the overcharges to authorized allotments,
000). This is recorded in the general voucher and posted to the general ledger at account 8-81-400 and the excess of checks issued over authorized cash
the end of each month. The journal voucher is prepared, closing the account 8- disbursements ceiling, adjustments were prepared monthly through journal
70-709 to 8-71-100-199 at the end of each month. It is also recorded and posted vouchers to take up the negative debit to Account 8-81-400 and a negative
to the general ledger. At the end of the month, the balances of each account credit to the Treasury Checking Account for Agencies Account 8-70-790. These
shown in the general ledger are summarized in a statement called the trial journal vouchers in effect cancelled the previous entry to record the
balance. The trial balance is submitted to the MPH Central Office in Manila disbursements made on the basis of the fake LAAs. Thus, the affected accounts
where it is consolidated with other trial balances submitted by other regional (Accounts 8-81-400 and 8-70-790), as appearing in the trial balance would not
offices. show the irregularity. The checks, however, were actually issued."
xxxx The four formed the nucleus of the nefarious conspiracy. Other government
The elaborate accounting procedure described above with its system of controls employees, tempted by the prospect of earning big money, allowed their names
was set up obviously to make sure that government funds are properly released, to be used and signed spurious documents.
disbursed and accounted for. In the hands of untrustworthy guardians of the Although the anomalies had been going on for sometime (February 1977 to June
public purse, however, it proved to be inadequate. There were loopholes which 1978), the PNB and Bureau of Treasury had no inkling about it until the NBI
an unscrupulous person adroit in government accounting could take advantage busted the illegal operations. (Some of the recipients of the stolen funds spent
of to surreptitiously draw enormous sums of money from the government. lavishly and bought two cars at a time). The reason for this is that, at that time,
Sometime in February, 1977, accused Rolando Mangubat (Chief Accountant), the PNB and Bureau of Treasury were not furnished copy of the mother CDC
Delia Preagido (Accountant III), Jose Sayson (Budget Examiner), and Edgardo and the local branch of the PNB did not receive independent advice from the
PNB head office in Manila. There were no deposits of money made with the PNB by several barangay captains, the road maintenance consisted merely of
from which withdrawals could be charged. Only CDCs were presented to it, and spreading anapog or limestone on potholes of the national highway.
not knowing that some of the CDCs were fake, the PNB branch paid out the Obviously, the vouchers for payments of alleged maintenance of roads and
checks drawn against them. The bank had also no way of knowing what amount bridges in the additional amount of P3,839,810.74 were prepared for no other
was appropriated for the district; consequently, it did not know if the limit had purpose than to siphon the said amount from the government coffer into the
already been exceeded. Only an insider steep in government accounting, pockets of some officials and employees of Region VII and the Cebu First HED,
auditing and banking procedures, particularly their flaws and loopholes, could as well as the suppliers and contractors who conspired and confederated with
have pulled off such an ingenious and audacious plan. them.
xxxx The nuclei of this massive conspiracy, namely: Rolando Mangubat, Jose Sayson,
Focusing our attention now on the anomalies committed in the Cebu First and Edgardo Cruz, all of MPH Region VII, were found guilty in all 119 counts and
District Engineering District, hereinafter referred to as the Cebu First HED for were accordingly sentenced by the SB. The other conniver, Delia Preagido, after
brevity, the Court finds that the same pattern of fraud employed in the other being found guilty in some of the cases, became a state witness in the
highway engineering districts in MPH Region VII was followed. The Cebu First remainder. On the basis of her testimony and pertinent documents,
HED received from Region VII thirty-four Letters of Advice of Allotment (LAAs) Informations were filed, convictions were obtained, and criminal penalties were
in the total sum of P4,734,336.50 and twenty-nine (29) corresponding Sub- imposed on the rest of the accused.
Advices of Cash Disbursement Ceiling (SACDCs), amounting to P5,160,677.04 On the other hand, petitioners were both Civil Engineers of the MPH assigned to
for the period January 1, 1977 to December 31, 1977. But apart from this, the the Cebu First Highway Engineering District. Petitioner Fernan, Jr. was included
Cebu First HED appears to have also received for the same period another set of among the accused in Criminal Case Nos. 2879, 2880, 2881, 2885, 2914, and
eighty-four (84) LAAs amounting to P4,680,694.76 which however, could not be 2918 allegedly for having signed six (6) tally sheets or statements of deliveries
traced to any Sub-Advice of Allotment (SAA) or matched to the Advices of Cash of materials, used as bases for the preparation of the corresponding number of
Disbursement Ceiling (ACDCs) received from the MPH and Regional Office. This general vouchers. Fund releases were made to the suppliers, contractors, and
is highly irregular and not in consonance with accounting procedures. payees based on these general vouchers.
It was also made to appear that the payments were made for alleged prior year’s The Information against Fernan, Jr. in SB Criminal Case No. 2879 reads as
obligations and chargeable to Account 8-81-400, obviously because, they were follows:
not properly funded. Furthermore, the list of projects in Region VII for 1977 The undersigned accuses Rocilo Neis, Rolando Mangubat, Adventor Fernandez,
showed that Cebu First HED completed rehabilitation and/or improvement of Angelina Escañ o, Delia Preagido, Camilo de Letran, Manuel de Veyra, Heracleo
roads and bridges in its districts from February to May 1977, with expenditures Faelnar, Basilisa Galvan, Matilde Jabalde, Josefina Luna, Jose Sayson, Edgardo
amounting to P613,812.00. On the other hand, the expenditures for barangay Cruz, Leonila del Rosario, Engracia Escobar, Abelardo Cardona, Leonardo
roads in the same district in 1977 amounted to P140,692.00, and these were all Tordecilla, Agripino Pagdanganan, Ramon Quirante, Mariano Montera, Mariano
completed within the period from November to December, 1977. These Jarina, Leo Villagonzalo, Asterio Buqueron, Zosimo Mendez, Simon Fernan, Jr.
completed projects were properly funded by legitimate LAAs and CDCs in the and Juliana de los Angeles for estafa thru falsification of public and commercial
total amount of only P754,504.00. However, an additional amount of documents, committed as follows:
P3,839,810.74 was spent by the Cebu First HED for maintenance of roads and That on, about and during the period from December 1, 1976 up to January 31,
bridges for the same year (1977) but the same could not be traced to any 1977, both dates inclusive, in the City of Cebu and in Cebu Province, and within
authoritative document coming from the MPH. the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused Rocilo Neis, Assistant
xxxx District Engineer of Cebu HED I; Rolando Mangubat, the Chief Accountant of
A total of 132 General Vouchers, emanating from fake LAAs and ACDCs, were Region VII of the Ministry of Public Highways and Adventor Fernandez,
traced back to Rolando Mangubat, Regional Accountant of Region VII and Regional Highway Engineer of same Regional Office, conniving with each other
Adventor Fernandez, Regional Highway Engineer, also of Region VII. Those to defraud the Philippine Government with the indispensable cooperation and
LAAs and ACDCs became the vehicles in the disbursement of funds amounting assistance of Angelina Escañ o, Finance Officer of Region VII of the Ministry of
to P3,839,810.74, through the vouchers purportedly issued for the purchase and Public Highways; Delia Preagido, Assistant Chief Accountant of same Regional
delivery of the aforementioned materials allegedly used for the maintenance Office; Camilo de Letran, Chief Accountant of Cebu I HED; Manuel de Veyra,
and repair of the national highways within the Cebu First HED. Despite the Regional Director, MPH, Region VII; Heracleo Faelnar, then Assistant Director
enormous additional expenditure of P3,839,810.74, the roads and bridges in the MPH Region VII; Basilisa Galvan, Budget Officer, MPH, Region VII; Matilde
district, as found out by the NBI, did not show any improvement. As testified to Jabalde, Supervising Accounting Clerk, MPH, Region VII; Josefina Luna,
Accountant II, MPH, Region VII; Jose Sayson, Budget Examiner, MPH, Region VII, means to cover-up the fraud; and the accused, once in possession of the said
Edgardo Cruz, Accountant I, MPH, Region VII; Leonila del Rosario, Chief Finance amount, misappropriated, converted and misapplied the same for their personal
and Management Service, MPH, Central Office; Engracia Escobar, Chief needs, to the damage and prejudice of the Philippine Government in the total
Accountant, MPH, Central Office; Abelardo Cardona, Assistant Chief Accountant, amount of TWENTY EIGHT THOUSAND PESOS (P28,000.00), Philippine
MPH, Central Office; Leonardo Tordecilla, Supervising Accountant, MPH, Central Currency.
Office; Agripino Pagdanganan, Budget Officer III, MPH, Central Office; Ramon CONTRARY TO LAW.
Quirante, Property Custodian of Cebu I HED; Mariano Montera, Senior Civil The Informations in the six (6) cases involving Fernan, Jr. were essentially
Engineer Engineer of Cebu I HED; Mariano Jarina, Clerk in the Property Division identical save for the details as highlighted in boldface above. For ease of
of Cebu I HED; Leo Villagonzalo, Auditor’s Aide of Cebu I HED; Zosimo Mendez, reference, Fernan, Jr.’s criminal cases are detailed below:
Auditor of Cebu I HED; Asterio Buqueron, Administrative Officer of Cebu I HED; Criminal Dates of Main Items Allegedly Amount
Simon Fernan, Jr., Civil Engineer of Cebu I HED and Juliana de los Angeles, an Case No. Commission Documents Purchased of Fraud
alleged supplier, all of whom took advantage of their official positions, with the Falsified
exception of Juliana de los Angeles, mutually helping each other did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously falsify and/or cause the falsification 2879 December 1, 1. General 1,400 cu. m. of item PhP
of the following documents, to wit: 1976 up to Voucher No. 108 for use in the 28,000.00
1. Request for Allocation of Allotment January 31, B-15; repair of the Cebu
2. Letter of Advice of Allotment 1977 2. Check No. Hagnaya Wharf road
3. Advice of Cash Disbursement Ceiling 9933064; from Km. 50.30 to
4. General Voucher No. B-15 Km. 60.00
5. Check No. 9933064
6. Abstract of Bids 2880 December 1, 1. Request 1,400 cu. m. of item PhP
7. Purchase Order 1976 up to for 108 for use in the 28,000.00
8. Statement of Delivery January 31, Allocation of repair of the Bogo-
9. Report of Inspection 1977 Allotment Curva-Medellon road
10. Requisition for Supplies or Equipment 101-12-105- from Km. 110.00 to
11. Trial Balance 76; Km. 119.00
by making it appear that Regional Office No. VII of the Ministry of Public 2. General
Highways regularly issued an advice of cash disbursement ceiling (ACDC) and Voucher No.
the corresponding letter of advice of allotment (LAA) to cover the purchase of B-55;
1,400 cu. m. of item 1087 for use in the repair of the Cebu Hagnaya Wharf road 3. Check No.
from Km. 50.30 to Km. 60.00, when in truth and in fact, as all the accused knew, 9933104;
the same were not true and correct; by making it appear in the voucher that
funds were available and that there were appropriate requests for allotments 2881 January 2, 1. Request Approximately 1,500 PhP
(ROA) to pay the aforesaid purchase; that a requisition for said item was made 1977 up to for cu. m. of item 108 for 31,000.00
and approved; that a regular bidding was held; that a corresponding purchase February 28, Allocation of use in the repair and
order was issued in favor of the winning bidder; that the road construction 1977 Allotment rehabilitation of
materials were delivered, inspected and used in the supposed project and that 101-2-56- damaged roads and
the alleged supplier was entitled to payment when in truth and in fact, as all the 77; bridges by Typhoon
accused know, all of the foregoing were false and incorrect and because of the 2. General Aring at the Tabogon-
foregoing falsifications, the above-named accused were able to collect from the Voucher No. Bogo provincial road
Cebu I HED the total amount of TWENTY EIGHT THOUSAND PESOS B-245; from Km. 92 to Km.
(P28,000.00), Philippine Currency, in payment of the non-existing deliveries; 3. Check No. 98
that the said amount of P28,000.00 was not reflected in the monthly trial 9933294;
balance submitted to the Central Office by Region VII showing its financial
condition as the same was negated thru the journal voucher, as a designed 2885 January 2, 1. Request materials for use in PhP
 Director, MPH, Region VII; Heracleo Faelnar, then Assistant Director MPH
1977 up to for the repair and 30,000.00
Region VII; Basilisa Galvan, Budget Officer, MPH, Region VII; Matilde Jabalde,
January 31, Allocation of rehabilitation of the
Supervising Accounting Clerk, MPH, Region VII; Josefina Luna, Accountant II,
1977 Allotment Daan-Bantayan road
MPH, Region VII; Jose Sayson, Budget Examiner, MPH, Region VII, Edgardo Cruz,
101-12-112- from Km. 127.00 to
Accountant I, MPH, Region VII; Leonila del Rosario, Chief Finance and
76; Km. 136
Management Service, MPH, Central Office; Engracia Escobar, Chief Accountant,
2. General
MPH, Central Office; Abelardo Cardona, Assistant Chief Accountant, MPH,
Voucher No.
Central Office; Leonardo Tordecilla, Supervising Accountant, MPH, Central
B-76;
Office; Agripino Pagdanganan, Budget Officer III, MPH, Central Office; Ramon
3. Check No.
Quirante, Property Custodian of Cebu I HED; Jorge de la Peñ a, Auditor of Cebu I
9933125;
HED; Leo Villagonzalo, Auditor’s Aide of Cebu I HED; Asterio Buqueron,
2914 October 1, 1. General 1,200 cu. m. of item PhP Administrative Officer of Cebu I HED; Expedito Torrevillas, representative of the
1977 up to Voucher No. 108 for use in the 27,000.00 Engineer’s Office, Cebu I HED; Mariano Montera, Senior Civil Engineer Engineer
November B-927; rehabilitation of the of Cebu I HED; and Rufino V. Nuñ ez, an alleged supplier, all of whom took
30, 1977 2. Check No. Cajel-Lugo, Barbon advantage of their official positions, with the exception of Rufino V. Nuñ ez,
9403425; barangay road mutually helping each other did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously falsify and/or cause the falsification of the following documents, to
2918 January 2, 1. General 1,500 cu. m. of item PhP wit:
1977 up to Voucher No. 108 for the 30,000.00 1. Request for Allocation of Allotment – 101-10-186-76; 10-190-76; 10-192-76;
February 28, B-107; rehabilitation of the 10-188-76; 10-180-76
1977 2. Check No. Cebu North Hagnaya 2. Letter of Advice of Allotment
9933157; Wharf road from Km. 3. Advice of Cash Disbursement Ceiling
71 to Km. 76 4. General Voucher No. B-613
5. Check No. 9403099
On the other hand, petitioner Torrevillas was one of the accused in Criminal
6. Abstract of Bids
Case Nos. 2855, 2856, 2858, 2859, 2909, 2910, 2914, 2919, and 2932.
7. Purchase Order
The Information against Torrevillas in SB Criminal Case No. 2855 reads as
8. Statement of Delivery
follows:
9. Report of Inspection
The undersigned accuses Rocilo Neis, Rolando Mangubat, Adventor Fernandez,
10. Requisition for Supplies or Equipment
Angelina Escañ o, Delia Preagido, Camilo de Letran, Manuel de Veyra, Heracleo
11. Trial Balance
Faelnar, Basilisa Galvan, Matilde Jabalde, Josefina Luna, Jose Sayson, Edgardo
by making it appear that Regional Office No. VII of the Ministry of Public
Cruz, Leonila del Rosario, Engracia Escobar, Abelardo Cardona, Leonardo
Highways regularly issued an advice of cash disbursement ceiling (ACDC) and
Tordecilla, Agripino Pagdanganan, Ramon Quirante, Jorge de la Peñ a, Leo
the corresponding letter of advice of allotment (LAA) to cover the purchase of
Villagonzalo, Asterio Buqueron, Expedito Torrevillas, Mariano Montera and
153.63 m. t. of item 3108 for use in asphalting of the Toledo-Tabuelan road at
Rufino V. Nuñ ez for estafa thru falsification of public and commercial
Km. 108.34 to Km. 109.52, when in truth and in fact, as all the accused knew, the
documents, committed as follows:
same were not true and correct; by making it appear in the voucher that funds
That on, about and during the period from June 1, 1977 up to June 30, 1977,
were available and that there were appropriate requests for allotments (ROA)
both dates inclusive, in the City of Cebu and in Cebu Province, and within the
to pay the aforesaid purchase; that a requisition for said item was made and
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused Rocilo Neis, Assistant District
approved; that a regular bidding was held; that a corresponding purchase order
Engineer of Cebu HED I; Rolando Mangubat, the Chief Accountant of Region VII
was issued in favor of the winning bidder; that the road construction materials
of the Ministry of Public Highways and Adventor Fernandez, Regional Highway
were delivered, inspected and used in the supposed project and that the alleged
Engineer of same Regional Office, conniving with each other to defraud the
supplier was entitled to payment when in truth and in fact, as all the accused
Philippine Government with the indispensable cooperation and assistance of
know, all of the foregoing were false and incorrect and because of the foregoing
Angelina Escañ o, Finance Officer of Region VII of the Ministry of Public
falsifications, the above-named accused were able to collect from the Cebu I
Highways; Delia Preagido, Assistant Chief Accountant of same Regional Office;
HED the total amount of FORTY EIGHT THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED THIRTY
Camilo de Letran, Chief Accountant of Cebu I HED; Manuel de Veyra, Regional
ONE PESOS & 85/100 (P48,431.85), Philippine Currency, in payment of the non- 2858 June 1, 1977 1. Request for 151.35 m. t. of item PhP
existing deliveries; that the said amount of P48,431.85 was not reflected in the up to July 31, Allocation 310 for use in the 47,713.09
monthly trial balance submitted to the Central Office by Region VII showing its 1977 Allotment 101- asphalting of the
financial condition as the same was negated thru the journal voucher, as a 6-234-76; 6- Toledo-Tabuelan
designed means to cover-up the fraud; and the accused, once in possession of 237-76; 6-239- road from Km.
the said amount, misappropriated, converted and misapplied the same for their 76; 6-241-76; 108.34 to Km.
personal needs, to the damage and prejudice of the Philippine Government in 6-240-76 109.52
the total amount of FORTY EIGHT THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED THIRTY ONE 2. General
PESOS & 85/100 (P48,431.85), Philippine Currency. Voucher No. B-
CONTRARY TO LAW. 629;
The Torrevillas cases were substantially the same save for the details 3. Check No.
highlighted in the aforequoted typical accusatory pleading. For ease of 9403115;
reference, Torrevillas’ criminal cases are particularized as follows:
Criminal Dates of Main Items Allegedly Amount 2859 June 1, 1977 1. Request for 110.01 m. t. of item PhP
Case No. Commission Documents Purchased of Fraud up to June 31, Allocation of 310 for use in 34,680.65
Falsified 1977 Allotment 101- asphalting of the
7-63-76; 8- Toledo-Tabuelan
2855 June 1, 1977 1. Request for 153.63 m. t. of item PhP 102-76; 8-121- road from Km.
up to June 30, Allocation of 310 for use in 48,431.85 76 108.34 to
1977 Allotment 101- asphalting of the 2. General Km.109.52
10-186-76; 10- Toledo-Tabuelan Voucher No. B-
190-76; 10- road from Km. 631;
192-76; 10- 108.34 to Km. 3. Check No.
188-76; 10- 109.52 9403117;
180-76;
2. General 2909 September 1, 1. General 1,200 cu.m. of item PhP
Voucher No. B- 1977 up to Voucher No. B- 108 for use in the 27,900.00
613; November 928; rehabilitation of
3. Check No. 30, 1977 2. Check No. the Buanoy-
9403099; 9403426; Cantibas, Balaban
barangay road
2856 June 1, 1977 1. Request for 153.76 m. t. of item PhP
up to June 30, Allocation of 310 for use in the 48,472.84 2910 September 1, 1. General 1,200 cu. m. of item PhP
1977 Allotment 101- asphalting of the 1977 up to Voucher No. B- 108 for use in the 27,900.00
10-15-76; 9- Toledo-Tabuelan November 929; rehabilitation of
201-76; 8-152- road from Km 30, 1977 2. Check No. the Magay-
76; 8-153- 108.34 to Km. 9403427; Canamukan,
76;9-181-76; 109.52 Compostela
9-184-76 barangay road
2. General
Voucher No. B- 2914 October 1, 1. General 1,200 cu. m. of item PhP
619; 1977 up to Voucher No. B- 108 for use in the 27,000.00
3. Check No. November 927; rehabilitation of
9403105; 30, 1977 2. Check No. the Cajel-Lugo,
9403425; Barbon barangay
 penalized in Articles 318 and 171, in relation to Article 48 of the Revised Penal
road
Code, and there being no modifying circumstances in attendance, hereby
2919 January 2, 1. General 1,550 cu. m. of item PhP sentences each of them to an indeterminate penalty ranging from six (6) years
1977 up to Voucher No. B- 108 for use in the 31,000.00 of prision correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years, eight (8) months and one
February 28, 244; repair and (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, with the accessory penalties provided by
1977 2. Check No. rehabilitation of law, to pay a fine of Three Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P 3,500.00); to
9933293; damaged roads and indemnify, jointly and severally the Republic of the Philippines in the amount of
bridges at the Twenty Eight Thousand Pesos (P 28,000.00); and, to pay their proportionate
Toledo-Tabuelan share of the costs.10 (Emphasis supplied.)
national road from In Criminal Case No. 2881, the Court finds accused CAMILO DE LETRAN, JOSE
Km. 71 to Km. 83 SAYSON, RAMON QUIRANTE, ZOSIMO MENDEZ and SIMON FERNAN, Jr.,
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals in the crime of Estafa thru
2932 June 1, 1977 1. Request for 250 gals of PhP falsification of Public Documents as defined and penalized in Articles 318 and
up to July 31, Allocation of aluminum paint 44,762.58 171, in relation to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, and there being no
1977 Allotment 101- 324 gals of red lead modifying circumstances in attendance, hereby sentences each of them to an
7-83-76; 7-84- paint for use in the indeterminate penalty ranging from six (6) years of prision correccional, as
76; 7-124-76; maintenance of minimum, to ten (10) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor,
8-153-76; 8- national roads and as maximum, with the accessory penalties provided by law, to pay a fine of
170-76; bridges Three Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P 3,500.00); to indemnify, jointly and
2. General severally the Republic of the Philippines in the amount of Thirty One Thousand
Voucher B- Pesos (P 31,000.00); and, to pay their proportionate share of the
643; costs.11 (Emphasis supplied.)
3. Check No. In Criminal Case No. 2885, the Court finds accused CAMILO DE LETRAN JOSE
9403130; SAYSON, RAMON QUIRANTE, ZOSIMO MENDEZ and SIMON FERNAN, Jr.,
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals in the crime of Estafa thru
The Sandiganbayan’s Ruling
falsification of Public Documents as defined and penalized in Articles 318 and
The anti-graft court was fully convinced of the guilt of petitioner Fernan, Jr.; and
171, in relation to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, and there being no
in its December 4, 1997 Decision, it found him criminally liable in the six (6)
modifying circumstances in attendance, hereby sentences each of them to an
cases against him, thus:
indeterminate penalty ranging from six (6) years of prision correccional, as
In Criminal Case No. 2879, the Court finds accused JOSE SAYSON, RAMON
minimum, to ten (10) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor,
QUIRANTE, MARIANO MONTERA, ZOSIMO MENDEZ, MARIANO JARINA
as maximum, with the accessory penalties provided by law, to pay a fine of
and SIMON FERNAN, Jr., GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals in
Three Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P 3,500.00); to indemnify, jointly and
the crime of Estafa thru falsification of Public Documents as defined and
severally the Republic of the Philippines in the amount of Thirty Thousand
penalized in Articles 318 and 171, in relation to Article 48 of the Revised Penal
Pesos (P 30,000.00); and, to pay their proportionate share of the
Code, and there being no modifying circumstances in attendance, hereby
costs.12 (Emphasis supplied.)
sentences each of them to an indeterminate penalty ranging from six (6) years
In Criminal Case No. 2914, the Court finds accused CAMILO DE LETRAN, JOSE
of prision correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years, eight (8) months and one
SAYSON, RAMON QUIRANTE, EXPEDITO TORREVILLAS and SIMON FERNAN, Jr.,
(1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, with the accessory penalties provided by
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals in the crime of Estafa thru
law, to pay a fine of Three Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P 3,500.00); to
falsification of Public Documents as defined and penalized in Articles 318 and
indemnify, jointly and severally the Republic of the Philippines in the amount of
171, in relation to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, and there being no
Twenty Eight Thousand Pesos (P 28,000.00); and, to pay their proportionate
modifying circumstances in attendance, hereby sentences each of them to an
share of the costs.9 (Emphasis supplied.)
indeterminate penalty ranging from six (6) years of prision correccional, as
In Criminal Case No. 2880, the Court finds accused CAMILO DE LETRAN, JOSE
minimum, to ten (10) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor,
SAYSON, RAMON QUIRANTE, MARIANO MONTERA, ZOSIMO MENDEZ,
as maximum, with the accessory penalties provided by law, to pay a fine of
and SIMON FERNAN, Jr., GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals in
Three Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P 3,500.00); to indemnify, jointly and
the crime of Estafa thru falsification of Public Documents as defined and
severally the Republic of the Philippines in the amount of Twenty Seven In Criminal Case No. 2858, the Court finds accused CAMILO DE LETRAN, JOSE
Thousand Pesos (P 27,000.00); and, to pay their proportionate share of the SAYSON, RAMON QUIRANTE, MARIANO MONTERA and EXPEDITO
costs.13 (Emphasis supplied.) TOREVILLAS, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals in the crime of
In Criminal Case No. 2918, the Court finds accused CAMILO DE LETRAN, JOSE Estafa thru Falsification of Public Documents as defined and penalized in
SAYSON, RAMON QUIRANTE, ZOSIMO MENDEZ, SIMON FERNAN, Jr. and Articles 318 and 171, in relation to Article 48 of the Revised Penal relation to
ISMAEL SABIO, Jr. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals in the Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, and there being no modifying
crime of Estafa thru falsification of Public Documents as defined and penalized circumstances in attendance, hereby sentences each of them to an
in Articles 318 and 171, in relation to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, and indeterminate penalty ranging from six (6) years of prision correccional, as
there being no modifying circumstances in attendance, hereby sentences each of minimum, to ten (10) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor,
them to an indeterminate penalty ranging from six (6) years of prision as maximum, with the accessory penalties provided by law, to pay a fine of
correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day Three Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P3,500.00); to indemnify, jointly and
of prision mayor, as maximum, with the accessory penalties provided by law, to severally the Republic of the Philippines in the amount of Forty Seven Thousand
pay a fine of Three Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P 3,500.00); to indemnify, Seven Hundred Thirteen Pesos and 9/100 (P47,713.09); and, to pay their
jointly and severally the Republic of the Philippines in the amount of Thirty proportionate share of the costs.
Thousand Pesos (P 30,000.00); and, to pay their proportionate share of the In Criminal Case No. 2859, the Court finds accused CAMILO DE LETRAN, JOSE
costs.14 (Emphasis supplied.) SAYSON, RAMON QUIRANTE, MARIANO MONTERA and EXPEDITO
Petitioner Torrevillas suffered the same fate and was convicted in the nine (9) TOREVILLAS, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals in the crime of
criminal cases, to wit: Estafa thru Falsification of Public Documents as defined and penalized in
In Criminal Case No. 2855, the Court finds accused CAMILO DE LETRAN, JOSE Articles 318 and 171, in relation to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, and
SAYSON, RAMON QUIRANTE, MARIANO MONTERA, and EXPEDITO there being no modifying circumstances in attendance, hereby sentences each of
TORREVILLAS GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals in the crime of them to an indeterminate penalty ranging from six (6) years of prision
Estafa thru falsification of Public Documents as defined and penalized in Articles correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day
318 and 171, in relation to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, and there being of prision mayor, as maximum, with the accessory penalties provided by law, to
no modifying circumstances in attendance, hereby sentences each of them to an pay a fine of Three Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P3,500.00); to indemnify,
indeterminate penalty ranging from six (6) years of prision correccional, as jointly and severally the Republic of the Philippines in the amount of Thirty
minimum, to ten (10) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor, Four Thousand Six Hundred Eighty pesos and 65/100 (P34,680.65); and , to pay
as maximum, with the accessory penalties provided by law, to pay a fine of their proportionate share of the costs.17
Three Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P 3,500.00); to indemnify, jointly and In Criminal Case No. 2909, the Court finds accused CAMILO DE LETRAN, JOSE
severally the Republic of the Philippines in the amount of Forty Eight Thousand SAYSON, RAMON QUIRANTE, FLORO JAYME and EXPEDITO
Four Hundred Thirty One Pesos and 85/100 (P 48,431.85); and, to pay their TORREVILLAS GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals in the crime of
proportionate share of the costs.15 (Emphasis supplied.) Estafa thru falsification of Public Documents as defined and penalized in Articles
In Criminal Case No. 2856, the Court finds accused CAMILO DE LETRAN, JOSE 318 and 171, in relation to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, and there being
SAYSON, RAMON QUIRANTE, MARIANO MONTERA and EXPEDITO no modifying circumstances in attendance, hereby sentences each of them to an
TORREVILLAS GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals in the crime of indeterminate penalty ranging from six (6) years of prision correccional, as
Estafa thru falsification of Public Documents as defined and penalized in Articles minimum, to ten (10) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor,
318 and 171, in relation to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, and there being as maximum, with the accessory penalties provided by law, to pay a fine of
no modifying circumstances in attendance, hereby sentences each of them to an Three Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P 3,500.00); to indemnify, jointly and
indeterminate penalty ranging from six (6) years of prision correccional, as severally the Republic of the Philippines in the amount of Twenty Seven
minimum, to ten (10) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor, Thousand Nine Hundred Pesos (P 27,900.00); and, to pay their proportionate
as maximum, with the accessory penalties provided by law, to pay a fine of share of the costs.18 (Emphasis supplied.)
Three Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P 3,500.00); to indemnify, jointly and In Criminal Case No. 2910, the Court finds accused CAMILO DE LETRAN, JOSE
severally the Republic of the Philippines in the amount of Forty Eight Thousand SAYSON, RAMON QUIRANTE, FLORO JAYME and EXPEDITO
Four Hundred Seventy Two Pesos and 84/100 (P 48,472.84); and, to pay their TORREVILLAS GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals in the crime of
proportionate share of the costs.16 (Emphasis supplied.) Estafa thru 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, hereby sentences each of them to an 3,500.00); to indemnify, jointly and severally the Republic of the Philippines in
indeterminate penalty ranging from six (6) years of prision correccional, as the amount of Forty Four Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Two Pesos and
minimum, to ten (10) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor, 58/100 (P 44,762.58); and, to pay their proportionate share of the
as maximum, with the accessory penalties provided by law, to pay a fine of costs.21 (Emphasis supplied.)
Three Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P 3,500.00); to indemnify, jointly and Petitioners made the supplication before the court a quo to recall the adverse
severally the Republic of the Philippines in the amount of Twenty Seven judgments against them which was declined by the August 29, 2000 SB
Thousand Nine Hundred Pesos (P 27,900.00); and, to pay their proportionate Resolution.
share of the costs.19 (Emphasis supplied.) Firm in their belief that they were innocent of any wrongdoing, they now
In Criminal Case No. 2914, the Court finds accused CAMILO DE LETRAN, JOSE interpose the instant petition to clear their names.
SAYSON, RAMON QUIRANTE, EXPEDITO TORREVILLAS and SIMON FERNAN, Jr., The Issues
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals in the crime of Estafa thru Petitioners put forward two (2) issues, viz:
falsification of Public Documents as defined and penalized in Articles 318 and I
171, in relation to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, and there being no The honorable Sandiganbayan totally ignored petitioners constitutional right to
modifying circumstances in attendance, hereby sentences each of them to an be presumed innocent when it ruled that the burden of convincing the hon.
indeterminate penalty ranging from six (6) years of prision correccional, as Court that the deliveries of the road materials attested to have been received by
minimum, to ten (10) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor, them were not ghost deliveries rests with the accused and not with the
as maximum, with the accessory penalties provided by law, to pay a fine of prosecution.
Three Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P 3,500.00); to indemnify, jointly and II
severally the Republic of the Philippines in the amount of Twenty Seven The honorable sandiganbayan erred in convicting petitioners as co-conspirators
Thousand Pesos (P 27,000.00); and, to pay their proportionate share of the despite the prosecution’s failure to specifically prove beyond reasonable doubt
costs. (Emphasis supplied.) the facts and circumstances that would implicate them as co-conspirators and
In Criminal Case No. 2919, the Court finds accused CAMILO DE LETRAN, JOSE justify their conviction.
SAYSON, RAMON QUIRANTE, MARIANO MONTERA, ZOSIMO The Court’s Ruling
MENDEZ, EXPEDITO TORREVILLAS and ISMAEL SABIO, Jr. GUILTY beyond We are not persuaded to nullify the verdict.
reasonable doubt as co-principals in the crime of Estafa thru falsification of Petitioners’ guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt
Public Documents as defined and penalized in Articles 318 and 171, in relation Petitioners mainly asseverate that their guilt was not shown beyond a
to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, and there being no modifying peradventure of doubt and the State was unable to show that government funds
circumstances in attendance, hereby sentences each of them to an were illegally released based on alleged ghost deliveries in conjunction with
indeterminate penalty ranging from six (6) years of prision correccional, as false or fake tally sheets and other documents which they admittedly signed.
minimum, to ten (10) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor, We are not convinced.
as maximum, with the accessory penalties provided by law, to pay a fine of Our Constitution unequivocally guarantees that in all criminal prosecutions, the
Three Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P 3,500.00); to indemnify, jointly and accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. 22 This sacred
severally the Republic of the Philippines in the amount of Thirty One Thousand task unqualifiedly means proving the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable
Pesos (P 31,000.00); and, to pay their proportionate share of the doubt. Definitely, "reasonable doubt" is not mere guesswork whether or not the
costs.20 (Emphasis supplied.) accused is guilty, but such uncertainty that "a reasonable man may entertain
In Criminal Case No. 2932, the Court finds accused CAMILO DE LETRAN, JOSE after a fair review and consideration of the evidence." Reasonable doubt is
SAYSON, RAMON QUIRANTE, MARIANO MONTERA, PEDRITO SEVILLE present when
and EXPEDITO TORREVILLAS GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as co- after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidences, leaves the
principals in the crime of Estafa thru falsification of Public Documents as minds of the [judges] in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding
defined and penalized in Articles 318 and 171, in relation to Article 48 of the conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge; a certainty that
Revised Penal Code, and there being no modifying circumstances in attendance, convinces and directs the understanding, and satisfies the reason and judgment
hereby sentences each of them to an indeterminate penalty ranging from six (6) of those who are bound to act conscientiously upon it.23
years of prision correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years, eight (8) months A thorough scrutiny of the records is imperative to determine whether or not
and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, with the accessory penalties reasonable doubt exists as to the guilt of accused Fernan, Jr. and Torrevillas.
provided by law, to pay a fine of Three Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P
Petitioners were charged with the complex crime of estafa through falsification such fake or irregular LAA’s and SACDC’s issued to Cebu I HED in 1977, the sale
of public documents as defined and penalized under Articles 318 and 171 in of such fake or irregular LAA’s and SACDC’s in said engineering district in the
relation to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, thus: said year and the participation of the accused thereon;
ART. 318. Other deceits. – The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine of not less (2) That in the event Mrs. Delia Preagido is presented to testify as a State
than the amount of the damage caused and not more than twice such amount witness in the instant cases without reproducing and adopting her previous
shall be imposed upon any person who shall defraud or damage another by any testimonies in the Mandaue City HED ’78 and the Danao City HED ’77 cases, she
deceit not mentioned in the preceding articles of this chapter. will identify documents and exhibits which have been previously marked and
ART. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee; or notary or ecclesiastical identified by other prosecution witness x x x.
minister. – The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos (3) That in the previous testimonies of Mrs. Delia Preagido in the Mandaue City
shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking HED ’78 and the Danao City HED ’77 cases, she identified twenty-six separate
advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of lists containing names of officials and employees of MPH, Regional Office No. VII,
the following acts: of the various Highways Engineering Districts in MPH, Region VII, and the MPH
xxxx Central Office who have allegedly received money or various sums from 1977 to
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts; 1978 out of the proceeds or sales of fake LAA’s in 1977 and 1978 and, therefore,
ART. 48. Penalty for complex crimes. – When a single act constitutes two or to obviate Mrs. Preagido’s previous testimony of these lists, the Prosecution
more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for hereby reproduces and adopts specifically such testimony and the markings of
committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the lists, i.e., Exhibits ‘KKK’, ‘KKK-1’ to ‘KKK-25’ in the Mandaue City HED ’78
the same to be applied in its maximum period. cases and Exhibits ‘0000’, ‘0000-1’ to ‘0000-25’ in the Danao City HED ’77 cases,
The complex crime is pruned into the following essential elements: substituted or re-marked accordingly as ‘Exhibits ‘LL’, ‘LL-1’ to ‘LL-25’ in the
For estafa instant cases.27
1. Deceit: Deceit is a specie of fraud. It is actual fraud, and consists in any false As a result of this MOA, the testimony of state witness Preagido on the modus
representation or contrivance whereby one person overreaches and misleads operandi of the conspirators, or the unique and distinct method of procedure by
another, to his hurt. There is deceit when one is misled, either by guile or which the malversation of public funds in Region VII of the MPH was
trickery or by other means, to believe to be true what is really false.24 perpetrated and accomplished, dealt a major blow to the defenses raised by
2. Damage: Damage may consist in the offended party being deprived of his petitioners. Preagido’s vital testimony, wherein she identified the methods,
money or property as a result of the defraudation, disturbance in property right, documents, exhibits, and other pertinent papers that led to the crafting of fake
or temporary prejudice.25 Letters of Advice of Allotment (LAAs),28 general vouchers, disbursement of
For falsification funds for non-existent projects, general vouchers, and other documents, was not
1. That the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public; even successfully refuted or overturned by petitioners.
2. That he takes advantage of his official position; Preagido confirmed and admitted under oath that the illegal disbursement of
3. That he falsifies a document by committing any of the acts defined under public funds pertained to non-existent projects and was supported by fake
Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code.26 LAAs, fake general vouchers, and other pertinent papers that were also falsified.
Before the SB, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) dated September 1, 1988 The fake LAAs and general vouchers were, in turn, supported by signed tally
was entered into between the State and the accused with the following sheets that pertained to alleged ghost deliveries of road construction materials
stipulations and admissions: for non-existent or illegal projects.
(1) To expedite the early termination of the instant cases and abbreviate the The fake tally sheets, delivery receipts, reports of inspection, requests for
testimony of Mrs. Delia Preagido, the prosecution and the accused have agreed supplies and materials, and other related documents signed on separate
to reproduce and adopt as the testimony of Preagido in the instant cases, her occasions by petitioners, which were attached as supporting documents to
previous testimonies in Criminal Cases Nos. 889, etc. (Mandaue City HED ’78 corresponding general vouchers; the alleged amounts and quantities of road
cases), on May 18 and 19, 1982 and in Criminal Cases Nos. 1446-1789, etc. construction materials delivered; and the specific fake general vouchers, checks,
(Danao City HED ’77 cases) on November 10, 1987 and March 14, 1988, both on and other pertinent documents issued which led to the illegal disbursement of
direct and cross examination x x x without prejudice to whatever direct and/or funds are summarized as follows:
cross examination question, that may be propounded by the Prosecution and Petitioner Fernan, Jr.
the accused on said State witness, which questions will only be limited to the Criminal Specific Main Documents Items Allegedly Purchased FAKE L
fake or irregular LAA’s and SACDC’s issued to Cebu I HED in 1977, the sale of Case No. Exhibits Falsified that authori
 Criminal
purchaseSpecific Exhibits Main Documents Items Allegedly FAKE LAAs Amount of Fra
2879 T-86-f-1, 1. General 1,400 cu. m. of item 108 for use inCase
Not No.
numbered Falsified Purchased that
etc. (Tally Voucher No. B- the repair of the Cebu Hagnaya contrary to authorized
Sheets) 15; Wharf road from Km. 50.30 to Km. official purchase
2. Check No. 60.00 procedureT-33-f (Delivery 1. Request for 153.63 m. t. of item 310 Not PhP 48,431.85
9933064; Receipt); T-33- Allocation of for use in asphalting of numbered
2880 T-87-f-1, 1. Request for 1,400 cu. m. of item 108 for use in Not numbered f-1 (Daily Tally Allotment 101-10- the Toledo-Tabuelan road contrary to
etc. (Tally Allocation of the repair of the Bogo-Curva- contrary Sheet); to 186-76; 10-190- from Km. 108.34 to Km. official
Sheets) Allotment 101- Medellon road from Km. 110.00 to official 76; 10-192-76; 10- 109.52 procedure
12-105-76; Km. 119.00 procedure 188-76; 10-180-
2. General 76;
Voucher No. B- 2. General Voucher
55; No. B-613;
3. Check No. 3. Check No.
9933104; 9403099;
2881 T-104-g-1, 1. Request for Approximately 1,500 cu. m. of item Not numbered T-34-f (Delivery 1. Request for 153.76 m. t. of item 310 Not PhP 48,472.84
etc. (Tally Allocation of 108 for use in the repair and contrary Receipt); to T-34- Allocation of for use in the asphalting numbered
Sheets) Allotment 101- rehabilitation of damaged roads and official f-1 (Daily Tally Allotment 101-10- of the Toledo-Tabuelan contrary to
2-56-77; bridges by Typhoon Aring at the procedure Sheet); 15-76; 9-201-76; road from Km 108.34 to official
2. General Tabogon-Bogo provincial road from 8-152-76; 8-153- Km. 109.52 procedure
Voucher No. B- Km. 92 to Km. 98 76;9-181-76; 9-
245; 184-76
3. Check No. 2. General Voucher
9933294; No. B-619;
2885 T-89-f-1, 1. Request for Materials for use in the repair and Not numbered 3. Check No.
etc. (Tally Allocation of rehabilitation of the Daan-Bantayan contrary to 9403105;
Sheets) Allotment 101- road from Km. 127.00 to Km. 136 official T-35-f (Delivery 1. Request for 151.35 m. t. of item 310 Not PhP 47,713.09
12-112-76; procedureReceipt); T-35- Allocation for use in the asphalting numbered
2. General f-1 (Daily Tally Allotment 101-6- of the Toledo-Tabuelan contrary to
Voucher No. B- Sheet); 234-76; 6-237-76; road from Km. 108.34 to official
76; 6-239-76; 6-241- Km. 109.52 procedure
3. Check No. 76; 6-240-76
9933125; 2. General Voucher
2914 T-115-g-1, 1. General 1,200 cu. m. of item 108 for use in   No. B-629;
etc. (Tally Voucher No. B- the rehabilitation of the Cajel-Lugo, 3. Check No.
Sheets) 927; Barbon barangay road 9403115;
2. Check No. T-36-f (Delivery 1. Request for 110.01 m. t. of item 310 Not PhP 34,680.65
9403425; Receipt); T-36- Allocation of for use in asphalting of numbered
2918 T-116-f-1, 1. General 1,500 cu. m. of item 108 for the Not numberedf-1 (Daily Tally Allotment 101-7- the Toledo-Tabuelan road contrary to
etc. (Tally Voucher No. B- rehabilitation of the Cebu North contrary Sheet); to 63-76; 8-102-76; from Km. 108.34 to official
Sheets) 107; Hagnaya Wharf road from Km. 71 to official 8-121-76 Km.109.52 procedure
2. Check No. Km. 76 procedure 2. General Voucher
9933157; No. B-631;
Petitioner Torrevillas 3. Check No.
9403117;
09 T-113-b 1. General Voucher 1,200 cu.m. of item 108 Not PhP 27,900.00 3. Check No.
(Request for No. B-928; for use in the numbered 9403130;
Supplies and 2. Check No. rehabilitation of the contrary to On the part of petitioners, they readily admitted that they either signed the tally
Equipment); T- 9403426; Buanoy-Cantibas, Balaban official sheets and/or delivery receipts, reports of inspection, requests for supplies and
113-d (Report barangay road procedure materials, and other related documents which became part of the supporting
of Inspection); documents that led to the issuance of general vouchers and eventually the
T-113-c disbursement of public funds.29 The tally sheets are statements of delivery that
(Abstract of purportedly indicated the specified quantities of materials for the construction
Sealed and maintenance of roads that have been delivered on supposed project sites on
Quotation) given dates at specific places.
10 T-114-c 1. General Voucher 1,200 cu. m. of item 108 Not PhP 27,900.00As a result of petitioners’ signatures in the tally sheets and/or delivery receipts,
(Request for No. B-929; for use in the numbered reports of inspection, requests for supplies and materials, and other supporting
Supplies and 2. Check No. rehabilitation of the contrary to documents—which became the basis for payment to suppliers—public funds
Equipment); T- 9403427; Magay-Canamukan, official were released via general vouchers and checks to the said suppliers despite the
114-e (Report Compostela barangay procedure fact that the latter did not make any deliveries in accordance with projects
of Inspection); road allegedly funded by mostly fake LAAs.
T-114-f The accusation that there were no actual deliveries of road construction and
(Abstract of maintenance materials in support of projects or otherwise funded by LAAs was
Sealed proven true by the testimonies of the various barangay captains and residents
Quotation) of the barangay who were supposed to be benefited by the construction and
14 T-115-c 1. General Voucher 1,200 cu. m. of item 108 Not PhP 27,000.00repair activities of the Cebu First Highway Engineering District. The testimonies
(Request for No. B-927; for use in the numbered of these barangay captains and residents are summarized as follows:30
Supplies and 2. Check No. rehabilitation of the Cajel- contrary to 1. MACARIO LIMALIMA, Barangay Captain of Barangay Antipolo, Medellin, Cebu,
Equipment); T- 9403425; Lugo, Barbon barangay official testified that his barangay is traversed by the national highway stretching to a
115-e (Report road procedure distance of 2 kilometers and 750 meters (Km. 122; Km. 123 to 125). He
of Inspection); described the road as full of potholes. Except for filling up these potholes with
T-115-f "anapog" or crushed limestone, no major repairs were undertaken on the said
(Abstract of road in 1978 or in previous years. (TSN., pp. 6-14, June 5, 1986).31
Sealed 2. FELOMINO ORBISO, Barangay Captain of Cawit, Medellin, Cebu, from 1972 to
Quotation) 1981, testified that his barangay is traversed by the national highway,
19 T-117-g 1. General Voucher 1,550 cu. m. of item 108 Not PhP 31,000.00stretching from Km. 125 to Km. 127.9. He described the road as a rough or dirt
(Delivery No. B-244; for use in the repair and numbered road. No improvement was ever made on this road whether during the year
Receipt); T-117- 2. Check No. rehabilitation of damaged contrary to when he gave his statement to the NBI (1978) or in previous years. The road
g-1, etc. (Daily 9933293; roads and bridges at the official remained in bad shape, with numerous potholes which the camineros merely
Tally Sheets) Toledo-Tabuelan national procedure filled up with limestone. (TSN., pp.14-19, June 5, 1986).32
road from Km. 71 to Km. 3. TIMOTEO ANCAJAS, Barangay Captain of Paypay, Daan Bantayan, Cebu, from
83 1972 to 1982, testified that his barangay is traversed by the national highway,
stretching from Km. 132 to Km. 134 ½, or a distance of 2 ½ kilometers. He
32   1. Request for 250 gals of aluminum Not PhP 44,762.58
described the portion of the highway as a rough road with potholes. He stated
Allocation of paint 324 gals of red lead numbered
that the only improvement done on this road was the filling up of the potholes
Allotment 101-7- paint for use in the contrary to
with "anapog" or crushed limestone and this was done only once in 1977. It
83-76; 7-84-76; 7- maintenance of national official
even took the camineros three months from the time the limestones were
124-76; 8-153-76; roads and bridges procedure
delivered to start working on the road. (TSN., pp. 20-26, June 5, 1986).33
8-170-76;
4. LUCIA PEÑ AFLOR, Barangay Captain of Don Pedro, Bogo, Cebu, from 1966 to
2. General Voucher
1982, testified that her barangay is traversed by the national highway,
B-643;
stretching from Km. 103 to Km. 105 ½, up to the boundary of San Remigio, and national highway covering a distance of ½ kilometers more or less. In 1977, this
from the boundary to Daan Bantayan, a distance of more than 3 kilometers. It portion of the national highway was a rough road with potholes. In the same
was only in 1984 or 1985 when this portion of the national highway was year, camineros worked on the road, using wheelbarrows, shovels and rakes,
asphalted. Prior to that, the road was maintained by filling up the potholes with pitching up the potholes with anapog. (TSN., pp. 29-35, June 6, 1986).40
crushed limestone or "anapog." These potholes started to appear between 11. PEDRO ORSAL, Barangay Captain of Poblacion, San Remigio, Cebu, from
January and June of 1977. However, as alleged by her in her affidavit (Exh. II-1- January 1972 to 1980, testified that his barangay is traversed by the national
d), these potholes were filled up only from January to June, 1978. (TSN., pp. 28- highway, from Km. 107 to Km. 110, or a distance of three kilometers more or
46, June 5, 1986).34 less. In 1977, the road from Km. 107 to Km. 108 was a gravel road. It was
5. MARCELO CONEJOS, Barangay Captain of Tapilon, Daan Bantayan, from 1972 properly maintained by the highways people, and every time potholes appeared
to 1982, testified that his barangay is traversed by the national highway, on the road, they would be filled-up with anapog. This material was dumped
stretching from Km. 130 to Km. 134, or a distance of 4 kilometers. In 1977, said along the road by trucks of the Bureau of Public Highways. On the other hand,
portion of the national highway was in bad condition and that nothing was done the road leading to the heart of the poblacion was asphalted, but with potholes.
to improve it until 1982, except for the time when the potholes were filled up In 1977, the potholes were filled up by camineros with gravel delivered by
with crushed limestones. (TSN., pp. 48-56, June 5, 1986).35 dump trucks of the Bureau of Public Highways. It was only in 1978 when the
6. REMEDIOS FELICANO, Barangay Captain of Looc, San Remigio, Cebu from road was re-asphalted and extended from the junction of the poblacion to the
1977 to 1982, testified that her barangay is traversed by the national highway, adjacent barrio of Looc. x x x (TSN., pp.36-45, June 6, 1986).41
stretching form Km. 109 to Km. 110. She described said portion of the national The inescapable conclusion from the aforementioned testimonies of the
highway as "stoney." The only maintenance work undertaken to improve the barangay captains and residents of Cebu whose respective barangay are
road was the filling up of potholes with crushed limestone which camineros traversed by the national highway is that there were no actual major repair
gathered from the roadside. (TSN., pp.57-67, June 5, 1986).36 works undertaken on the national highway except the filling of potholes by
7. ALBERTO BRANSUELA, a resident of Barangay San Jose, Catmon, Cebu, from crushed limestone (anapog). Clearly, there were no deliveries of supplies and
1974 to 1978, testified that barangay San Jose is traversed by the national materials for asphalting and repair of roads described in the tally sheets and
highway (Km. 58), covering a distance of ½ kilometer more or less. He stated other supporting documents signed by petitioners.
that while this portion of the national highway was already asphalted as of While petitioner Torrevillas presented Vice-Mayor Emigdio Tudlasan of
1977, there were potholes which the camineros filled up with anapog taken Tabuclan, Cebu, who testified that he saw the asphalting of the Tabuclan Road
from the roadside. (TSN., pp. 69-80), June 5, 1986).37 from kilometers 18 to 19, said testimony is not conclusive on the actual delivery
8. CARIDAD PUNLA, Acting Barangay Captain of Barangay Corazon, Catmon, of the supplies indicated in the tally sheets, as Tudlasan was not present at the
Cebu, from 1977 to 1982, testified that the Poblacion of Catmon is traversed by time of alleged delivery. Moreover, his testimony runs counter to the
the national highway, stretching from Km. 57 to Km. 58. In 1977, only more than testimonies of Barangay Captain Remedios Feliciano of Looc, San Remigio, Cebu
½ of this portion of the national highway was cemented while the remaining and Barangay Captain Pedro Orsal of Poblacion, San Remigio, Cebu. Feliciano
portion was asphalted. While said portion of the national highway already had testified that she was Barangay Captain of Looc, San Remigio, Cebu from 1977 to
cracks and potholes as of 1977, the real problem was the uneven elevation of 1982; that her barangay is traversed by the national highway, stretching from
the surface of the shoulder of the road. No general repair was undertaken by the km. 109 to km. 110; and that the only work undertaken to improve the road was
authorities to correct the uneven elevation, except for the work done by the the filling up of potholes with crushed limestone which camineros gathered
camineros who covered up the potholes. (TSN., pp. 81-89, June 5, 1986).38 from the roadside. On the other hand, Orsal testified that he was Barangay
9. FELIPE MOLIT, Barangay Captain of Bao, Sugud, Cebu, from 1975 to 1982, Captain of Poblacion, San Remigio, Cebu, from January 1972 to 1980; that his
testified that barangay Bao was traversed by the national highway, stretching barangay is traversed by the national highway, from km. 107 to km. 110; that in
from Km. 59 to Km. 60 1/2. He described said portion of the national highway as 1977, the road from km. 107 to km. 108 was a gravel road maintained by the
a gravel road surfaced with anapog. In 1977, the said road already had potholes highways people, and every time potholes appeared on the road, they would be
which maintenance men filled up with anapog beginning in March, 1977. The filled-up with anapog, which was dumped along the road by the Bureau of
anapog was hauled in from Km. 64, the usual excavation place of anapog. It took Public Highways; and that it was only in 1978 when the road was re-asphalted
only 3 truckloads of anapog to cover the entire length of the 1 ½ kilometers and extended from the junction of the poblacion to the adjacent barrio of Looc.
traversing their barangay. (TSN., pp. 90-99, June 5, 1986).39 Compared to the testimony of Vice-Mayor Tudlasan, the testimonies of
10. LEONARDO PINOTE, Barangay Captain of Barangay Argawanon, San Barangay Captains Feliciano and Orsal are entitled to more weight and credit,
Remigio, Cebu, from 1972 to 1980, testified that his barangay is traversed by the and are more credible considering the fact that they are residents of the area
where the road supposedly to be repaired is located plus the fact that they saw rehabilitation in Region VII, which were the subjects of the criminal cases where
only limestone, not asphalt, that was used in the repair of the road in 1977. The petitioners were charged.
testimonies of Feliciano and Orsal are further buttressed by the findings and We find no reason to disturb the findings of the court a quo that all the essential
statements of government witnesses, namely––Ruth Inting Paredes, Supervising elements of the crime of estafa through falsification of public documents were
Commission on Audit (COA) Auditor assigned to Region VII; Felicitas Cruz Ona, present. There is no question that petitioners, at the time of the commission of
Supervising COA Auditor assigned to the main COA office; Federico A. Malvar, the crime, were public officers—civil engineers—assigned to the MPH. Their
Senior National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Agent of the Anti-Graft Section signing of tally sheets and related documents pertaining to the alleged
and member of the COA NBI team assigned to investigate the anomalies; Rogelio deliveries of supplies for road repair and construction constitutes intervention
C. Mamaril, Supervising NBI Agent of the Anti-Fraud and Action Section; and and/or taking advantage of their official positions, especially considering that
Delia Comahig Preagido, Accountant III, MPH, Region VII––to the effect that the they had the duty to inspect the purported deliveries and ascertain the veracity
general vouchers and LAAs that corresponded to the aforementioned tally of the documents and the statements contained in them.
sheets signed by petitioner Torrevillas were fake or falsified. Undeniably, the The tally sheets bearing their signatures contained false recitals of material
government witnesses have no motive to testify falsely against petitioner facts which the petitioners had the duty to verify and confirm. These tally sheets
Torrevillas and, hence, credible. We conclude that there were no actual were attached as supporting documents to fake LAAs and subsequently became
deliveries of supplies for asphalting of road and repair on kilometers 108 and the bases for the disbursement of public funds to the damage and prejudice of
109, which were the subjects of Criminal Case Nos. 2855, 2856, 2858, and 2859. the government. Indubitably, there exists not even an iota of doubt as to
Glaring is the finding of the SB that the Cebu First Highway Engineering District, petitioners’ guilt.
to which petitioners were assigned, had fake LAAs totaling to PhP 4,924,366.50, The essential elements of estafa through falsification of public documents are
while the fake Cash Disbursement Ceilings issued amounted to PhP present in the cases against petitioners, as follows:
6,271,150.42 The Cebu First Highway Engineering District had also issued checks 1. Deceit: Petitioners Fernan, Jr. and Torrevillas made it appear that supplies for
per unrecorded reports in the total sum of PhP 1,135,176.82. 43 Therefore, the road construction and maintenance were delivered by suppliers allegedly in
total illegal disbursements in the Cebu First Highway Engineering District alone furtherance of alleged lawful projects when in fact said supplies were not
were a staggering PhP 12,330,693.32 circa 1977. delivered and no actual asphalting or repair of road was implemented. In doing
Of this total, petitioner Fernan, Jr. freely admitted signing tally sheets which so, petitioners:
pertained to non-existent deliveries of road construction supplies and materials 1.1. Were public officers or employees at the time of the commission of the
totaling PhP 146,000,44 including PhP 27,000 in Criminal Case No. 2914 where offenses;
petitioner Torrevillas was among the co-accused.45 These tally sheets were 1.2. Took advantage of their official position as highway engineers; and
attached as the supporting papers to fake general vouchers which facilitated the 1.3. Made untruthful statements in several narrations of fact.
release of check payments to suppliers. 2. Damage: The government disbursed PhP 146,000 in the case of Fernan, Jr.
These checks were allegedly paid to suppliers Juliana de los Angeles (Criminal and PhP 337,861.01 in the case of Torrevillas, as payments to various suppliers
Case Nos. 2879, 2880, 2881, 2885, and 2914) and Ismael Sabio, Jr. (Criminal for the delivery of non-existent supplies.
Case No. 2918).46 By way of defense, petitioners posit that the tally sheets and other documents
On his part, petitioner Torrevillas voluntarily admitted to signing tally sheets, could in fact be traced to genuine LAAs that were in the custody of the NBI.
reports of inspection, requisitions of supplies and equipment, and other Unfortunately, these genuine LAAs were not introduced in evidence. It is an age-
pertinent documents totaling an even greater amount of PhP old axiom that s/he who alleges something must prove it. Petitioners’ assertion
337,861.01,47 including PhP 27,000 in Criminal Case No. 2914 where petitioner that the documents they signed were all genuine and duly covered by genuine
Fernan, Jr. was among the co-accused.48 These documents signed by petitioner LAAs was substantiated only by their own self-serving and uncorroborated
Torrevillas were likewise attached as supporting papers to fake general testimonies. We hesitate to give much weight and credit to their bare
vouchers which facilitated the release of check payments to suppliers. testimonies in the face of clear, convincing, overwhelming, and hard evidence
These checks were allegedly paid to suppliers Rufino V. Nuñ ez (Criminal Case adduced by the State.
Nos. 2855, 2856, 2858, and 2859), Juliana de los Angeles (Criminal Case Nos. If the genuine LAAs were vital to their defense, and they firmly believed that the
2909, 2910, and 2914), Ismael Sabio, Jr. (Criminal Case No. 2919), and Manuel documents were indeed in the custody of the NBI, then petitioners could have
Mascardo (Criminal Case No. 2932).49 easily procured the compulsory process to compel the production of said
These general vouchers and checks could not be traced to genuine LAAs. Ergo, documents. However, petitioners miserably failed to avail of subpoena duces
there were no actual deliveries of supplies and materials for the road repair and tecum which the court a quo could have readily granted. The inability to
produce such important and exculpatory pieces of evidence proved disastrous Mangubat enticed Preagido, Cruz and Sayson to join him. All three agreed to
to petitioners’ cause. Their conviction was indeed supported by proof beyond help him carry out his plan. They typed fake LAAs during Saturdays. Cruz and
reasonable doubt which was not overturned by defense evidence. Sayson also took charge of negotiating or selling fake LAAs to contractors at
Petitioners acted in conspiracy with one another 26% of the gross amount. Preagido manipulated the general ledger, journal
Petitioners vigorously claim error on the part of the lower court when it made vouchers and general journal through negative entries to conceal the illegal
the finding that they were co-conspirators with the other parties accused disbursements. In the initial report of COA auditors Victoria C. Quejada and Ruth
despite the dearth of evidence to amply demonstrate complicity. I. Paredes it was discovered that the doubtful allotments and other anomalies
We are not convinced by petitioners’ postulation. escaped notice due to the following manipulations:
Indeed, the burden of proving the allegation of conspiracy falls to the shoulders "The letter-advices covering such allotments (LAA) were not signed by the
of the prosecution. Considering, however, the difficulty in establishing the Finance Officer nor (sic) recorded in the books of accounts. Disbursements
existence of conspiracy, settled jurisprudence finds no need to prove it by direct made on the basis of these fake LAAs were charged to the unliquidated
evidence. In People v. Pagalasan, the Court explicated why direct proof of prior obligations (Account 8-81-400), although the obligations being paid were not
agreement is not necessary: among those certified to the unliquidated obligations (Account 8-81-400) at the
After all, secrecy and concealment are essential features of a successful end of the preceding year. To conceal the overcharges to authorized allotments,
conspiracy. Conspiracies are clandestine in nature. It may be inferred from the account 8-81-400 (sic) and the excess of checks issued over authorized cash
conduct of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime, disbursements ceiling, adjustments were prepared monthly through journal
showing that they had acted with a common purpose and design. Conspiracy vouchers to take up the negative debit to Account 8-81-400 and a negative
may be implied if it is proved that two or more persons aimed their acts credit to the Treasury Checking Account for Agencies Account 8-70-790. These
towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so journal vouchers in effect cancelled the previous entry to record the
that their combined acts, though apparently independent of each other, were in disbursements made on the basis of fake LAAs. Thus the affected accounts
fact, connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association (Accounts 8-81-400 and 8-70-790), as appearing in the trial balance, would not
and a concurrence of sentiment. To hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by show the irregularity. The checks, however, were actually issued."52
reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed an overt act in The four formed the nucleus of the nefarious conspiracy. Other government
pursuance or furtherance of the complicity. There must be intentional employees, tempted by the prospect of earning big money, allowed their names
participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common to be used and signed spurious documents.
design and purpose.50 xxxx
In Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, we categorized two (2) structures of multiple 3. Cebu First Highway Engineering District Anomalies
conspiracies, namely: (1) the so-called "wheel" or "circle" conspiracy, in which Focusing our attention now on the anomalies committed in the Cebu First
there is a single person or group (the "hub") dealing individually with two or District Engineering District, hereinafter referred to as the Cebu First HED for
more other persons or groups (the "spokes"); and (2) the "chain" conspiracy, brevity, the Court finds that the same pattern of fraud employed in the other
usually involving the distribution of narcotics or other contraband, in which highway engineering districts in MPH Region VII was followed. The Cebu First
there is successive communication and cooperation in much the same way as HED received from Region VII thirty-four Letters of Advice of Allotment (LAAs)
with legitimate business operations between manufacturer and wholesaler, in the total sum of P4,734,336.50 and twenty-nine (29) corresponding Sub-
then wholesaler and retailer, and then retailer and consumer.51 Advices of Cash Disbursement Ceiling (SACDCs), amounting to P5,160,677.04
We find that the conspiracy in the instant cases resembles the "wheel" for the period January 1, 1977 to December 31, 1977. But apart from this, the
conspiracy. The 36 disparate persons who constituted the massive conspiracy Cebu First HED appears to have also received for the same period another set of
to defraud the government were controlled by a single hub, namely: Rolando eighty-four (84) LAAs amounting to P4,680,694.76 which however, could not be
Mangubat (Chief Accountant), Delia Preagido (Accountant III), Jose Sayson traced to any Sub-Advice of Allotment (SAA) OR MATCHED TO THE Advices of
(Budget Examiner), and Edgardo Cruz (Clerk II), who controlled the separate Cash Disbursement Ceiling (ACDCs) received from the MPH and Regional Office.
"spokes" of the conspiracy. Petitioners were among the many spokes of the This is highly irregular and not in consonance with accounting procedures.
wheel. It was also made to appear that the payments were made for alleged prior year’s
We recall the painstaking efforts of the SB through Associate Justice Cipriano A. obligations and chargeable to Account 81-400, obviously because, they were not
Del Rosario, Chairperson of the Third Division, in elaborating the intricate web properly funded. Furthermore, the list of projects in Region VII for 1977 showed
of conspiracy among the accused, thus: that Cebu first HED completed rehabilitation and/or improvement of roads and
bridges in its districts from February to May, 1977, with expenditures
amounting to P613,812.00. On the other hand, the expenditures for barangay Grand Total ………. P3,839,810.74
roads in the same district in 1977 amounted to P140,692.00, and these were all A total of 132 General Vouchers, emanating from fake LAAs and ACDCs, were
completed within the period from November to December, 1977. These traced back to Rolando Mangubat, Regional Accountant of Region VII and
completed projects were properly funded by legitimate LAAs and CDCs in the Adventor Fernandez, Regional Highway Engineer, also of Region VII. Those
total amount of only P754,504.00. However, an additional amount of LAAs and ACDCs became the vehicles in the disbursement of funds amounting
P3,839,810.74, was spent by the Cebu First HED for maintenance of roads and to P3,839,810.74, through the vouchers purportedly issued for the purchase and
bridges for the same year (1977) but the same could not be traced to any delivery of the aforementioned materials allegedly used for the maintenance
authoritative document coming from the MPH. and repair of the national highways within the Cebu First HED. Despite the
The following payments for materials purchased for the year 1977 were made enormous additional expenditure of P3,839,810.74, the roads and bridges in the
to appear as payment for prior year’s obligation and were paid out of fake LAAs: district, as found out by the NBI, did not show any improvement (Exhibit II). As
Supplier No. of Kind of testified to by several barangay captains, the road maintenance consisted
Measurement Amount
Vouchers Materials merely of spreading anapog or limestone on potholes of the national Highway.
Rufino Nuñ ez 29 Item 310 4,640,275 mt P1,374,135.00 Obviously, the vouchers for payments of alleged maintenance of roads and
J. delos Angeles 21 Item 108 22,290 cu.m. 433,300.00 bridges in the additional amount of P3,839,810.74 were prepared for no other
purpose than to siphon off the said amount from the government coffer into the
Iluminada Vega 11 Item 108 8,325 cu.m. 191,500.00
pockets of some officials and employees of Region VII and the Cebu First HED,
Florencio Gacayan 10 Item 108 7,800 cu.m. 156,000.00 as well as the suppliers and contractors who conspired and confederated with
Ismael Sabio, Jr. 6 Item 108 6,198 cu.m. 123,960.00 them.53
FBS Marketing 3 Lumber   70,610.00 After a close re-examination of the records, the Court finds no reason to disturb
Cebu Hollow Blocks 2 Hollow Blocks   19,880.00 the finding of the anti-graft court that petitioners are co-conspirators of the
Bienvenido Presillas 4 Equip. Rental   29,580.00 other accused, headed by Chief Accountant Rolando Mangubat, who were
T.R. Eustaquio Ent. 1 Office Supplies   7,461.90 similarly convicted in practically all the 119 counts of estafa. Undisturbed is the
Santrade Mktg. 1 Johnson   rule that this Court is not a trier of facts and in the absence of strong and
8,392.90 compelling reasons or justifications, it will accord finality to the findings of facts
Products
of the SB. The feeble defense of petitioners that they were not aware of the
Pelagia Gomez 1 Item 108 2,000 cu.m. 40,000.00
ingenuous plan of the group of accused Mangubat and the indispensable acts to
M & M Ent. 1 Paints   49,736.20 defraud the government does not merit any consideration. The State is not
Freent Ind. 1 Office Supplies   590.20 tasked to adduce direct proof of the agreement by petitioners with the other
      Total……… P2,505,147.00 accused, for such requirement, in many cases, would border on near
The NBI also discovered that there were purchases of materials in 1977 that impossibility. The State needs to adduce proof only when the accused
were charged to current obligations but paid out of spurious LAAs, to wit: committed acts that constitute a vital connection to the chain of conspiracy or in
Supplier No. of Kind of furtherance of the objective of the conspiracy. In the case at bench, the signing
Measurement Amount
Vouchers Materials of the fake tally sheets and/or delivery receipts, reports of inspection, and
Rufino Nuñ ez 11 Item 310 162,549 m.t. requests for supplies and materials by petitioners on separate occasions is vital
P529,475.00 to the success of the Mangubat Group in siphoning off government funds.
Item 108 5,000 cu.m.
Juliana delos Angeles 16 Item 108 13,280 cu.m. P276,400.00 Without such fabricated documents, the general vouchers covering the supply
Item 111 1,00 cu.m. 24,000.00 of materials cannot be properly accomplished and submitted to the disbursing
Item 200 307 cu.m. 7,982.00 officer for the preparation of checks.
Iluminada Vega 3 Item 108 3,600 cu.m. 72,090.00 State witness Ruth Paredes, Supervising COA Auditor, elaborated on the
procedure regarding the award of the contract more specifically to the payment
Florencio Gacayan 2 Item 108 2,400.00 cu.m. 48,000.00
of the contractor or supplier. Once the Request for Supplies and Equipment is
Vicon Ent. 1 Steel Frame   19,042.74 approved by the Regional Office, the Request for Obligation of Allotment (ROA)
Ismael Sabio, Jr. 5 Item 108 6,950 cu.m. 139,000.00 or the request for funds is signed by the District Engineer pursuant to the
Jabcyl Mktg. 3 Bridge Materials   128,764.80 approved plans and budget and signed by the district accountant as to
      Total……… P1,339,663.74 availability of funds.
The district office will advertise the invitation to bid and award the contract to Where the acts of each of the accused constitute an essential link in a chain and
the lowest bidder. The Purchase Order (PO) is prepared and addressed to the the desistance of even one of them would prevent the chain from being
winning bidder. Upon delivery of the supplies and materials, the supplier bills completed, then no conspiracy could result as its consummation would then be
the district office for payment. Consequently, the requisitioning officer will impossible or aborted. But when each and everyone of the accused in the
prepare the general voucher which must be accompanied by the following instant cases performed their assigned tasks and roles with martinet-like
documents: precision and accuracy, by individually performing essential overt acts, so much
a. The ROA; so that the common objective is attained, which is to secure the illegal release of
b. The PO; public funds under the guise of fake or simulated public documents, then each
c. The abstract of Bid together with the Bid quotations; and everyone of said accused are equally liable as co-principals under the well-
d. The delivery receipts together with the tally sheets; and established and universally-accepted principle that, once a conspiracy is
e. The tax clearance and tax certificate of the supplier. directly or impliedly proven, the act of one is the act of all and such liability
After the preparation and submission of the general voucher and the supporting exists notwithstanding no-participation in every detail in the execution of the
documents, the disbursing officer shall prepare and draw a check based on said offense.54
voucher. The check is countersigned by an officer of the district office and/or In sum, the required quantum of proof has been adduced by the State on the
the COA Regional Director based on the amount of the check. conspiracy among the accused including petitioners. The conviction of
Thus, it is clear that without the tally sheets and delivery receipts, the general petitioners must perforce be sustained.
voucher cannot be prepared and completed. Without the general voucher, the WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition and AFFIRM the December 4, 1997
check for the payment of the supply cannot be made and issued to the supplier. Decision of the SB in the consolidated criminal cases subject of this petition.
Without the check payment, the defraudation cannot be committed and No costs.
successfully consummated. Thus, petitioners’ acts in signing the false tally SO ORDERED.
sheets and/or delivery receipts are indispensable to the consummation of the
crime of estafa thru falsification of public documents. Surely, there were ghost G.R. No. 148965               February 26, 2002
or false deliveries of supplies and materials as convincingly shown by the JOSE "JINGGOY" E. ESTRADA, petitioner,
testimonies of the barangay captains, officials, and residents of the areas where vs.
the materials were allegedly used. More importantly, if there were actual SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION), PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and
deliveries of materials made, then there would be no need to fake the LAAs OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, respondents.
because the suppliers will have to be paid the cost of said materials plus a DECISION
reasonable profit. As a result, there is nothing or not much to share with the PUNO, J.:
more than 30 or so co-conspirators, for the suppliers would not be too dim- A law may not be constitutionally infirm but its application to a particular party
witted to part with even their cost in buying the materials they allegedly may be unconstitutional. This is the submission of the petitioner who invokes
supplied. Moreover, the fake delivery receipts and tally sheets signed by the equal protection clause of the Constitution in his bid to be excluded from the
petitioners were linked to the general vouchers upon which check payments charge of plunder filed against him by the respondent Ombudsman.
were made to the suppliers who were found guilty of participating in the fraud. The antecedent facts are as follows:
With respect to petitioner Fernan, Jr., he signed tally sheets on the ghost In November 2000, as an offshoot of the impeachment proceedings against
deliveries of Juliana de los Angeles and Ismael Sabio, Jr. On the part of petitioner Joseph Ejercito Estrada, then President of the Republic of the Philippines, five
Torrevillas, he signed false tally sheets and delivery receipts on supplies criminal complaints against the former President and members of his family, his
allegedly delivered by Rufino V. Nuñ ez, Juliana de los Angeles, Ismael Sabio, Jr., associates, friends and conspirators were filed with the respondent Office of the
and Manuel Mascardo. Lastly, the checks issued to these suppliers based on Ombudsman.
general vouchers supported by the false tally sheets and general vouchers On April 4, 2001, the respondent Ombudsman issued a Joint Resolution1 finding
signed by petitioners cannot be traced to any genuine LAAs, resulting in the probable cause warranting the filing with the Sandiganbayan of several criminal
inescapable conclusion that these LAAs were unauthorized; hence, fake or Informations against the former President and the other respondents therein.
fabricated. These are undisputed tell-tale signs of the complicity by petitioners One of the Informations was for the crime of plunder under Republic Act No.
with the Mangubat syndicate. 7080 and among the respondents was herein petitioner Jose "Jinggoy" Estrada,
In People v. Mangubat, the court a quo elucidated the conspiracy in the Cebu then mayor of San Juan, Metro Manila.
highway scam in a trenchant manner:
The Information was amended and filed on April 18, 2001. Docketed as Criminal The following day, July 10, 2001, petitioner moved for reconsideration of the
Case No. 26558, the case was assigned to respondent Third Division of the Resolution. Respondent court denied the motion and proceeded to arraign
Sandiganbayan. The arraignment of the accused was set on July 10, 2001 and no petitioner. Petitioner refused to make his plea prompting respondent court to
bail for petitioner’s provisional liberty was fixed. enter a plea of "not guilty" for him.8
On April 24, 2001, petitioner filed a "Motion to Quash or Suspend" the Amended Hence, this petition. Petitioner claims that respondent Sandiganbayan acted
Information on the ground that the Anti-Plunder Law, R.A. No. 7080, is without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting
unconstitutional and that it charged more than one offense. Respondent to lack of jurisdiction in:
Ombudsman opposed the motion. "1) not declaring that R.A. No. 7080 is unconstitutional on its face and, as
On April 25, 2001, the respondent court issued a warrant of arrest for petitioner applied to petitioner, and denying him the equal protection of the laws;
and his co-accused. On its basis, petitioner and his co-accused were placed in 2) not holding that the Plunder Law does not provide complete and sufficient
custody of the law. standards;
On April 30, 2001, petitioner filed a "Very Urgent Omnibus Motion"2 alleging 3) sustaining the charge against petitioner for alleged offenses, and with alleged
that: (1) no probable cause exists to put him on trial and hold him liable for conspirators, with which and with whom he is not even remotely connected -
plunder, it appearing that he was only allegedly involved in illegal gambling and contrary to the dictum that criminal liability is personal, not vicarious - results
not in a "series or combination of overt or criminal acts" as required in R.A. No. in the denial of substantive due process;
7080; and (2) he is entitled to bail as a matter of right. Petitioner prayed that he 4) not fixing bail for petitioner for alleged involvement in jueteng in one count
be excluded from the Amended Information and be discharged from custody. In of the information which amounts to cruel and unusual punishment totally in
the alternative, petitioner also prayed that he be allowed to post bail in an defiance of the principle of proportionality."9
amount to be fixed by respondent court.3 We shall resolve the arguments of petitioner in seriatim.
On June 28, 2001, petitioner filed a "Motion to Resolve Mayor Jose ‘Jinggoy’ I.
Estrada’s Motion To Fix Bail On Grounds That An Outgoing Mayor Loses Clout Petitioner contends that R.A. No. 7080 is unconstitutional on its face and as
An Incumbent Has And That On Its Face, the Facts Charged In The Information applied to him and denies him the equal protection of the laws.10
Do Not Make Out A Non-Bailable Offense As To Him."4 The contention deserves our scant attention. The constitutionality of R.A. No.
On July 3, 2001, petitioner filed a "Motion to Strike Out So-Called ‘Entry of 7080, the Anti-Plunder Law, has been settled in the case of Estrada v.
Appearance,’ To Direct Ombudsman To Explain Why He Attributes Impropriety Sandiganbayan.11 We take off from the Amended Information which charged
To The Defense And To Resolve Pending Incidents."5 petitioner, together with former President Joseph E. Estrada, Atty. Edward
On July 9, 2001, respondent Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution denying Serapio, Charlie "Atong" Ang, Yolanda T. Ricaforte and others, with the crime of
petitioner’s "Motion to Quash and Suspend" and "Very Urgent Omnibus plunder as follows:
Motion."6 Petitioner’s alternative prayer to post bail was set for hearing after "AMENDED INFORMATION
arraignment of all accused. The court held: The undersigned Ombudsman Prosecutor and OIC-Director, EPIB Office of
"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court hereby DENIES for lack of the Ombudsman, hereby accuses former PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES,
merit the following: (1) MOTION TO QUASH AND SUSPEND dated April 24, 2001 Joseph Ejercito Estrada a.k.a. "ASIONG SALONGA" AND a.k.a "JOSE
filed by accused Jose ‘Jinggoy’ Estrada; (2) MOTION TO QUASH dated June 7, VELARDE", together with Jose ‘Jinggoy’ Estrada, Charlie ‘Atong’ Ang,
2001 filed by accused Joseph Ejercito Estrada; and (3) MOTION TO QUASH (Re: Edward Serapio, Yolanda T. Ricaforte, Alma Alfaro, JOHN DOE
Amended Information dated 18 April 2001) dated June 26, 2001 filed by a.k.a. Eleuterio Tan OR Eleuterio Ramos Tan or Mr. Uy, Jane Doe a.k.a.
accused Edward S. Serapio. Delia Rajas, and John DOES & Jane Does, of the crime of Plunder, defined
Considering the denial of the MOTION TO QUASH AND SUSPEND of accused Jose and penalized under R.A. No. 7080, as amended by Sec. 12 of R.A. No. 7659,
‘Jinggoy’ Estrada, his VERY URGENT OMNIBUS MOTION, praying that he be: (1) committed as follows:
dropped from the information for plunder for want of probable cause and (2) That during the period from June, 1998 to January, 2001, in the
discharged from custody immediately which is based on the same grounds Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused
mentioned in this MOTION TO QUASH AND SUSPEND is hereby DENIED. Let his Joseph Ejercito Estrada, THEN A PUBLIC OFFICER, BEING THEN THE
alternative prayer in said OMNIBUS MOTION that he be allowed to post bail be PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, by
SET for hearing together with the petition for bail of accused Edward S. Serapio himself AND/OR in CONNIVANCE/CONSPIRACY with his co-accused, WHO
scheduled for July 10, 2001, at 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon after the ARE MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY, RELATIVES BY AFFINITY OR
arraignment of all the accused."7 CONSANGUINITY, BUSINESS ASSOCIATES, SUBORDINATES AND/OR OTHER
PERSONS, BY TAKING UNDUE ADVANTAGE OF HIS OFFICIAL POSITION, JANE DOES, COMMISSIONS OR PERCENTAGES BY REASON OF SAID
AUTHORITY, RELATIONSHIP, CONNECTION, OR INFLUENCE, did then and PURCHASES OF SHARES OF STOCK IN THE AMOUNT OF ONE HUNDRED
there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally amass, accumulate and EIGHTY NINE MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS
acquire BY HIMSELF, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ill-gotten wealth in the [P189,700,000.00], MORE OR LESS, FROM THE BELLE CORPORATION
aggregate amount OR TOTAL VALUE of FOUR BILLION NINETY SEVEN WHICH BECAME PART OF THE DEPOSIT IN THE EQUITABLE-PCI BANK
MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED FOUR THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY UNDER THE ACCOUNT NAME "JOSE VELARDE";
THREE PESOS AND SEVENTEEN CENTAVOS [P4,097,804,173.17], more or (d) by unjustly enriching himself FROM COMMISSIONS, GIFTS, SHARES,
less, THEREBY UNJUSTLY ENRICHING HIMSELF OR THEMSELVES AT THE PERCENTAGES, KICKBACKS, OR ANY FORM OF PECUNIARY BENEFITS, IN
EXPENSE AND TO THE DAMAGE OF THE FILIPINO PEOPLE AND THE CONNIVANCE WITH JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES, in the amount of MORE
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, through ANY OR A combination OR OR LESS THREE BILLION TWO HUNDRED THIRTY THREE MILLION ONE
A series of overt OR criminal acts, OR SIMILAR SCHEMES OR MEANS, HUNDRED FOUR THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY THREE PESOS AND
described as follows: SEVENTEEN CENTAVOS [P3,233,104,173.17] AND DEPOSITING THE SAME
(a) by receiving OR collecting, directly or indirectly, on SEVERAL UNDER HIS ACCOUNT NAME "JOSE VELARDE" AT THE EQUITABLE-PCI
INSTANCES, MONEY IN THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF FIVE HUNDRED BANK.
FORTY-FIVE MILLION PESOS (P545,000,000.00), MORE OR LESS, FROM CONTRARY TO LAW.
ILLEGAL GAMBLING IN THE FORM OF GIFT, SHARE, PERCENTAGE, Manila for Quezon City, Philippines, 18 April 2001"12
KICKBACK OR ANY FORM OF PECUNIARY BENEFIT, BY HIMSELF AND/OR in Petitioner’s contention that R.A. No. 7080 is unconstitutional as applied to him
connivance with co-accused CHARLIE ‘ATONG’ ANG, Jose ‘Jinggoy’ Estrada, is principally perched on the premise that the Amended Information charged
Yolanda T. Ricaforte, Edward Serapio, AN (sic)  JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES, him with only one act or one offense which cannot constitute plunder. He then
in consideration OF TOLERATION OR PROTECTION OF ILLEGAL assails the denial of his right to bail.
GAMBLING; Petitioner’s premise is patently false. A careful examination of the Amended
(b) by DIVERTING, RECEIVING, misappropriating, Information will show that it is divided into three (3) parts: (1) the first
converting OR misusing DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, for HIS OR THEIR paragraph charges former President Joseph E. Estrada with the crime of plunder
PERSONAL gain and benefit, public funds in the amount of ONE HUNDRED together with petitioner Jose "Jinggoy" Estrada, Charlie "Atong" Ang, Edward
THIRTY MILLION PESOS [P130,000,000.00], more or less, representing a Serapio, Yolanda Ricaforte and others; (2) the second paragraph spells out in
portion of the TWO HUNDRED MILLION PESOS [P200,000,000] tobacco general terms how the accused conspired in committing the crime of plunder;
excise tax share allocated for the Province of Ilocor Sur under R.A. No. and (3) the following four sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) describe in detail the
7171, BY HIMSELF AND/OR in CONNIVANCE with co-accused Charlie predicate acts constitutive of the crime of plunder pursuant to items (1) to (6)
‘Atong’ Ang, Alma Alfaro, JOHN DOE a.k.a. Eleuterio Tan OR Eleuterio of R.A. No. 7080, and state the names of the accused who committed each act.
Ramos Tan or Mr. Uy, and Jane Doe a.k.a. Delia Rajas, AND OTHER JOHN Pertinent to the case at bar is the predicate act alleged in sub-paragraph
DOES AND JANE DOES; (a) of the Amended Information which is of "receiving or collecting, directly
(c) by directing, ordering and compelling, FOR HIS PERSONAL GAIN AND or indirectly, on several instances, money in the aggregate amount of
BENEFIT, the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) TO PURCHASE ₱545,000,000.00 for illegal gambling in the form of gift, share, percentage,
351,878,000 SHARES OF STOCK MORE OR LESS, and the Social Security kickback or any form of pecuniary benefit x x x." In this sub-paragraph
System (SSS), 329,855,000 SHARES OF STOCK MORE OR LESS, OF THE (a), petitioner, in conspiracy with former President Estrada, is charged with the
BELLE CORPORATION IN THE AMOUNT OF MORE OR LESS ONE BILLION act of receiving or collecting money from illegal gambling amounting to ₱545
ONE HUNDRED TWO MILLION NINE HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE THOUSAND SIX million. Contrary to petitioner’s posture, the allegation is that he received or
HUNDRED SEVEN PESOS AND FIFTY CENTAVOS [P1,102,965,607.50] AND collected money from illegal gambling "on several instances." The phrase "on
MORE OR LESS SEVEN HUNDRED FORTY FOUR MILLION SIX HUNDRED several instances" means the petitioner committed the predicate act in
TWELVE THOUSAND AND FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY PESOS series. To insist that the Amended Information charged the petitioner with the
[P744,612,450.00], RESPECTIVELY, OR A TOTAL OF MORE OR LESS ONE commission of only one act or offense despite the phrase "several instances" is
BILLION EIGHT HUNDRED FORTY SEVEN MILLION FIVE HUNDRED to indulge in a twisted, nay, "pretzel" interpretation.
SEVENTY EIGHT THOUSAND FIFTY SEVEN PESOS AND FIFTY CENTAVOS It matters little that sub-paragraph (a) did not utilize the exact words
[P1,847,578,057.50]; AND BY COLLECTING OR RECEIVING, DIRECTLY OR "combination" or "series" as they appear in R.A. No. 7080. For in Estrada v.
INDIRECTLY, BY HIMSELF AND/OR IN CONNIVANCE WITH JOHN DOES AND Sandiganbayan,13 we held that where these two terms are to be taken in their
popular, not technical, meaning, the word "series" is synonymous with the Next, petitioner contends that "the plunder law does not provide sufficient and
clause "on several instances." "Series" refers to a repetition of the same complete standards to guide the courts in dealing with accused alleged to have
predicate act in any of the items in Section 1 (d) of the law. The word contributed to the offense."16 Thus, he posits the following questions:
"combination" contemplates the commission of at least any two different "For example, in an Information for plunder which cites at least ten criminal
predicate acts in any of said items. Plainly, sub-paragraph (a) of the acts, what penalty do we impose on one who is clearly involved in only one such
Amended Information charges petitioner with plunder committed by a criminal act? Is it reclusion perpetua? Or should it be a lesser penalty? What if
series of the same predicate act under Section 1 (d) (2) of the law. another accused is shown to have participated in three of the ten specifications,
Similarly misleading is petitioner’s stand that in the Ombudsman Resolution of what would be the penalty imposable, compared to one who may have been
April 4, 2001 finding probable cause to charge him with plunder together with involved in five or seven of the specifications? The law does not provide the
the other accused, he was alleged to have received only the sum of P2 million, standard or specify the penalties and the courts are left to guess. In other words,
which amount is way below the minimum of P50 million required under R.A. the courts are called to say what the law is rather than to apply what the
No. 7080. The submission is not borne out by the April 4, 2001 Resolution of the lawmaker is supposed to have intended."17
Ombudsman, recommending the filing of charges against petitioner and his co- Petitioner raises these hypothetical questions for he labors hard under the
accused, which in pertinent part reads: impression that: (1) he is charged with only one act or offense and (2) he has
"x x x           x x x          x x x not conspired with the other accused named in sub-paragraphs (b) to (d) of the
Respondent Jose ‘Jinggoy’ Estrada, the present Mayor of San Juan, Metro Manila, Amended Information, ergo, the penalty imposable on him ought to be different
appears to have also surreptitious collection of protection money from jueteng from reclusion perpetua to death. R.A. No. 7080, he bewails, is cloudy on the
operations in Bulacan. This is gleaned from the statements of Gov. Singson imposable penalty on an accused similarly situated as he is. Petitioner, however,
himself and the fact that Mayor Estrada, on at least two occasions, turned over overlooks that the second paragraph of the Amended Information charges him
to a certain Emma Lim, an emissary of the respondent governor, jueteng haul to have conspired with former President Estrada in committing the crime of
totalling P2 million, i.e., P1 million in January, 2000 and another P1 million in plunder. His alleged participation consists in the commission of the predicate
February, 2000. An alleged "listahan" of jueteng recipients listed him as one acts specified in sub-paragraph (a) of the Amended Information. If these
"Jingle Bell," as affirmed by Singson [TSN 8 & Dec. 2000 SICt/17 Oct. 2000 allegations are proven, the penalty of petitioner cannot be unclear. It will be no
SBRC/SCI]."14 different from that of the former President for in conspiracy, the act of one is the
Hence, contrary to the representations of the petitioner, the Ombudsman made act of the other. The imposable penalty is provided in Section 2 of R.A. No.
the finding that P2 million was delivered to petitioner as "jueteng haul" on "at 7080, viz:
least two occasions." The P2 million is, therefore, not the entire sum with "Section 2. Any public officer who, by himself or in connivance with the
which petitioner is specifically charged. This is further confirmed by the members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business
conclusion of the Ombudsman that: associates, subordinates or other persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-
"x x x           x x x          x x x gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt or criminal acts as
It is clear that Joseph Ejercito Estrada, in confabulation with Jose ‘Jinggoy’ described in Section 1(d) hereof in the aggregate amount or total value of at
Estrada, Atty. Edward Serapio and Yolanda Ricaforte, demanded and received, least Fifty million pesos (P50,000,000.00) shall be guilty of the crime of plunder
as bribe money, the aggregate sum of P545 million from jueteng collections of and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death. Any person who
the operators thereof, channeled thru Gov. Luis ‘Chavit’ Singson, in exchange for participated with the said public officer in the commission of an offense
protection from arrest or interference by law enforcers; x x x."15 contributing to the crime of plunder shall likewise be punished for such offense.
To be sure, it is too late in the day for the petitioner to argue that the In the imposition of penalties, the degree of participation and the attendance of
Ombudsman failed to establish any probable cause against him for plunder. The mitigating and extenuating circumstances, as provided by the Revised Penal
respondent Sandiganbayan itself has found probable cause against the Code, shall be considered by the court."
petitioner for which reason it issued a warrant of arrest against him. Petitioner III.
then underwent arraignment and is now on trial. The time to assail the finding Petitioner also faults the respondent Sandiganbayan for "sustaining the charge
of probable cause by the Ombudsman has long passed. The issue cannot be against petitioner for alleged offenses and with alleged conspirators, with which
resurrected in this petition. and with whom he is not even remotely connected – contrary to the dictum that
II. criminal liability is personal, not vicarious – results in the denial of substantive
due process."18
The Solicitor General argues, on the other hand, that petitioner is charged not light of this lack of clarity, petitioner cannot be penalized for the conspiracy
only with the predicate act in sub-paragraph (a) but also with the other entered into by the other accused with the former President as related in the
predicate acts in sub-paragraphs (b), (c) & (d) because he is indicted as a second paragraph of the Amended Information in relation to its sub-paragraphs
principal and as co-conspirator of the former President. This is purportedly (b) to (d). We hold that petitioner can be held accountable only for the
clear from the first and second paragraphs of the Amended Information.19 predicate acts he allegedly committed as related in sub-paragraph (a) of the
For better focus, there is a need to examine again the allegations of the Amended Information which were allegedly done in conspiracy with the former
Amended Information vis-à-vis the provisions of R.A. No. 7080. President whose design was to amass ill-gotten wealth amounting to more than
The Amended Information, in its first two paragraphs, charges petitioner and P4 billion.
his other co-accused with the crime of plunder. The first paragraph names all We hasten to add, however, that the respondent Ombudsman cannot be
the accused, while the second paragraph describes in general how plunder was faulted for including the predicate acts alleged in sub-paragraphs (a) to
committed and lays down most of the elements of the crime itself. Sub- (d) of the Amended Information in one, and not in four, separate
paragraphs (a) to (d) describe in detail the predicate acts that constitute Informations. A study of the history of R.A. No. 7080 will show that the law was
the crime and name in particular the co-conspirators of former President crafted to avoid the mischief and folly of filing multiple informations. The Anti-
Estrada in each predicate act. The predicate acts alleged in the said four Plunder Law was enacted in the aftermath of the Marcos regime where charges
sub-paragraphs correspond to the items enumerated in Section 1 (d) of of ill-gotten wealth were filed against former President Marcos and his alleged
R.A. No. 7080. Sub-paragraph (a) alleged the predicate act of receiving, on cronies. Government prosecutors found no appropriate law to deal with
several instances, money from illegal gambling, in consideration of toleration or the multitude and magnitude of the acts allegedly committed by the
protection of illegal gambling, and expressly names petitioner as one of those former President to acquire illegal wealth. 20 They also found that under the
who conspired with former President Estrada in committing the offense. This then existing laws such as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the Revised
predicate act corresponds with the offense described in item [2] of the Penal Code and other special laws, the acts involved different transactions,
enumeration in Section 1 (d) of R.A. No. 7080. Sub-paragraph (b) alleged the different time and different personalities. Every transaction constituted a
predicate act of diverting, receiving or misappropriating a portion of the separate crime and required a separate case and the over-all conspiracy
tobacco excise tax share allocated for the province of Ilocos Sur, which act is the had to be broken down into several criminal and graft charges. The
offense described in item [1] in the enumeration in Section 1 (d) of the law. This preparation of multiple Informations was a legal nightmare but eventually,
sub-paragraph does not mention petitioner but instead names other thirty-nine (39) separate and independent cases were filed against practically
conspirators of the former President. Sub-paragraph (c) alleged two predicate the same accused before the Sandiganbayan.21 R.A. No. 7080 or the Anti-Plunder
acts - that of ordering the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) and the Law22 was enacted precisely to address this procedural problem. This is pellucid
Social Security System (SSS) to purchase shares of stock of Belle Corporation, in the Explanatory Note to Senate Bill No. 733, viz:
and collecting or receiving commissions from such purchase from the Belle "Plunder, a term chosen from other equally apt terminologies like kleptocracy
Corporation which became part of the deposit in the "Jose Velarde" account at and economic treason, punishes the use of high office for personal enrichment,
the Equitable-PCI Bank. These two predicate acts fall under items [2] and [3] in committed thru a series of acts done not in the public eye but in stealth and
the enumeration of R.A. No. 7080, and was allegedly committed by the former secrecy over a period of time, that may involve so many persons, here and
President in connivance with John Does and Jane Does. Finally, sub-paragraph abroad, and which touch so many states and territorial units. The acts and/or
(d) alleged the predicate act that the former President unjustly enriched himself omissions sought to be penalized do not involve simple cases of
from commissions, gifts, kickbacks, in connivance with John Does and Jane Does, malversation of public funds, bribery, extortion, theft and graft but
and deposited the same under his account name "Jose Velarde" at the Equitable- constitute plunder of an entire nation resulting in material damage to the
PCI Bank. This act corresponds to the offense under item [6] in the enumeration national economy. The above-described crime does not yet exist in Philippine
of Section 1 (d) of R.A. No. 7080. statute books. Thus, the need to come up with a legislation as a safeguard
From the foregoing allegations of the Amended Information, it is clear that all against the possible recurrence of the depravities of the previous regime and as
the accused named in sub-paragraphs (a) to (d), thru their individual a deterrent to those with similar inclination to succumb to the corrupting
acts, conspired with former President Estrada to enable the latter to amass, influence of power."
accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate amount of There is no denying the fact that the "plunder of an entire nation resulting in
P4,097,804,173.17. As the Amended Information is worded, however, it is not material damage to the national economy" is made up of a complex and
certain whether the accused in sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) conspired with each manifold network of crimes. In the crime of plunder, therefore, different
other to enable the former President to amass the subject ill-gotten wealth. In 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 A study of the United States Code ought to be instructive. It principally
former President amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth. Sub- punishes two (2) crimes of conspiracy 27 – conspiracy to commit any offense
paragraphs (a) to (d) in the Amended Information alleged the different or to defraud the United States, and conspiracy to impede or injure officer.
participation of each accused in the conspiracy. The gravamen of the Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the United States is penalized
conspiracy charge, therefore, is not that each accused agreed to receive under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 371,28 as follows:
protection money from illegal gambling, that each misappropriated a portion of "Sec. 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the United States. If two or
the tobacco excise tax, that each accused ordered the GSIS and SSS to purchase more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States,
shares of Belle Corporation and receive commissions from such sale, nor that or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any
each unjustly enriched himself from commissions, gifts and kickbacks; rather, it purpose, and one or more of such persons to any act to effect the object of the
is that each of them, by their individual acts, agreed to participate, directly conspiracy, each shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more
or indirectly, in the amassing, accumulation and acquisition of ill-gotten than five years, or both.
wealth of and/or for former President Estrada. If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy,
In the American jurisdiction, the presence of several accused in multiple is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the
conspiracies commonly involves two structures: (1) the so-called "wheel" or maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor."
"circle" conspiracy, in which there is a single person or group (the "hub") Conspiracy to impede or injure officer is penalized under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 372, viz:
dealing individually with two or more other persons or groups (the "spokes"); "Sec. 372. Conspiracy to impede or injure officer. If two or more persons in any
and (2) the "chain" conspiracy, usually involving the distribution of narcotics or State, Territory, Possession, or District conspire to prevent, by force,
other contraband, in which there is successive communication and cooperation intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust or
in much the same way as with legitimate business operations between place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties
manufacturer and wholesaler, then wholesaler and retailer, and then retailer thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave the
and consumer.23 place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure
From a reading of the Amended Information, the case at bar appears similar to a him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of
"wheel" conspiracy. The hub is former President Estrada while the spokes are his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his
all the accused, and the rim that encloses the spokes is the common goal in the property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his
overall conspiracy, i.e., the amassing, accumulation and acquisition of ill-gotten official duties, each of such persons shall be fined not more than $5,000 or
wealth. imprisoned not more than six years, or both."
IV. Section 371 of 18 U.S.C. punishes two acts: (1) conspiracy to commit any
Some of our distinguished colleagues would dismiss the charge against the offense against the United States; and (2) conspiracy to defraud the United
petitioner on the ground that the allegation of conspiracy in the Amended States or any agency thereof. The conspiracy to "commit any offense against the
Information is too general. The fear is even expressed that it could serve as a net United States" refers to an act made a crime by federal laws.29 It refers to an act
to ensnare the innocent. Their dissents appear to be inspired by American law punished by statute.30 Undoubtedly, Section 371 runs the whole gamut of
and jurisprudence. U.S. Federal laws, whether criminal or regulatory. 31 These laws cover
We should not confuse our law on conspiracy with conspiracy in American criminal offenses such as perjury, white slave traffic, racketeering, gambling,
criminal law and in common law. Under Philippine law, conspiracy should arson, murder, theft, bank robbery, etc. and also include customs violations,
be understood on two levels. As a general rule, conspiracy is not a crime in counterfeiting of currency, copyright violations, mail fraud, lotteries, violations
our jurisdiction. It is punished as a crime only when the law fixes a penalty of antitrust laws and laws governing interstate commerce and other areas of
for its commission such as in conspiracy to commit treason, rebellion and federal regulation.32 Section 371 penalizes the conspiracy to commit any of
sedition. In contrast, under American criminal law, the agreement or these substantive offenses. The offense of conspiracy is generally separate
conspiracy itself is the gravamen of the offense. 24 The essence of conspiracy and distinct from the substantive offense, 33 hence, the court rulings that
is the combination of two or more persons, by concerted action, to accomplish a acquittal on the substantive count does not foreclose prosecution and
criminal or unlawful purpose, or some purpose not in itself criminal or conviction for related conspiracy.34
unlawful, by criminal or unlawful means.25 Its elements are: agreement to The conspiracy to "defraud the government" refers primarily to cheating the
accomplish an illegal objective, coupled with one or more overt acts in United States out of property or money. It also covers interference with or
furtherance of the illegal purpose; and requisite intent necessary to commit the obstruction of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or
underlying substantive offense.26
at least by means that are dishonest.35 It comprehends defrauding the United understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged, and enable the
States in any manner whatever, whether the fraud be declared criminal or not.36 court to pronounce proper judgment.43 No information for a crime will be
The basic difference in the concept of conspiracy notwithstanding, a study of sufficient if it does not accurately and clearly allege the elements of the crime
the American case law on how conspiracy should be alleged will reveal that it charged.44 Every element of the offense must be stated in the
is not necessary for the indictment to include particularities of time, place, information.45 What facts and circumstances are necessary to be included
circumstances or causes, in stating the manner and means of effecting the therein must be determined by reference to the definitions and essentials of the
object of the conspiracy. Such specificity of detail falls within the scope of a bill specified crimes.46 The requirement of alleging the elements of a crime in the
of particulars.37 An indictment for conspiracy is sufficient where it alleges: information is to inform the accused of the nature of the accusation against him
(1) the agreement; (2) the offense-object toward which the agreement was so as to enable him to suitably prepare his defense. The presumption is that the
directed; and (3) the overt acts performed in furtherance of the agreement.38 To accused has no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense.47
allege that the defendants conspired is, at least, to state that they agreed to do To reiterate, when conspiracy is charged as a crime, the act of conspiring
the matters which are set forth as the substance of their conspiracy. To allege a and all the elements of said crime must be set forth in the complaint or
conspiracy is to allege an agreement.39 The gist of the crime of conspiracy is information. For example, the crime of "conspiracy to commit treason" is
unlawful agreement, and where conspiracy is charged, it is not necessary committed when, in time of war, two or more persons come to an agreement to
to set out the criminal object with as great a certainty as is required in levy war against the Government or to adhere to the enemies and to give them
cases where such object is charged as a substantive offense. 40 aid or comfort, and decide to commit it.48 The elements of this crime are: (1) that
In sum, therefore, there is hardly a substantial difference on how the offender owes allegiance to the Government of the Philippines; (2) that
Philippine courts and American courts deal with cases challenging there is a war in which the Philippines is involved; (3) that the offender and
Informations alleging conspiracy on the ground that they lack other person or persons come to an agreement to: (a) levy war against the
particularities of time, place, circumstances or causes. In our jurisdiction, government, or (b) adhere to the enemies, to give them aid and comfort; and (4)
as aforestated, conspiracy can be alleged in the Information as a mode of that the offender and other person or persons decide to carry out the
committing a crime or it may be alleged as constitutive of the crime itself. agreement. These elements must be alleged in the information.
When conspiracy is alleged as a crime in itself, the sufficiency of the The requirements on sufficiency of allegations are different when
allegations in the Information charging the offense is governed by Section conspiracy is not charged as a crime in itself but only as the mode of
6, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. It requires that the committing the crime as in the case at bar. There is less necessity of reciting
information for this crime must contain the following averments: its particularities in the Information because conspiracy is not the gravamen
"Sec. 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information.- A complaint or information is of the offense charged. The conspiracy is significant only because it changes
sufficient if it states the name of the accused, the designation of the offense the criminal liability of all the accused in the conspiracy and makes them
given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the answerable as co-principals regardless of the degree of their participation in the
offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate date of the crime.49 The liability of the conspirators is collective and each participant will be
commission of the offense; and the place where the offense was committed. equally responsible for the acts of others,50 for the act of one is the act of
When the offense was committed by more than one person, all of them shall be all.51 In People v. Quitlong,52 we ruled on how conspiracy as the mode of
included in the complaint or information." committing the offense should be alleged in the Information, viz:
The complaint or information to be sufficient must state the name of the "x x x. In embodying the essential elements of the crime charged, the
accused, designate the offense given by statute, state the acts or omissions information must set forth the facts and circumstances that have a bearing on
constituting the offense, the name of the offended party, the approximate date the culpability and liability of the accused so that the accused can properly
of the commission of the offense and the place where the offense was prepare for and undertake his defense. One such fact or circumstance in a
committed. complaint against two or more accused persons is that of conspiracy. Quite
Our rulings have long settled the issue on how the acts or omissions constituting unlike the omission of an ordinary recital of fact which, if not excepted from or
the offense should be made in order to meet the standard of sufficiency. Thus, objected to during trial, may be corrected or supplied by competent proof, an
the offense must be designated by its name given by statute or by reference to allegation, however, of conspiracy, or one that would impute criminal
the section or subsection of the statute punishing it.41 The information must also liability to an accused for the act of another or others, is indispensable in
state the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying order to hold such person, regardless of the nature and extent of his own
and aggravating circumstances.42 The acts or omissions complained of must be participation, equally guilty with the other or others in the commission of
alleged in such form as is sufficient to enable a person of common the crime. Where conspiracy exists and can rightly be appreciated, the
individual acts done to perpetrate the felony becomes of secondary importance, the following manner: (1) by use of the word "conspire," or its derivatives or
the act of one being imputable to all the others (People v. Ilano, 313 SCRA 442). synonyms, such as confederate, connive, collude, etc;53 or (2) by allegations of
Verily, an accused must know from the information whether he faces a criminal basic facts constituting the conspiracy in a manner that a person of common
responsibility not only for his acts but also for the acts of his co-accused as well. understanding would know what is intended, and with such precision as would
A conspiracy indictment need not, of course, aver all the components of enable the accused to competently enter a plea to a subsequent indictment
conspiracy or allege all the details thereof, like the part that each of the based on the same facts.54
parties therein have performed, the evidence proving the common design The allegation of conspiracy in the information must not be confused with
or the facts connecting all the accused with one another in the web of the the adequacy of evidence that may be required to prove it. A conspiracy is
conspiracy. Neither is it necessary to describe conspiracy with the same proved by evidence of actual cooperation; of acts indicative of an agreement, a
degree of particularity required in describing a substantive offense. It is common purpose or design, a concerted action or concurrence of sentiments to
enough that the indictment contains a statement of facts relied upon to be commit the felony and actually pursue it.55 A statement of this evidence is not
constitutive of the offense in ordinary and concise language, with as much necessary in the information.
certainty as the nature of the case will admit, in a manner that can enable In the case at bar, the second paragraph of the Amended Information
a person of common understanding to know what is intended, and with alleged in general terms how the accused committed the crime of
such precision that the accused may plead his acquittal or conviction to a plunder. It used the words "in connivance/conspiracy with his co-accused."
subsequent indictment based on the same facts. It is said, generally, that an Following the ruling in Quitlong, these words are sufficient to allege the
indictment may be held sufficient "if it follows the words of the statute and conspiracy of the accused with the former President in committing the crime of
reasonably informs the accused of the character of the offense he is charged plunder.
with conspiring to commit, or, following the language of the statute, contains a V.
sufficient statement of an overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy, or We now come to petitioner’s plea for bail. On August 14, 2002, during the
alleges both the conspiracy and the contemplated crime in the language of the pendency of the instant petition before this Court, petitioner filed with
respective statutes defining them (15A C.J.S. 842-844). respondent Sandiganbayan an "Urgent Second Motion for Bail for Medical
x x x           x x x          x x x Reasons." Petitioner prayed that he be allowed to post bail due to his serious
x x x. Conspiracy arises when two or more persons come to an agreement medical condition which is life-threatening to him if he goes back to his place of
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy detention.1âwphi1 The motion was opposed by respondent Ombudsman to
comes to life at the very instant the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to which petitioner replied.
commit the felony and forthwith to actually pursue it. Verily, the information For three days, i.e., on September 4, 20 and 27, 2001, respondent
must state that the accused have confederated to commit the crime or that Sandiganbayan conducted hearings on the motion for bail. Dr. Roberto V.
there has been a community of design, a unity of purpose or an agreement Anastacio, a cardiologist of the Makati Medical Center, testified as sole witness
to commit the felony among the accused. Such an allegation, in the absence for petitioner.
of the usual usage of the words "conspired" or "confederated" or the On December 18, 2001, petitioner filed with the Supreme Court an "Urgent
phrase "acting in conspiracy," must aptly appear in the information in the Motion for Early/Immediate Resolution of Jose ‘Jinggoy’ Estrada’s Petition for
form of definitive acts constituting conspiracy. In fine, the agreement to Bail on Medical/Humanitarian Considerations." Petitioner reiterated the motion
commit the crime, the unity of purpose or the community of design among for bail he earlier filed with respondent Sandiganbayan.56
the accused must be conveyed such as  either by the use of the term On the same day, we issued a Resolution referring the motion to respondent
"conspire" or its derivatives and synonyms  or  by allegations of basic facts Sandiganbayan for resolution and requiring said court to make a report, not
constituting the conspiracy. Conspiracy must be alleged, not just inferred, later than 8:30 in the morning of December 21, 2001.
in the information on which basis an accused can aptly enter his plea, a On December 21, 2001, respondent court submitted its Report. Attached to the
matter that is not to be confused with or likened to the adequacy of Report was its Resolution dated December 20, 2001 denying petitioner’s motion
evidence that may be required to prove it. In establishing conspiracy when for bail for "lack of factual basis."57 Basing its finding on the earlier testimony of
properly alleged, the evidence to support it need not necessarily be shown by Dr. Anastacio, the Sandiganbayan found that petitioner "failed to submit
direct proof but may be inferred from shown acts and conduct of the accused. sufficient evidence to convince the court that the medical condition of the
x x x           x x x          x x x." accused requires that he be confined at home and for that purpose that he be
Again, following the stream of our own jurisprudence, it is enough to allowed to post bail."58
allege conspiracy as a mode in the commission of an offense in either of
The crime of plunder is punished by R.A. No. 7080, as amended by Section 12 of trial court, sentencing them2 to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to
R.A. No. 7659, with the penalty of reclusion perpetua  to death. Under our Rules, pay a fine of ₱10,000,000.00 each.
offenses punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment are non- The Regional Trial Court Judgment
bailable when the evidence of guilt is strong, to wit: On 15 October 2001, Morilla, Mayor Mitra, Willie Yang y Yao (Yang) and Ruel
"Sec. 7. Capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life Dequilla y Regodan (Dequilla) were charged in a criminal information as
imprisonment, not bailable. – No person charged with a capital offense, or an follows:
offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be That on or about October 13, 2001, in Barangay Kiloloran, Municipality of Real,
admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the Province of Quezon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
criminal prosecution."59 Court, the above-named accused, one of them an incumbent mayor of the
Section 7, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure is based on Municipality of Panukulan, Quezon Province, who all belong to an
Section 13, Article III of the 1987 Constitution which reads: organized/syndicate crime group as they all help one another, for purposes of
"Sec. 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion gain in the transport of illegal drugs, and in fact, conspiring and confederating
perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction be bailable by together and mutually aiding and abetting one another, did then and there
sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously transport by means of two (2) motor
The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ vehicles, namely a Starex van bearing plate number RWT-888 with
of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required." commemorative plate to read "Mayor" and a municipal ambulance of
The constitutional mandate makes the grant or denial of bail in capital offenses Panukulan, Quezon Province, methamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated
hinge on the issue of whether or not the evidence of guilt of the accused is drug which is commonly known as shabu, and with an approximate weight of
strong. This requires that the trial court conduct bail hearings wherein both the five hundred three point sixty eight (503.68) kilos, without authority
prosecution and the defense are afforded sufficient opportunity to present their whatsoever.3
respective evidence. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to show After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City4 on 1 August 2007 convicted
strong evidence of guilt.60 Morilla and his co-accused Mayor Mitra, then incumbent Mayor of Panukulan,
This Court is not in a position to grant bail to the petitioner as the matter Quezon, of illegal transport5 of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly
requires evidentiary hearing that should be conducted by the Sandiganbayan. known as shabu, with an approximate weight of five hundred three point sixty
The hearings on which respondent court based its Resolution of December 20, eight (503.68) kilos. However, it absolved Dequilla and Yang due to the
2001 involved the reception of medical evidence only and which evidence was prosecution’s failure to present sufficient evidence to convict them of the
given in September 2001, five months ago. The records do not show that offense charged. The dispositive of the decision reads:
evidence on petitioner’s guilt was presented before the lower court. WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding
Upon proper motion of the petitioner, respondent Sandiganbayan should accused Ronnie Mitra y Tena and Javier Morilla y Avellana GUILTY beyond
conduct hearings to determine if the evidence of petitioner’s guilt is strong as to reasonable doubt of the offense charged. Accordingly, both accused are hereby
warrant the granting of bail to petitioner. sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is dismissed for failure to show that the ₱10,000,000.00 each. Accused Willie Yang y Yao and Ruel Dequilla y Regodan
respondent Sandiganbayan acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with are hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. reasonable doubt and are ordered immediately released from custody unless
SO ORDERED. held for some other lawful cause.
The methamphetamine hydrochloride ordered retained by the Court as
G.R. No. 189833               February 5, 2014 representative sample which is still in the custody of the PNP Crime Laboratory
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, is ordered turned over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for proper
vs. disposition.6
JAVIER MORILLA Y AVELLANO, Accused-Appellant. The trial court found valid the search conducted by police officers on the
RESOLUTION vehicles driven by Mayor Mitra and Morilla, one with control number 888 and
PEREZ, J.: the other an ambulance with plate number SFK-372, as the police officers have
Before us is an appeal filed by accused-appellant Javier Morilla y Avellano already acquired prior knowledge that the said vehicles were suspected to be
(Morilla) from the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals which affirmed his used for transportation of dangerous drugs. During the checkpoint in Real,
conviction and that of his co-accused Ronnie Mitra y Tena (Mayor Mitra) by the Quezon, the information turned out to be accurate and indeed, the two accused
had in their motor vehicles more than five hundred kilos of methamphetamine presence inside the vehicle as passengers was inadequate to prove that they
hydrochloride.7 were also conspirators of Mayor Mitra and Morilla.12
The trial court dismissed the arguments of Mayor Mitra that he was without any The Court of Appeals Decision
knowledge of the contents of the sacks and that he was merely requested to On 13 July 2009, the appellate court affirmed the ruling of the trial court. It
transport them to Manila on board his Starex van. He explained that he only upheld the finding of conspiracy between Mayor Mitra and Morilla in their
accommodated the request of a certain Ben Tan because the latter bought his common intent to transport several sacks containing methamphetamine
fishing boat. It likewise dismissed the defense of ambulance driver Morilla of hydrochloride on board their respective vehicles. The singularity of their intent
lack of knowledge of the illegality of the contents. Morilla insisted that he to illegally transport methamphetamine hydrochloride was readily shown when
thought that he was just transporting wooden tiles and electronic spare parts Morilla agreed to drive the ambulance van from Infanta, Quezon to Manila
together with Dequilla. The other passenger of the ambulance, Yang, in his together with Mayor Mitra, who drove the lead vehicle, the Starex van.13
defense, did not bother to inquire about the contents of the vehicle as he was The appellate court likewise dismissed the argument of lack of knowledge of the
merely an accommodated passenger of the ambulance. illegal contents of the sacks. The claim that the sacks were loaded with wooden
The court rejected the defenses presented by Morilla and Mayor Mitra as they tiles was implausible due to the obvious disparity of texture and volume.14
were caught in flagrante delicto of transporting dangerous drugs in two vehicles Court’s Ruling
driven by each of them. Absent any convincing circumstance to corroborate We affirm the ruling but modify the penalty imposed.
their explanations, the validity of their apprehension was sustained.8 In his supplemental brief, Morilla raised the issues: (1) whether he may be
The ruling of conspiracy between Mayor Mitra and Morilla was based on the convicted for conspiracy to commit the offense charged sans allegation of
testimonies of the four accused themselves. It was found by the trial court that conspiracy in the Information, and (2) whether the prosecution was able to
the two vehicles, the Starex van driven by Mayor Mitra and the ambulance van prove his culpability as alleged in the Information.15
driven by Morilla, left Infanta, Quezon en route to Manila. The Starex van which We dismiss his arguments.
was ahead of the ambulance was able to pass the checkpoint set up by the police Morilla primarily cites the provision on Sec. 1(b), Rule 115 of the Rules on
officers. However, the ambulance driven by Morilla was stopped by police Criminal Procedure16 to substantiate his argument that he should have been
officers. Through the untinted window, one of the police officers noticed several informed first of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. He pointed
sacks inside the van. Upon inquiry of the contents, Morilla replied that the sacks out that the Information itself failed to state the word conspiracy but instead,
contained narra wooden tiles. the statement "the above-named accused, one of them an incumbent mayor of
Unconvinced, the police officers requested Morilla to open the rear door of the the Municipality of Panukulan, Quezon Province, who all belong to an
car for further inspection. When it was opened, the operatives noticed that organized/syndicated crime group as they all help one another, did then and
white crystalline granules were scattered on the floor, prompting them to there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously transport x x x." He argued that
request Morilla to open the sacks. At this moment, Morilla told the police conspiracy was only inferred from the words used in the Information.17
officers that he was with Mayor Mitra in an attempt to persuade them to let him Even assuming that his assertion is correct, the issue of defect in the
pass.9 His request was rejected by the police officers and upon inspection, the information, at this point, is deemed to have been waived due to Morilla’s failure
contents of the sacks turned out to be sacks of methamphetamine to assert it as a ground in a motion to quash before entering his plea.18
hydrochloride.10 This discovery prompted the operatives to chase the Starex van Further, it must be noted that accused Morilla participated and presented his
of Mayor Mitra. The police officers were able to overtake the van and Mayor defenses to contradict the allegation of conspiracy before the trial and appellate
Mitra was asked to stop. They then inquired if the mayor knew Morilla. On plain courts. His failure or neglect to assert a right within a reasonable time warrants
view, the operatives noticed that his van was also loaded with sacks like the a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or
ones found in the ambulance. Thus, Mayor Mitra was also requested to open the declined to assert it.19
door of the vehicle for inspection. At this instance, Mayor Mitra offered to settle The finding of conspiracy by both courts is correct.
the matter but the same was rejected. Upon examination, the contents of the A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
sacks were likewise found to contain sacks of methamphetamine concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.20 To determine
hydrochloride.11 conspiracy, there must be a common design to commit a felony.21
The two other accused in this case, Dequilla and Yang, were acquitted by the Morilla argues that the mere act of driving the ambulance on the date he was
trial court for failure on the part of the prosecution to establish their guilt apprehended is not sufficient to prove that he was part of a syndicated group
beyond reasonable doubt. The court ruled that Dequilla’s and Yang’s mere 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 eligible for pardon. It also carries with it accessory penalties, namely: perpetual
agreed in express terms to enter into and pursue a common design. The assent special disqualification, etc. Life imprisonment, on the other hand, does not
of the minds may be and, from the secrecy of the crime, usually inferred from appear to have any definite extent or duration and carries no accessory
proof of facts and circumstances which, taken together, indicate that they are penalties.29
parts of some complete whole.22 In this case, the totality of the factual The full particulars are in Ho Wai Pang v. People,30 thus:
circumstances leads to a conclusion that Morilla conspired with Mayor Mitra in As to the penalties imposed by the trial court and as affirmed by the appellate
a common desire to transport the dangerous drugs. Both vehicles loaded with court, we find the same in accord with law and jurisprudence. It should be
several sacks of dangerous drugs, were on convoy from Quezon to Manila. recalled that at the time of the commission of the crime on September 6, 1991,
Mayor Mitra was able to drive through the checkpoint set up by the police Section 15 of R.A. No. 6425 was already amended by Presidential Decree No.
operatives. When it was Morilla’s turn to pass through the checkpoint, he was 1683. The decree provided that for violation of said Section 15, the penalty of
requested to open the rear door for a routinary check. Noticing white granules life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from ₱20,000.00 to ₱30,000.00
scattered on the floor, the police officers requested Morilla to open the sacks. If shall be imposed. Subsequently, however, R.A. No. 7659 further introduced new
indeed he was not involved in conspiracy with Mayor Mitra, he would not have amendments to Section 15, Article III and Section 20, Article IV of R.A. No. 6425,
told the police officers that he was with the mayor. as amended. Under the new amendments, the penalty prescribed in Section 15
His insistence that he was without any knowledge of the contents of the sacks was changed from "life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from
and he just obeyed the instruction of his immediate superior Mayor Mitra in ₱20,000.00 to ₱30,000.00" to "reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging
driving the said vehicle likewise bears no merit. from ₱500,000.00 to ₱10 million." On the other hand, Section 17 of R.A. No.
Here, Morilla and Mayor Mitra were caught in flagrante delicto in the act of 7659 amended Section 20, Article IV of R.A. No. 6425 in that the new penalty
transporting the dangerous drugs on board their vehicles. "Transport" as used provided by the amendatory law shall be applied depending on the quantity of
under the Dangerous Drugs Act means "to carry or convey from one place to the dangerous drugs involved.
another."23 It was well established during trial that Morilla was driving the The trial court, in this case, imposed on petitioner the penalty of reclusion
ambulance following the lead of Mayor Mitra, who was driving a Starex van perpetua under R.A. No. 7659 rather than life imprisonment ratiocinating that
going to Manila. The very act of transporting methamphetamine hydrochloride R.A. No. 7659 could be given retroactive application, it being more favorable to
is malum prohibitum since it is punished as an offense under a special law. The the petitioner in view of its having a less stricter punishment.1âwphi1
fact of transportation of the sacks containing dangerous drugs need not be We agree. In People v. Doroja, we held:
accompanied by proof of criminal intent, motive or knowledge.24 "In People v. Martin Simon (G.R. No. 93028, 29 July 1994) this Court ruled (a)
In a similar case of People v. Libnao,25 this Court upheld the conviction for illegal that the amendatory law, being more lenient and favorable to the accused than
transportation of marijuana of Libnao and Nunga, who were caught carrying a the original provisions of the Dangerous Drugs Act, should be accorded
bag full of marijuana leaves when they were flagged down on board a passing retroactive application, x x x."
tricycle at a checkpoint. And, since "reclusion perpetua is a lighter penalty than life imprisonment, and
However, we modify the penalty imposed by the trial court as affirmed by the considering the rule that criminal statutes with a favorable effect to the accused,
Court of Appeals. have, as to him, a retroactive effect," the penalty imposed by the trial court upon
Originally, under Section 15 of Republic Act No. 6425, 26 the penalty for illegal petitioner is proper. Consequently, the Court sustains the penalty of
transportation of methamphetamine hydrochloride was imprisonment ranging imprisonment, which is reclusion perpetua, as well as the amount of fine
from six years and one day to twelve years and a fine ranging from six thousand imposed by the trial court upon petitioner, the same being more favorable to
to twelve thousand pesos. Pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1683,27 the him.31
penalty was amended to life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED and the assailed 13
twenty to thirty thousand pesos. The penalty was further amended in Republic July 2009 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 02967 is
Act No. 7659,28 where the penalty was changed to reclusion perpetua to death AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION with respect to the penalty to be imposed as
and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos. Reclusion Perpetua instead of Life Imprisonment and payment of fine of
From the foregoing, we sustain the imposed penalty of fine of ₱10,000,00.00 to ₱10,000,000.00 by each of the accused.
be paid by each of the accused but amend the penalty to reclusion perpetua SO ORDERED.
following the provisions of Republic Act No. 7659 and the principle of
retroactive application of lighter penalty. Reclusion perpetua entails
imprisonment for at least thirty (30) years after which the convict becomes G.R. No. 168852           September 30, 2008
SHARICA MARI L. GO-TAN, Petitioner, Verified Motion for Reconsideration. The RTC reasoned that to include
vs. respondents under the coverage of R.A. No. 9262 would be a strained
SPOUSES PERFECTO C. TAN and JUANITA L. TAN, Respondents.* interpretation of the provisions of the law.
DECISION Hence, the present petition on a pure question of law, to wit:
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS-SPOUSES PERFECTO & JUANITA, PARENTS-
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the IN-LAW OF SHARICA, MAY BE INCLUDED IN THE PETITION FOR THE
Rules of Court assailing the Resolution1 dated March 7, 2005 of the Regional ISSUANCE OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH REPUBLIC ACT
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 94, Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q-05-54536 and the NO. 9262, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
RTC Resolution2 dated July 11, 2005 which denied petitioner's Verified Motion AND THEIR CHILDREN ACT OF 2004".17
for Reconsideration. Petitioner contends that R.A. No. 9262 must be understood in the light of the
The factual background of the case: provisions of Section 47 of R.A. No. 9262 which explicitly provides for the
On April 18, 1999, Sharica Mari L. Go-Tan (petitioner) and Steven L. Tan suppletory application of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and, accordingly, the
(Steven) were married.3 Out of this union, two female children were born, Kyra provision on "conspiracy" under Article 8 of the RPC can be suppletorily applied
Danielle4 and Kristen Denise.5 On January 12, 2005, barely six years into the to R.A. No. 9262; that Steven and respondents had community of design and
marriage, petitioner filed a Petition with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary purpose in tormenting her by giving her insufficient financial support; harassing
Protective Order (TPO)6 against Steven and her parents-in-law, Spouses and pressuring her to be ejected from the family home; and in repeatedly
Perfecto C. Tan and Juanita L. Tan (respondents) before the RTC. She alleged abusing her verbally, emotionally, mentally and physically; that respondents
that Steven, in conspiracy with respondents, were causing verbal, psychological should be included as indispensable or necessary parties for complete
and economic abuses upon her in violation of Section 5, paragraphs (e)(2)(3) resolution of the case.
(4), (h)(5), and (i)7 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9262,8 otherwise known as the On the other hand, respondents submit that they are not covered by R.A. No.
"Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004." 9262 since Section 3 thereof explicitly provides that the offender should be
On January 25, 2005, the RTC issued an Order/Notice9 granting petitioner's related to the victim only by marriage, a former marriage, or a dating or sexual
prayer for a TPO. relationship; that allegations on the conspiracy of respondents require a factual
On February 7, 2005, respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss with Opposition to determination which cannot be done by this Court in a petition for review; that
the Issuance of Permanent Protection Order Ad Cautelam and Comment on the respondents cannot be characterized as indispensable or necessary parties,
Petition,10 contending that the RTC lacked jurisdiction over their persons since, since their presence in the case is not only unnecessary but altogether illegal,
as parents-in-law of the petitioner, they were not covered by R.A. No. 9262. considering the non-inclusion of in-laws as offenders under Section 3 of R.A. No.
On February 28, 2005, petitioner filed a Comment on Opposition11 to 9262.
respondents' Motion to Dismiss arguing that respondents were covered by R.A. The Court rules in favor of the petitioner.
No. 9262 under a liberal interpretation thereof aimed at promoting the Section 3 of R.A. No. 9262 defines ''[v]iolence against women and their children''
protection and safety of victims of violence. as "any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is
On March 7, 2005, the RTC issued a Resolution12 dismissing the case as to his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the person has or had a
respondents on the ground that, being the parents-in-law of the petitioner, they sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or against
were not included/covered as respondents under R.A. No. 9262 under the well- her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode,
known rule of law "expressio unius est exclusio alterius."13 which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or
On March 16, 2005, petitioner filed her Verified Motion for suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault,
Reconsideration14 contending that the doctrine of necessary implication should coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty."
be applied in the broader interests of substantial justice and due process. While the said provision provides that the offender be related or connected to
On April 8, 2005, respondents filed their Comment on the Verified Motion for the victim by marriage, former marriage, or a sexual or dating relationship, it
Reconsideration15 arguing that petitioner's liberal construction unduly does not preclude the application of the principle of conspiracy under the RPC.
broadened the provisions of R.A. No. 9262 since the relationship between the Indeed, Section 47 of R.A. No. 9262 expressly provides for the suppletory
offender and the alleged victim was an essential condition for the application of application of the RPC, thus:
R.A. No. 9262. SEC. 47. Suppletory Application. - For purposes of this Act, the Revised Penal
On July 11, 2005, the RTC issued a Resolution16 denying petitioner's Code and other applicable laws, shall have suppletory application. (Emphasis
supplied)
Parenthetically, Article 10 of the RPC provides: SEC. 5. Acts of Violence Against Women and Their Children. - The crime of
ART. 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code. – Offenses which violence against women and their children is committed through any of the
are or in the future may be punishable under special laws are not subject to the following acts:
provisions of this Code. This Code shall be supplementary to such laws, xxx
unless the latter should specially provide the contrary. (Emphasis supplied) (h) Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless conduct, personally or
Hence, legal principles developed from the Penal Code may be applied in a through another, that alarms or causes substantial emotional or psychological
supplementary capacity to crimes punished under special laws, such as R.A. No. distress to the woman or her child. This shall include, but not be limited to, the
9262, in which the special law is silent on a particular matter. following acts:
Thus, in People v. Moreno,18 the Court applied suppletorily the provision on (1) Stalking or following the woman or her child in public or private places;
subsidiary penalty under Article 39 of the RPC to cases of violations of Act No. (2) Peering in the window or lingering outside the residence of the woman or
3992, otherwise known as the "Revised Motor Vehicle Law," noting that the her child;
special law did not contain any provision that the defendant could be sentenced (3) Entering or remaining in the dwelling or on the property of the woman or
with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. her child against her/his will;
In People v. Li Wai Cheung,19 the Court applied suppletorily the rules on the (4) Destroying the property and personal belongings or inflicting harm to
service of sentences provided in Article 70 of the RPC in favor of the accused animals or pets of the woman or her child; and
who was found guilty of multiple violations of R.A. No. 6425, otherwise known (5) Engaging in any form of harassment or violence; x x x. (Emphasis supplied)
as the "Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972," considering the lack of similar rules In addition, the protection order that may be issued for the purpose of
under the special law. preventing further acts of violence against the woman or her child may include
In People v. Chowdury,20 the Court applied suppletorily Articles 17, 18 and 19 of individuals other than the offending husband, thus:
the RPC to define the words "principal," "accomplices" and "accessories" under SEC. 8. Protection Orders. – x x x The protection orders that may be issued under
R.A. No. 8042, otherwise known as the "Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos this Act shall include any, some or all of the following reliefs:
Act of 1995," because said words were not defined therein, although the special (a) Prohibition of the respondent from threatening to commit or committing,
law referred to the same terms in enumerating the persons liable for the crime personally or through another, any of the acts mentioned in Section 5 of this
of illegal recruitment. Act; 1avvphi1.net
In Yu v. People,21 the Court applied suppletorily the provisions on subsidiary (b) Prohibition of the respondent from harassing, annoying, telephoning,
imprisonment under Article 39 of the RPC to Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 22, contacting or otherwise communicating with the petitioner, directly
otherwise known as the "Bouncing Checks Law," noting the absence of an or indirectly; x x x (Emphasis supplied)
express provision on subsidiary imprisonment in said special law. Finally, Section 4 of R.A. No. 9262 calls for a liberal construction of the law, thus:
Most recently, in Ladonga v. People,22 the Court applied suppletorily the SEC. 4. Construction. - This Act shall be liberally construed to promote the
principle of conspiracy under Article 8 of the RPC to B.P. Blg. 22 in the absence protection and safety of victims of violence against women and their children.
of a contrary provision therein. (Emphasis supplied)
With more reason, therefore, the principle of conspiracy under Article 8 of the It bears mention that the intent of the statute is the law24 and that this intent
RPC may be applied suppletorily to R.A. No. 9262 because of the express must be effectuated by the courts. In the present case, the express language of
provision of Section 47 that the RPC shall be supplementary to said law. Thus, R.A. No. 9262 reflects the intent of the legislature for liberal construction as will
general provisions of the RPC, which by their nature, are necessarily applicable, best ensure the attainment of the object of the law according to its true intent,
may be applied suppletorily. meaning and spirit - the protection and safety of victims of violence against
Thus, the principle of conspiracy may be applied to R.A. No. 9262. For once women and children.
conspiracy or action in concert to achieve a criminal design is shown, the act of Thus, contrary to the RTC's pronouncement, the maxim "expressio unios est
one is the act of all the conspirators, and the precise extent or modality of exclusio alterius" finds no application here. It must be remembered that this
participation of each of them becomes secondary, since all the conspirators are maxim is only an "ancillary rule of statutory construction." It is not of universal
principals.23 application. Neither is it conclusive. It should be applied only as a means of
It must be further noted that Section 5 of R.A. No. 9262 expressly recognizes discovering legislative intent which is not otherwise manifest and should not be
that the acts of violence against women and their children may be committed by permitted to defeat the plainly indicated purpose of the legislature.25
an offender through another, thus: 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.
SO ORDERED.