You are on page 1of 2

Title: People VS Carandang

GR No: 175926

Date: July 6, 2011

Plaintiff: People of the Philippines

Defendant: Restituto Carandang

Petition for: Review

Accused of: 2 counts of murder and 1 count of frustrated murder

Ruling Trial Court: Guilty of 2 counts of murder and 1 count of frustrated murder

Ruling Court of Appeals: Guilty of 2 counts of murder and 1 count of frustrated murder

Ruling Supreme Court: Affirmed with modifications

Facts of the Case:

(According to the victims)

 April 5, 2001, the drug enforcement unit of La Loma Police Station received a request for
assistance from the sister of accused Milan regarding a drug deal about to take place in
their house.
 The station commander delegated tasks to interrogate the sister of Milan and to proceed
to the house in Calavite Street.
 At around 4:00pm, the police went to the house and declared their presence. In the house
were the accused Henry Milan, Jackman Chua and Restituto Carandang.
 Upon hearing the police arrival, Milan shut the door.
 PO2 Alonzo and SPO2 Red pushed the door open. Suddenly gunshots were fired by
Carandang which hit Alonzo and Red. SPO1 Monteclavo was likewise hit but was only
injured. Chua uttered to Milan “Sugurin mo na!”.
 Reinforcements came at 4:30 pm. Negotiations ensued. Milan was sent to the hospital
together with Monteclavo.
 Chua and Carandang remained in the house and demanded certain persons to meet with.
 A paraffin test was conducted which yielded negative on Chua while positive for
(According to the accused)
 Carandang claims that he had no firearm. He was only in the house of Milan to talk
about his cellphone’s SIM card.
 Successive gunshots erupted while they remained hidden under the bed.

Issue: Whether or not there was conspiracy among the appellants in the present case


The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals with modification.

The appellants alleged that there is lack of direct evidence showing that they conspired
with Carandang during the latter’s act of shooting the policemen. However, Conspiracy exists
when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
decide to commit it. Evidence need not establish the actual agreement among the conspirators
showing a preconceived plan or motive for the commission of the crime. Proof of concerted
action before, during and after the crime, which demonstrates their unity of design and
objective, is sufficient. When conspiracy is established, the act of one is the act of all regardless
of the degree of participation of each.

The act of closing the door by Milan gave Carandang ample time to move into a more
strategic position for gunfire. Chua likewise urged Milan to attack Monteclavo. The circumstantial
evidence support the unity of purpose of the minds of the three.

Appellants further alleged that the incident occurred so rapidly that conspiracy is
impossible to commit. However, this Court ruled that there is no requirement for conspiracy to
exist that there be sufficient period of time to elapse. Conspiracy arises on the very moment the
plotters agree to commit the felony.