TITLE U.S vs. Francisco Bautista, Et. Al, 6 Phil 581 People v.
81 People v. Vengco, 127 SCRA 242
TOPIC Conspiracy - Rebellion (junta)
In 1903 a junta was organized and a conspiracy entered into
by a number of Filipinos in Hongkong, for the purpose of
overthrowing the government of the United States in the
Philippine Islands by force of arms and establishing a new
government.
Francisco Bautista (1), a close friend of the chief of military
forces (of the conspirators) took part of several meetings.
Tomas Puzon (2) held several conferences whereat plans are
made for the coming insurrection; he was appointed
Brigadier-General of the Signal Corps of the revolutionary
FACTS
forces. Aniceto de Guzman (3) accepted some bonds from
one of the conspirators.
The lower court convicted the three men of conspiracy.
Bautista was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment and a
P3,000 fine; Puzon and De Guzman to 3 years imprisonment
and P1,000.
ISSUE Whether or not the accused are guilty of conspiracy
Judgment for Bautista and Puzon CONFIRMED. Judgment for
de Guzman REVERSED. Yes, Bautista and Puzon are guilty of
conspiracy. Bautista was fully aware of the purposes of the
meetings he participated in, and even gave an assurance to
the chief of military forces that he is making the necessary
preparations. Puzon voluntarily accepted his appointment
and in doing so assumed all the obligations implied by such
RULING acceptance. This may be considered as an evidence of the
criminal connection of the accused with the conspiracy.
However, de Guzman is not guilty of conspiracy. He might
have been helping the conspirators by accepting bonds in the
bundles, but he has not been aware of the contents nor does
he was, in any occasion, assumed any obligation with respect
to those bonds.
People v. Valdez, 159 SCRA 153
Conspiracy (Murder)
In the evening of August 24, 1967, Celadena got off a taxi. A group of five
persons,including Vengco and David, were 30 meters away from Celadena.
Rolando Quiane invitedCeladena to go to his apartment so that Celadena could
avoid Vengco's group, as there had been a recent incident involving Vengco
chasing and throwing bottles at Celadena. Celadena refused this offer. Later, two
men restrained Celadena while Vengco and two other men stabbed Celadena.This
incident was seen and testified to by several witnesses (Quiane as regards
previous incident between Vengco and Celadena as well as the invitation to
Celadena to go to the apartment; Go Hong, another neighbor, as regards Vengco's
act of stabbing, and Leneses and three other personsmoving away from the place
of the incident, while carrying a dagger, ice pick, and another pointed weapon;
and Purita Delgado, a person inside of Celadena's sister's house, corroborating
theincident where Celadena was being held by two men while being stabbed.)
Vengco, Encarnacion, Soliba, Leneses, and David were all charged for the Murder
of Celadena.The CFI - Manila (Branch 20) found them guilty.
Leneses argues that he was dead drun7 throughout the evening of August 24,
1967.
David denies being part of the group; he was walking away as the incident
occured.
Whether Leneses and David are guilty of Murder. YES
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED, with the modification
that appellants pay, jointly and severally, the heirs of the deceased in the sum of
P30,000.00.
The conspiracy among therein appellants and their companions is easily
discernible from their conduct. The way in which they assaulted Charlie Celadena
and their conduct sometime before and immediately after the stabbing, clearly
show that they had agreed to kill him. The rule is that "if it is proven that two or
more persons aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment of the same
unlawful object, each doing a part so that their acts, although apparently
independent, were in fact connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of
personal association and concurrence of sentiment, a conspiracy may be inferred
though no actual meeting among them is proven
Conspiracy (Murder)
Eleno Maquiling was having dinner with his family at their
house when he was shot to death. Witnesses thereafter saw
Valdez and Orodio running away from the bushes outside the
house, Valdez carrying a shotgun. Valdez and Orodio were
charged with and convicted by the trial court of murder for
the shooting of Eleno, thereby being sentenced to death. The
case was brought to the SC for automatic review. The Court
discussed the argument put forward by the OSG that accused
appellant Simplicio Orodio should be acquitted for lack of
sufficient evidence to sustain this conviction either as a
principal or an accomplice. According to the OSG, the
prosecution did not adduce any evidence establishing the
aforesaid alleged conspiracy between Valdez and Orodio to
commit the crime charged.
Was there conspiracy? YES
RTC decision affirmed.
Circumstances evidencing conspiracy: 1.) Orodio was present
with Valdez at the time Eleno was killed; 2.) he was in the
company of a man running with a shotgun, at approximately
8:00 in the evening, immediately after the fatal shooting, just
outside the Maquiling's house where he had no business
being if he were not acting in concert with Danilo Valdez; 3.)
he was a close friend of the accused Danilo Valdez, both of
whom the deceased victim had identified as probably
responsible should any untoward even befall the victim; 4.)
Orodio completely failed to explain what he was doing with
Danilo Valdez the night of the killing; 5.) both Danilo Valdez
and Simplicio Orodio pleaded the same alibi. Their common
alibi remain uncorroborated. The prosecution has adequately
proven the conspiracy.
Both Danilo Valdez and Simplicio Orodio are liable as co-
conspirators since any act of a co- conspirator becomes the
act of the other regardless of the precise degree of
participation in the act.
TITLE People vs Escober, 157 SCRA 541
Conspiracy (complex crime of Robbery with
TOPIC
homicide)
Escober was a security guard at Vising Electrical
Supply, owned by Vicente Chua and Lina Saw Chua.
On December 3, 1982, at 7 p.m. he reported for work.
Alorte arrived and talked to him because he, Alorte
alias Abuyen, wanted to, and two men entered and
one man [accused Punzalan] was left at the gate. One
of his (Punzalan) companions aimed a gun at Escober
and also a knife and they said they would kill him.
After 5 minutes, after the two men went up the office,
FACTS
they came down and talked to the man guarding
Escober and Alorte fired at him. He was not hit for he
was able to avoid it and after that, the four men
suddenly left. Escober went down from the pick-up
and he heard Vicente Chua calling him and he
responded. Chua asked him to call Mrs. Chua at the
house because, according to Chua, their children were
stabbed. So Escober went to the house and called
Mrs. Chua.
WON Punzalan and Escober are guilty of the complex
ISSUE
crime of Robbery with homicide.
Yes for Punzalan; No for Escober.
Punzalan’s participation in the crime was to act as a
look-out, he did not participate in the killing of the
two helpless victims, and he cannot evade
responsibility therefor. Well-established is the rule in
this jurisdiction that whenever a homicide has been
committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of
a robbery, all those who took part as principals in the
RULING
commission of the robbery are also guilty as principals
in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide
although they did not actually take part in the
homicide unless it clearly appeared that they
endeavored to prevent the homicide
Accused-appellant Juan Escober y Geralde is hereby
ACQUITTED of the crime of Robbery with Homicide.
PEOPLE v ELIJORDE, 306 SCRA 188
Conspiracy (Murder)
Eric Hierro, Benjamin Visbal and Rodel Contemplado were
drinking. Then, Hierro and Visbal went to buy mango at a nearby
sari-sari store, where Gilbert Elijorde, Reynaldo Punzalan and
Edwin Menes were hanging out. Menes approached Hierro but
Hierro said, “Don’t touch me, my clothes will get dirty” . And so
Menes punched him on the face. Elijarde and Punzalan also
joined in. Hierro and Visbal ran and hid in Contemplado’s house.
After 3 minutes, Hierro, Visbal and Visbal’s wife began walking
home. He was suddenly kicked by Punzalan at the back. Visbal
tried to defend him but he was held back by his wife. When
Hierro ran, he was pursued by Elijorde. Elijorde then stabbed
Hierro in the back. When he fell down, Elijorde placed himself on
top of him. Despite his pleas for mercy, Elijorde stabbed him with
a knife on the chest then fled. He was brought to the hospital
where he died soon after.
Gilbert Elijorde, Reynaldo Punzalan and Edwin Menes were
charged with murder. Elijorde and Punzalan were arrested and
tried. Menes remained at large.
They now contend that the TC erred in finding that treachery was
present and that Punzalan was guilty of murder by reason of
conspiracy with Elijorde.
Issue: Whether Punzalan is guilty of murder by reason of
conspiracy
NO. The defense argues that Punzalan’s only participation is
when he joined in on the firstfight and when he kicked Hierro
when they ambushed him on his way home. He did not cooperate
with Elijorde in pursuing and stabbing Hierro. The acts of kicking
wereneither in pursuance of the Elijorde’s criminal design or
objective, which is to kill Hierro. Conspiracy must be proven by
clear and convincing evidence, not merely assumption. He must
be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or
furtherance of the collaboration.
There is no evidence to show unity of purpose and design
between Punzalan and Elijorde in the execution of the killing. He
merely kicked Hierro anyway and then stayed where he was after
that. The mere kicking does not necessarily prove intentionto kill.
WHEREFORE, Punzalan is ACQUITTED and Elijorde is guilty of
murder and sentenced to reclusion
PEOPLE v. BERLY FABRO
Conspiracy (dangerous drugs)
Appellant Fabro together with her common-law husband Donald Pilay and Irene Martin,was
charged with the crime of "violation of Section 21 (b) Art. IV, in relation to Section 4, Art.
IIof Republic Act No. 6425. They conspired and sold/delivered to PO2 APDUHAN, who acted
asposeur-buyer, one (1) kilo of dried marijuana leaves. Two concerned individuals, Gloria
andEmma Borce, reported to Chief Inspector Evasco that in Baguio City, was engaged in
sellingmarijuana. After briefing the group, Chief Inspector Evasco gave P600.00 as purchase
money to Apduhan.
As Apduhan, Gloria and Emma drew near Pilay’s residence, appellant met them. Donald
Pilay who appeared drunk was inside the house by the main door. Gloria and Emma
introducedApduhan to appellant as a stranger in the place who wanted to buy marijuana.
Appellant told them that a kilo would cost them P700.00 but she agreed to Apduhan’s price
of P600.00. After Apduhan had ordered a kilo of the contraband, appellant told them to
wait a while. Appellantthen went to a house just behind her own. After a few minutes, she
returned in the company of another woman who was later identified as Irene Martin.
Appellant handed the stuff toApduhan. Her companion, Irene Martin, demanded payment
therefor. Apduhan gave her theP600.00. After ascertaining that it was a brick of marijuana,
he made the pre-arranged signal of lighting his cigarette. Immediately, the back-up team
rushed towards their direction. However,before the team could reach them, Irene Martin
ran away. Apduhan held appellant so that shecould not escape. Donald Pilay was also
arrested.
Whether there is conspiracy in the commission of the crime
Appellant’s contention that Irene Martin was the real culprit being the source of
thecontraband does not in any way absolve her of the crime of selling marijuana. While it is
truethat it was Irene Martin who took the money, appellant was the one who negotiated
with theposeur-buyers; fetched her co-accused; carried and handed over the marijuana to
Apduhan.The acts of Martin and appellant clearly show a unity of purpose in the
consummation of thesale of marijuana. In other words, between Martin and appellant,
conspiracy in the commissionof the crime was indubitably proven by the prosecution.
Section 21 (b) of R.A. 6425 punishes the mere conspiracy to commit the offense of selling,
delivering, distributing and transporting of dangerous drugs.
Conspiracy herein refers tothe mere agreement to commit the said acts and not the actual
execution thereof. While therule is that a mere conspiracy to commit a crime without doing
any overt act is notpunishable, the exception is when such is specifically penalized by law,
as in the case of Section 21 of Republic Act 6425. Conspiracy as crime should be
distinguished from conspiracyas a manner of incurring criminal liability the latter being
applicable to the case at bar.
TITLE PEOPLE VS BELLO, 428 SCRA 388
TOPIC Conspiracy (Robbery with Homicide)
Accused Marife and Eladio, Jr. entered the Queensland
Lodge in Pasay City aboard a cab. Marife called up
telephone operator, Digna Siazon, and asked for an outside
line and later on given an outside line. She called up
Sunshine Moneychanger identifying herself as Joann Redillo
who would like to convert her 40 pieces of yen to pesos.
She requested the conversion to be done inside her room.
The victim, Rolando Andasan, was sent to the lodge to
FACTS specifically give the lady occupant P114,000 in exchange for
her yen. Rolando was found lifeless later on.
After trial, the court found the accused guilty ascharged
and imposed on them the maximumpenalty of death
as they were found to be part ofan organized or
syndicated crime group underArticle 62 (1) (a) of the
Revised Penal Code, asamended.
W/N there exists a conspiracy in thecommission of the
ISSUE
crime
Yes. The records clearly reveal thatappellant Marife was
part of the plan to rob themoneychanger. As the
conspiracy among the accusedwas sufficiently established
by the prosecution, theappellants are equally guilty of the
special complexcrime of robbery with homicide for in
conspiracy, theact of one is the act of all. Thus, although the
RULING originalplan may have been to simply rob the victim
andwhile appellant Marife may not have actually
participated in the horrendous killing, theconspirators
are equally liable as co-principals for allthe planned or
unanticipated consequences of theircriminal design.
Decision is AFFIRMED with modification.
Li vs People, 427 SCRA 217
Conspiracy (homicide turned slight physical injuries)
Kingston Li and Eduardo Sangalang were involved in a street brawl against
Christopher Arugay and Ronaldo Tan. The first blow was struck by Li who was
armed with a baseball bat. It hit Arugay, who retaliated by inflicting a wound on
Li's hea using a bolo. After Li had fallen, Sangalang, armed with a knife, fatally
stabbed Arugay at least 4 times. Tan picked the baseball bat and struck Li with it
on the head.
Arugay died while Li sustained incised wounds. The RTC found Li guilty of
conspiring with Sangalang with the murder of Arugay. The CA on the other hand
ruled that both are guilty of homicide, whether or not the conspiracy exists. Li
appealed, thus the case.
WN a conspiracy exists between Li and Sangalang/ WN Li is guilty of homicide
Li is acquitted. It was not proven that Li has asked for, or received, any
assistance from Sangalang and based on the evidences it is hard to conclude
that Sangalang and Li has acted in concert to commit the offense.
Stabbing Arugay can be construed as a spur of the moment reaction by
Sangalang upon seeing that his friend was struck on the head. A finding of
conspiracy cannot arise from such spontaneous reaction.
Li can only be convicted based on the act he did. His offense is slight physical
injury. As he has served more than the impossible penalty of the said offense,
his release was ordered.
PEOPLE v. REYNALDO BAGANO
Conspiracy (Murder)
On 23 May 1995, about 3:00 o'clock in the morning, Jeremias
Montecino and his wife Merlinda Montecino were sleeping in
their home in Sitio Wangyu, Alaska, Barangay Mambaling, Cebu
City, when they were awakened by someone repeatedly calling
Jeremias' name. The call came from outside. Jeremias went to
the window to see who it was and thereafter left their room to
go outside. Merlinda remained in their room, but peering
through the window she saw Pablito Canete suddenly embrace
Jeremias as the latter was opening the gate. Thereupon,
Reynaldo Bagano with ice pick in hand stabbed Jeremias on the
chest. Jeremias struggled to free himself from Pablito Cañete's
clasp and ran, but Reynaldo Bagano gave chase. Upon hearing
Merlinda's screams for help[3] Reynaldo withdrew and fled with
Pablito Canete following him. Merlinda rushed him to the
hospital where he was proclaimed dead upon arrival.
WN conspiracy exists between
From the mode and manner in which the offense was
perpetrated, and as can be inferred from their acts, it is evident
that Bagano and Cañete were one in their intention to kill
Jeremias Montecino. Hence, in accordance with the principle
that in conspiracy the act of one is the act of all, the fact that it
was Bagano who delivered the fatal blow on Montecino and
Cañete's participation was limited to a mere embrace is
immaterial. Conspiracy bestows upon them equal liability;
hence, they shall suffer the same fate for their acts.
Article 248 of The Revised Penal Code prescribes the penalty of
reclusion perpetua to death for the crime of murder. Absent any
mitigating or aggravating circumstance in the commission of the
crime, the lower penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed.