Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION), sub-paragraphs (b), (c) & (d) because he is indicted as a principal and as co-
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, respondents. conspirator of the former President. This is purportedly clear from the first and
second paragraphs of the Amended Information.v[19]
In November 2000, as an offshoot of the impeachment proceedings against Joseph
Ejercito Estrada, then President of the Republic of the Philippines, five criminal For better focus, there is a need to examine again the allegations of the Amended
complaints against the former President and members of his family, his associates, Information vis--vis the provisions of R.A. No. 7080.
friends and conspirators were filed with the respondent Office of the Ombudsman.
The Amended Information, in its first two paragraphs, charges petitioner and his
On April 4, 2001, the respondent Ombudsman issued a Joint Resolutioni[1] finding other co-accused with the crime of plunder. The first paragraph names all the
probable cause warranting the filing with the Sandiganbayan of several criminal accused, while the second paragraph describes in general how plunder was
Informations against the former President and the other respondents therein. One committed and lays down most of the elements of the crime itself. Sub-paragraphs
of the Informations was for the crime of plunder under Republic Act No. 7080 and (a) to (d) describe in detail the predicate acts that constitute the crime and name
among the respondents was herein petitioner Jose Jinggoy Estrada, then mayor of in particular the co-conspirators of former President Estrada in each predicate act.
San Juan, Metro Manila. The predicate acts alleged in the said four sub-paragraphs correspond to the items
enumerated in Section 1 (d) of R.A. No. 7080. Sub-paragraph (a) alleged the
On April 30, 2001, petitioner filed a Very Urgent Omnibus Motionii[2] alleging that: predicate act of receiving, on several instances, money from illegal gambling, in
(1) no probable cause exists to put him on trial and hold him liable for plunder, it consideration of toleration or protection of illegal gambling, and expressly names
appearing that he was only allegedly involved in illegal gambling and not in a series petitioner as one of those who conspired with former President Estrada in
or combination of overt or criminal acts as required in R.A. No. 7080; and (2) he is committing the offense. This predicate act corresponds with the offense described
entitled to bail as a matter of right. Petitioner prayed that he be excluded from the in item [2] of the enumeration in Section 1 (d) of R.A. No. 7080. Sub-paragraph (b)
Amended Information and be discharged from custody. In the alternative, alleged the predicate act of diverting, receiving or misappropriating a portion of the
petitioner also prayed that he be allowed to post bail in an amount to be fixed by tobacco excise tax share allocated for the province of Ilocos Sur, which act is the
respondent court.iii[3] offense described in item [1] in the enumeration in Section 1 (d) of the law. This
sub-paragraph does not mention petitioner but instead names other conspirators of
Petitioner claims that respondent Sandiganbayan acted without or in excess of the former President. Sub-paragraph (c) alleged two predicate acts - that of
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in: ordering the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) and the Social Security
System (SSS) to purchase shares of stock of Belle Corporation, and collecting or
receiving commissions from such purchase from the Belle Corporation which
3) sustaining the charge against petitioner for alleged offenses, and with alleged
became part of the deposit in the Jose Velarde account at the Equitable-PCI Bank.
conspirators, with which and with whom he is not even remotely connected -
These two predicate acts fall under items [2] and [3] in the enumeration of R.A. No.
contrary to the dictum that criminal liability is personal, not vicarious - results in the
7080, and was allegedly committed by the former President in connivance with
denial of substantive due process;
John Does and Jane Does. Finally, sub-paragraph (d) alleged the predicate act that
the former President unjustly enriched himself from commissions, gifts, kickbacks,
Petitioner also faults the respondent Sandiganbayan for sustaining the charge
in connivance with John Does and Jane Does, and deposited the same under his
against petitioner for alleged offenses and with alleged conspirators, with which
account name Jose Velarde at the Equitable-PCI Bank. This act corresponds to the
and with whom he is not even remotely connected contrary to the dictum that
offense under item [6] in the enumeration of Section 1 (d) of R.A. No. 7080.
criminal liability is personal, not vicarious results in the denial of substantive due
process.iv[18]
From the foregoing allegations of the Amended Information, it is clear that all the
accused named in sub-paragraphs (a) to (d), thru their individual acts, conspired
The Solicitor General argues, on the other hand, that petitioner is charged not only
with former President Estrada to enable the latter to amass, accumulate or acquire
with the predicate act in sub-paragraph (a) but also with the other predicate acts in
ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate amount of P4,097,804,173.17
We hasten to add, however, that the respondent Ombudsman cannot be faulted 2) That Dan Dangpal, neighbor of the deceased, at about 8:00 PM that evening, heard
for including the predicate acts alleged in sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) of the Amended successive gunshots and saw the deceaseds house burning.
Information in one, and not in four, separate Informations 3) That prior the incident, Barangay Captain Potado Ballang saw the appellant a few
meters away from the house of the deceased.
. In the crime of plunder, therefore, different parties may be united by a common 4) That earlier that day, Dominga Salvador, common-law wife of Manuel Salvador and
purpose. In the case at bar, the different accused and their different criminal acts mother of Analyn Salvador, went to the house of the appellant to inquire about her
have a commonalityto help the former President amass, accumulate or acquire ill- husbands share in the construction of the barangay hall. Dominga also related that
gotten wealth. Sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) in the Amended Information alleged the had earlier filed a complaint against the appellant and his brother for slaughtering
different participation of each accused in the conspiracy her pig.
In the American jurisdiction, the presence of several accused in multiple conspiracies In his appeal, the appellant argued that the court failed to rule and resolve whether
commonly involves two structures: (1) the so-called wheel or circle conspiracy, in or not conspiracy existed, despite the fact that there was no proof as to what overt
which there is a single person or group (the hub) dealing individually with two or acts he committed which would constitute the crime of murder.
more other persons or groups (the spokes); and (2) the chain conspiracy, usually
involving the distribution of narcotics or other contraband, in which there is ISSUE:
successive communication and cooperation in much the same way as with legitimate 1) Whether or not there was conspiracy.
business operations between manufacturer and wholesaler, then wholesaler and 2) Whether or not accused-appellant should be held liable for two (2) separate counts
retailer, and then retailer and consumer.ii[23] of murder or for the complex crime of double murder.
From a reading of the Amended Information, the case at bar appears similar to a HELD:
wheel conspiracy. The hub is former President Estrada while the spokes are all the 1) Conspiracy, in this case, is not essential. The rule is that in the absence of evidence
accused, and the rim that encloses the spokes is the common goal in the overall showing the direct participation of the accused in the commission of the crime,
conspiracy, i.e., the amassing, accumulation and acquisition of ill-gotten wealth. conspiracy must be established by clear and convincing evidence in order to convict
the accused. In the case at bar, however, direct participation of accused-appellant in
People vs. Gaffud the killing of the victims was established beyond doubt by the evidence of the
G.R. No. 168050. September 19, 2008 prosecution. Thus, a finding of conspiracy is no longer essential for the conviction of
accused-appellant.
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-appellant: Bernardino Gaffud 2) No. The Court ruled that in a complex crime, although two or more crimes are
Ponente: C.J. Puno actually committed, they constitute only one crime in the eyes of the law as well as
in the conscience of the offender. The burning the house of Manuel Salvador, with
the main objective of killing the latter and his daughter, resulting in their deaths
FACTS:
resulted in the complex crime of double murder. Hence, there is only one penalty
imposed for the commission of a complex crime.
Accused-appellant Bernardino Gaffud, Jr. was found guilty of two (2) counts of
murder for killing Manuel Salvador and Analyn Salvador by means of fire. Evidence
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
for the prosecution presented the following:
vs.
BALTAZAR LACAO, SR., PATRIA LACAO and TRINIDAD LACAO MANSILLA
1) That on the night of May 10, 1994, Orly Salvador, while on his way to the house of
his uncle Manuel Salvador, heard two gunshots and thereafter saw the house of his
uncle burning. He saw three persons within the vicinity of the burning house, one of FACTS; : At about 10:00 o'clock in the evening of September 28, 1985, prosecution
whom he identified as appellant Gaffud, Jr. witness Mila Parto was at her house in Barangay Manibad attending to persons who
came to the wake of her aunt, Nemesia Lacao. Mila Parto is the sister-in-law of the
eyewitness accounts, he even continued stabbing the victim who was
deceased police Cpl. Jose G. Inocencio, Jr. While she was so engaged, she heard and already slumped prone and helpless.
witnessed a commotion at the first floor of the two-storey house and the events that
took place thereafter. The commotion arose from a card game where one Mansueto The first requisite of self-defense is indispensable. There can be no self-
Rivera was losing and accused Baltazar Lacao II, who was playing with him, was defense unless it is proven that there has been unlawful aggression on the
furiously arguing with the former. Baltazar Lacao II then unsheathed his knife and part of the person injured or killed by the accused. If there is no unlawful
threatened Mansueto Rivera by pointing the knife at the latter's neck. Wilma Rivera, aggression, there is nothing to prevent or to repel. The second requisite of
the sister-in-law of Mansueto, intervened and Baltazar Lacao II released the latter. self-defense will have no basis.
Baltazar Lacao II then went inside the house wielding his knife and causing the other
guests to panic. 2. Whether there exist a conspiracy between the accused
It was then that Cpl. Jose G. Inocencio, Jr. went down to inquire into the matter and The Court, however, is not favorably impressed with the prosecution's theory that
to pacify the people. When he saw Baltazar Lacao II with a knife, he held the latter's the assailants acted pursuant to a conspiracy just because they apparently acted in
hand holding that knife. Baltazar Lacao II then said: "Nyor, release me." As Cpl. unison in attacking the victim. True, conspiracy is always predominantly mental in
Inocencio did not release him, the latter's mother, Patria Lacao, then said: "Nyor, composition because it consists primary of the meeting of minds and, generally,
release my son." When Cpl. Inocencio released Baltazar Lacao II, the latter suddenly complicity may be inferred from circumstantial evidence, i.e., the community of
stabbed Inocencio on his right side. Baltazar Lacao, Sr. and his other son, Baltazar purpose and the unity of design in the contemporaneous or simultaneous
Lacao III, together with his wife, Patria Lacao, and his sister, Trinidad Lacao Mansilla, performance of the act of assaulting the deceased.20 However, conspiracy must be
rushed inside the house and surrounded the victim. proved with as much certainty as the crime itself.21 The same degree of proof
required to establish the crime is required to support a finding of conspiracy,22 that
The men then stabbed Cpl. Inocencio several times while the women hit him with is, proof beyond reasonable doubt.
stools. As the attack continued, the victim was pushed toward the door of the kitchen
and he later slumped on the floor facing downward. Baltazar Lacao, Sr. then sat The rapidity in the succession of such consecutive acts of the assailants, with the last
astride him and continued stabbing the latter as he was thus lying prostrate. four coming instinctively, as it were, to the aid of the original assailant, cannot but
produce the conclusion that their actuations were activated without prior or
Thereafter, this appellant asked: "Nyor, Nyor, are you still alive?" Appellant Patria
apparent deliberation
Lacao interjected: "What are you waiting for, it is already finished, we have to go."
Baltazar Lacao III then got the gun of Cpl. Inocencio and all the accused went away.
The spontaneity of their respective reactions, albeit resulting in an attack where they
ISSSUE: all participated, rules out the existence of a conspiracy.
1. Whether the accused can invoke self-defense As a consequence, therefore, the respective liabilities of appellants shall be
Appellant Baltazar Lacao, Sr., by pleading self-defense necessarily admits determined by the nature of their individual participations in the felonious act.
that he killed the victim and he is thus duty bound to prove the essential
requisites for this justifying circumstance.11 This circumstance he has to 3. whether or not treachery was properly appreciated as a qualifying
prove by clear and convincing evidence,12 the onus probandi having shifted circumstance
to him.
Now, this appellant admitted stabbing the victim more than five (5) times.
we agree with the holding of the court below since this was sufficiently proven by the
As seen from the medico-legal report, the victim actually suffered fifteen
evidence. It is elementary hornbook knowledge that there is treachery when the
(15) stab wounds, that the cause of death was hemorrhage and multiple
offender commits any of the crimes against persons employing means, methods, or
stab wounds,13 and that most of the injuries inflicted were indeed fatal. It
forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its
cannot now be denied that, even indulging said appellant in his theory, he
execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party
definitely exceeded the limits of what is necessary to suppress an alleged
might make.25
unlawful aggression directed to him by the victim. In fact, from the
six to seven persons aboard the vehicle. He proceeded to fill up P50.00 worth of
In the present case, the deceased was stabbed without warning the moment he diesel in the gas tank. After doing this, he returned the key to the driver. While
unsuspectingly released the hand of Baltazar Lacao II. So sudden and unanticipated
was the attack that the victim was given no chance to defend himself. Then herein returning the key, the driver told him that the engine of the vehicle would not
appellants, although apparently acting without prior agreement, also instantly and start.v[4] Eduardo Zulueta offered to give the vehicle a push. While Eduardo Zulueta
all together attacked him. Even if their aforesaid acts were independently performed
on their individual initiatives, such concerted action ensured the commission of the and fellow gasoline boy Fortunato Lacambra III were positioned at the back of the
crime without risk to them arising from any defense or retaliation that the victim vehicle, ready to push the same, the six male passengers of the same vehicle, except
might have resorted to. Treachery was thus correctly appreciated against all
appellants, the use of superior strength being absorbed as an integral part of the the driver, alighted and announced a hold-up. They were armed with a shotgun and
treacherous mode of commission. .38 caliber pistol.v[5]
Appellant Baltazar Lacao, Sr. admitted during the trial that he was once convicted of
the crime of homicide but he was granted an absolute pardon therefor.26 The lower Fortunato Lacambra III was ordered to lie down,v[6] while Eduardo Zulueta
court properly considered recidivism since a pardon for a preceding offense does not was directed to go near the Car Wash Section.v[7] At that instance, guns were poked
obliterate the fact that the accused is a recidivist upon his conviction of a second
offense embraced in the same title of the Code.27 This aggravating circumstance of at them.v[8]
recidivism accordingly offsets the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender by
Baltazar Lacao, Sr.
Appellant, who guarded Eduardo Zulueta, poked a gun at the latter and
took the latter's wallet containing a pawnshop ticket and P50.00, while the
companion of the former, hit the latter on his nape with a gun.v[9]
Meanwhile, four members of the group went to the cashier's office and
took the money worth P3,000.00.v[10] Those four robbers were also the ones who
shot Edralin Macahis in the stomach.v[11] Thereafter, the same robbers took Edralin
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. MARLON ALBERT DE LEON Macahis' service firearm.v[12]
FACTS: around 2 o'clock of January 7, 2000, Eduardo Zulueta and Fortunato After he heard successive gunshots, Eduardo Zulueta saw appellant and his
Lacambra III, both gasoline boys; Julieta Amistoso, cashier; and Edralin Macahis, companions immediately leave the place.v[13] The robbers boarded the same
security guard; all employees of Energex Gasoline Station, located at Barangay vehicle and proceeded toward San Mateo, Rizal.v[14] When the robbers left, Eduardo
Guinayan, San Mateo, Rizal, were on duty when a mint green-colored Tamaraw FX Zulueta stood up and found Julieta Amistoso, who told him that the robbers took her
arrived for service at the said gasoline station.v[3] bag and jewelry. He also saw that Edralin Macahis had a gunshot wound in the
stomach. He immediately hailed a vehicle which transported the injured Edralin
Eduardo Zulueta was the one who attended to the said vehicle. He went to
Macahis to the hospital.v[15] Later on, Edralin Macahis died at the hospital due to
the drivers side in order to take the key of the vehicle from the driver so that he could
the gunshot wound.
open the gas tank. He saw through the lowered window shield that there were about
a series of acts, there is only one crime committed; hence, only one penalty shall be
crime of Robbery with Homicide, having acted in conspiracy with other imposed
malefactors, the use of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of the crime as an
aggravating circumstance ERNESTINO P. DUNLAO, SR., vs. COURT OF APPEALS
Upon seeing they were no longer being chased, Quinones invited the other two to
his house so that he could change to his working clothes as a bus conductor.
While the trio were walking along a national highway towards the victims house,
the three accused suddenly emerged on the road side. That was the time when
Fernando hacked Quinones, Jr. on his face, causing fatal injuries on the latters face
which resulted in his death.
The accused denied having perpetrated the crime and stated that they were on
their respective houses when the crime occurred.
The lower court found that Iligans group conspired to kill anyone or all members of
the group of the victim to vindicate the boxing on the face of Edmundo. Fernando
and Edmundo were then charged with the crime of murder with aggravating
circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery.
ISSUES:
WON Fernando could be absolved of his criminal liability given that the victim was
subsequently run over by a vehicle