G.R. No.

159734 November 29, 2006

ROSARIO V. ASTUDILLO, Petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

CARPIO MORALES, J.:

Facts:
Petitioners were hired by Western, a chain of appliance stores, as salespersons. Benitez and
Flormarie were hired as floor manager and service-in-charge/cashier-reliever. In the course of
preparing the monthly sales report, Branch Accountant Marlon Camilo noticed that the computer
printout of the monthly sales report revealed a belated entry for Cash Sales Invoice No. 128366.
He learned that the branch received the booklet containing 50 cash sales invoices. Camilo then
confirmed that the booklet of sales invoices nos. 128351 to 128400 was missing, he noted that
the daily cash collection report did not reflect any remittance of payments from the transactions
covered by the said invoices. Some cash sales invoices were recovered, including Invoice no.
128366 which Camilo found out that Flormarie was the one who filled it up and received the
payment. From recovered Invoice Nos. 128358 and 128375, Camilo found out that the
transactions under said invoices were made but no payment was remitted to Western, he
reported the matter to Ma. Aurora Borja, the branch assistant manager. Benitez approached
Camilo and requested him not report the matter to the management, Aurora and Camilo met
with Benitez, Filipina, cashiers Rita and Norma during which they pleaded with Camilo, not to
report the same, Flormarie made a similar plea as she admitted the stealing of the missing
booklet of invoices because her father was sick and had to undergo medical operation.
Petitioners Flormarie, Benitez, Rosario Astudillo, Filipina, were collectively found guilty of
qualified theft by the RTC for feloniously taking, stealing and carrying away two booklets of
Sales Invoices Nos. from 128351 to 128400 of the said corporation and thereafter use the said
invoices in the preparation of fictitious sales and withdrawals of merchandise from Western
Marketing Corp. Additionally, Benitez and Javier, Rosario and Filipina were individually charged
with the crime of Qualified Theft.
Issue:
Whether or not conspiracy exists among the accused who are co-employees and working in one
company?
Ruling:
Yes. It is settled that conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a crime and decide to commit it. To effectively serve as a basis
for conviction, conspiracy must be proved as convincingly as the criminal act. Direct proof is not
absolutely required for the purpose. The petitioners’ collective guilt in taking away merchandise
by making it appear that certain items were purchased with the use of stolen cash sales
invoices, the court held that petitioner’s acts before, during, and after the commission of the
crime to indubitably indicate a joint purpose, concert of action and community of interest is thus
in order.
In Rosario’s case, the Office of the Solicitor General made a sweeping conclusion that the
extent of her participation in the act of taking merchandise need not be specified since she
attributed her other act of taking "short-over" to "pakikisama" or companionship. The conclusion
does not persuade.

Mere companionship does not establish conspiracy. As indicated early on, there were two
different sets of imputed acts, one individual and the other collective. Rosario’s admission was
material only to her individual guilt as she referred only to the "short-over". The wording of her
admission cannot be construed to extend to the other offense charging conspiracy under which
no overt act was established to prove that Rosario shared with, and concurred in, the criminal
design of taking away Western’s merchandise.1âwph

The prosecution relied on Aurora’s statement that Flormarie’s husband mentioned Rosario as
among those involved in the anomaly. Aurora testified that she witnessed Filipina, along with
Benitez, hiring third persons to pose as customers who received the items upon presenting the
tampered invoice. Moreover, Filipina’s statement dovetailed with Benitez’s admission, which
was corroborated by Flormarie’s confessions. In cases alleging conspiracy, an extra-judicial
confession is admissible against a co-conspirator as a circumstantial evidence to show the
probability of participation of said co-conspirator in the crime committed.

Except with respect to Rosario, then, this Court finds well-taken the trial court’s observation that
the admissions were full of substantial details as to how the accused conspired to commit the
criminal acts and as to how they manipulated the sales transactions at Western to effect and
consummate the theft of the goods.

In fine, insofar as Filipina is concerned, a thorough evaluation of the evidence warrants the
affirmance of her guilt beyond reasonable doubt of having conspired with Benitez et al.
G.R. No. 99840 August 14, 1995

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
RODOLFO FEDERICO Y MEDIONA, accused-appellant.

DAVIDE, JR., J.:

Facts:
Rogelio Fernando, a tricycle driver and Francisco Mediona, a Metro Aide had an altercation
resulting in one chasing the other. However, before the incident happened, Rogelio and
Francisco had already settled their differences before the Barangay Chairman. On March 17,
1990, Rogelio, Pastor Escala and other tricycle drivers were in front of the bakery owned by
Benedicto Escala, conversing about tricycle sidecars, while Marcelo was seated in front of his
house located 8 meters away from the bakery. Marcelo saw Rodolfo and his cousins Francisco
and Ruben Mediona going towards the bakery, while Francisco was holding a bladed knife. The
latter bought a bread from the bakery, and he suddenly stabbed Rogelio on the left side of the
body, who was caught by surprise and was hit between the armpit and left breast. Rogelio fled
from the scene but his path was blocked by Ruben and Rodolfo who aimed their slings and
darts at him. Rogelio turned towards another street to avoid being hit by darts by the accused,
and there he met some friends who brought him to Tondo Medical Center for medical treatment.
Meanwhile, Francisco turned to Pastor, held him by the hair, and stabbed him. Marcelo saw the
latter stabbing Francisco 4 times on different parts of the body. After the incident, Francisco
hurled a challenge on anyone in the vicinity to a fight but nobody took up his challenge,
thereupon he fled together with Ruben and Rodolfo.
However, the accused denied any participation in the commission of the crime. Accroding to
him, he was in the house of his cousin Elsa along Magsaysay Street, and on that evening, he
noticed a commotion outside Elsa’s house. When he went out of the house, he heard people
say that Francisco stabbed somebody. He returned to the house, then two policemen arrived,
handcuffed him, and pushed him outside the house. He told them that he had not done anything
wrong and at the police headquarters, Patrolman Lumbad tried to force him to admit that he
killed Pastor but he refused to do so.

The accused was charged with murder and also with frustrated murder. The trial court convicted
him as a principal on the basis of conspiracy, that by their acts, the accused and cousins
Francisco and Ruben showed a common objective in killing Rogelio and Pastor, and each of
them performed separate parts aimed at and to attain same objective. Such acts were
concerted and cooperative in point of time and sequence, indicating concurrence of sentiments,
sympathy and determination.

Issue:
Whether or not there was conspiracy between the accused and his cousin Francisco who
actually stabbed Pastor Escala?
Ruling:

No. Our own scrutiny of the records and evaluation of the evidence for the prosecution fail to
convince us with moral certainty that the accused-appellant had conspired with his cousins
Francisco Mediona and Ruben Mediona to kill Pastor Escala.

It is very obvious that the accused-appellant and his cousins intended to harm Fernando
because of the bad blood that existed between the latter and Francisco Mediona due to a
misunderstanding that occurred a month before the incident which Francisco could not forget
despite the amicable settlement mediated by the barangay captain. The actions of the accused-
appellant in arming himself with a sling and darts which he aimed towards the bakery where
Fernando and the others were and in blocking the path of Fernando when the latter tried to run
away from Francisco establish his concurrence in the criminal purpose of Francisco, the actual
assailant of Fernando. But with respect to the stabbing of the victim Pastor Escala, we find very
tenuous and insufficient the evidence of conspiracy.
No reason, motive, or intent on the part of Francisco was shown or proved why he would stab
Escala. And there is no convincing evidence that the killing of Escala was part of the conspiracy
to kill Rogelio Fernando. Neither is there any indication that the accused-appellant was aware
that Francisco would attack Escala. Francisco stabbed Escala only after he had stabbed
Rogelio Fernando and the latter ran away.

We cannot and should not assume that the accused-appellant had any inkling of what Francisco
was going to do at the time the latter turned against Escala. Because the conspiracy was to kill
Fernando only and the accused-appellant did not conspire with Francisco in the killing of
Escala, he cannot be held liable as a co-conspirator for the said killing.

In the absence of a conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose and intention immediately before the
commission of the crime, or community of criminal design the criminal responsibility arising from
acts directed against one and the same person is individual and not collective; each of the
participants is liable only for the acts committed by him. 10 The accused-appellant, by his actions
while Francisco was stabbing Escala, is liable for the latter's death, not as a co-principal
however, but as an accomplice under Article 18 of the Revised Penal Code. It was established
that at the time Francisco attacked and stabbed Escala, the accused-appellant and Ruben
Mediona remained standing in the same place where they were when Francisco stabbed
Fernando and still had their slings and darts pointed at the people near the bakery. It is obvious
then that at that particular instance, the accused-appellant became aware of the intent of
Francisco to kill Escala. Moreover, he cooperated in the execution of Francisco's purpose and
concurred therewith by pointing his sling and darts, either to give moral support to Francisco or
to deter the people from attacking him in retaliation for the stabbing of Escala. Such
cooperation, however, was not indispensable to the accomplishment of the evil deed as to make
him a co-principal.
G.R. No. 188314 January 10, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
KHADDAFY JANJALANI, GAMAL B. BAHARAN, Accused-Appellants

SERENO, J.:

Facts:
On February 14, 2005, an RRCG bus was plying its usual southbound route via EDSA.
According to Elmer Andales, bus conductor, two men insisted on getting on the bus, so the
conductor obliged and let them in. He became wary of the two men, because the two sat away
from each other, one sat two seats behind the driver, while the other sat at the back of the bus.
Andales became more suspicious because both of them kept on asking him if the bus was
going to stop at Ayala Avenue.
As soon as the bus reached the stoplight at the corner of Ayala Avenue, the two men insisted
on getting off the bus. The bus driver did not want to let them off because a Makati ordinance
prohibited unloading anywhere except at designated bus stops. Eventually, allowed the two to
alight and they immediately got off the bus and ran. Moments after, Andales felt an explosion
and then saw fire quickly engulfing the bus.
The prosecution presented documents furnished by the Department of Justice, confirming that
shortly before the explosion, the spokesperson of the Abu Sayyaf Group, Abu Solaiman,
announced over radio station DZBB that the group had a Valentine’s Day “gift” for former
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

Accused Trinidad gave ABS-CBN News Network and exclusive interview after the incident,
confessing his participation in the Valentine’s Day bombing incident. Baharan admitted his role
in the bombing incident. Asali gave a television interview confessing that he had supplied the
explosive devices for the bombing. The bus conductor identified Baharan and Trinidad and
confirmed that they were the two men who had entered the RRCG bus on the evening of
February 14.
Members of the Abu Sayyaf Group were then charged with multiple murder and multiple
frustrated murder. Only Baharan, Trinidad, Asali, and Rohmat were arrested, while the other
accused remain at-large.
Baharan and Trinidad pled guilty to the charge of multiple frustrated murder.

After being discharged as state witness, accused Asali testified that while under training with the
Abu Sayyaf in 2004, Rohmat, and two other persons taught him how to make bombs and
explosives. The trainees were told that they were to wage battles against the government in the
city, and that their first mission was to plant bombs in malls, the LRT, and other parts of Metro
Manila.
The trial court found the Asali was required by the Abu Sayyaf Leadership, Abu Solaiman and
Rohmat to secure 8kls. of TNT, a soldering gun, aluminum powder, a tester, and Christmas
lights, all of which he knew would be used to make a bomb.

Asali testified that the night before the Valentine’s Day bombing, Trinidad and Baharan got
another two kilos of TNT from him. After the bombing incident, he received a call from Rohmat
congratulating him on the success of the mission.

Issue:

1. Whether or not the accused are guilty for the crime charged?
2. Whether or not Rohmat is criminally liable as principal?
3. Whether or not there is conspiracy involving accused Baharan, Trinidad and Rohmat?
Ruling:
1. Yes. The guilt of the accused Baharan and Trinidad was sufficiently established by the
corroborating testimonies of Andales and Asali, coupled with their respective judicial
admission (pretrial stipulations) and extrajudicial confessions (exclusice television
interviews) that they were indeed the perpetrators of the Valentine’s Day bombing.
Andales positively identified Baharan and Trinidad as the two men who had acted
suspiciously while inside the bus and insisted on getting off the bus, and who had
scampered away moments before the bomb exploded. Asali also testified that he had
given Baharan and Trinidad the TNT used in the bombing incident in Makati City.

2. Yes. Based from the testimony of Asali, the Abu Sayyaf Group was determined to sow
terror in Metro Manila, so that they could show their "anger towards the Christians."18 It
can also be seen that Rohmat, together with Janjalani and Abu Solaiman, had carefully
planned the Valentine’s Day bombing incident, months before it happened. Rohmat had
trained Asali and Trinidad to make bombs and explosives. Thus, the Court upholds the
finding of guilt against Rohmat under Article 17 of the RPC which reads:

Art. 17. Principals. — The following are considered principals:

1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act

2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it

3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it
would not have been accomplished

Accused Rohmat is criminally responsible under the second paragraph, or the provision on
"principal by inducement." The instructions and training he had given Asali on how to make
bombs – coupled with their careful planning and persistent attempts to bomb different areas in
Metro Manila and Rohmat’s confirmation that Trinidad would be getting TNT from Asali as part
of their mission – prove the finding that Rohmat’s co-inducement was the determining cause of
the commission of the crime. Such "command or advice [was] of such nature that, without it, the
crime would not have materialized.” Further, the inducement was "so influential in producing the
criminal act that without it, the act would not have been performed."
The Court also affirms the finding of the existence of conspiracy involving accused Baharan,
Trinidad, and Rohmat. Conspiracy was clearly established from the "collective acts of the
accused-appellants before, during and after the commission of the crime."

While said conspiracy involving the four malefactors has not been expressly admitted by
accused Baharan, Angelo Trinidad, and Rohmat, more specifically with respect to the latter’s
participation in the commission of the crimes, nonetheless it has been established by virtue of
the aforementioned evidence, which established the existence of the conspiracy itself and the
indispensable participation of accused Rohmat in seeing to it that the conspirators’ criminal
design would be realized.
G.R. No. 77776 June 27, 1990

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
ROMEO AGAPINAY, ALEX AGAPINAY, FORTUNATO AGAPINAY, DANTE AGAPINAY,
DELFIN AGAPINAY and CIRILO AGAPINAY, accused-appellants.

SARMIENTO, J.:

Facts:

Agapinays are brothers, except Romeo, who is Delfin's son, and along with Virgilio Paino, Amor
Flores, Eugenio Paino who were employees of Julia Rapada, an operator of fishing boats. They
went for fishing venture in the sea of Batangan, Gonzaga, Cagayan, and returned to shore the
following day whereupon, they unloaded their catch and spread out their fishnet on the sand to
dry. Thereafter, they mended the net with thread and small knives, under portable shed which is
territory of Romeo Agapinay, the accused. Meanwhile, Virgilio took the shed and laced it where
he and two other companions were. Moments later, Romeo Agapinay appeared and confronted
Virgilio, and berated him for taking the shed without his permission. Virgilio said that they were
going to use it. Shortly, the two exchange words and tempers apparently flared. Romeo lunged
at Virgilio with a hunting knife, six inches ling, that hit his right arm. Virgilio ran away but Delfin
and Fortunato Agapinay met him and held on to his arms. Romeo approached him and dealt
him a second stab at the right side of his back. Virgilio, however, managed to extricate himself
again and ran away. While he was running, Delfin, Alex, Fortunate, Dante, and Cirilo took turns
in stoning him. All of a sudden Amor Flores appeared and plunged a knife at the back of Virgilio.
It was then that Virgilio collapsed. Meanwhile Julia cried, "Kill him and we will bury him."

It also established that Cirilo and Delfin had attacked Eufemio, brother of Virgilio with their own
knives but the latter defended himself with a paddle.

The accused Cirilio alleged that the incident started when Virgilo grabbed the atal (a piece of
wood use to toll boats ashore) without his permission, Cirilio resented but Virgilio clubbed him
and that he lost his consciousness. Thus, other accused testified that Virgilio attacked them with
a knife, and pictured him as having been drunk at that time, and he came on strong without
provocation, talking the Agapinays for two hours.

The trial court rejected the accused’s claim of defense of relative and convicted them of the
crime of murder. It was noted that that it was not Virgilio who assaulted Cirilo and Delfin
Agapinay with a knife, but rather, Eufemio Paino. He held that the Agapinays can not thus say
that they had been defending themselves against Virgilio.

The lower court also found that the Agapinays had conspired to kill Virgilio Paino and thus held
them "all principals by participation." It was also observed that Virgilio could not have given a
valid cause for the Agapinays to assault him.
The court indicted Julia Rapada as alleged principal by inducement for having ordered the
Agapinays to kill Virgilio as well as Amor Flores. It found that no evident premeditation attended
the killing but appreciated treachery and conspiracy.

Issue:

1. Whether or not there was a conspiracy on the part of Agapinays to hold them liable as
co-principals in the crime of murder?
2. Whether or not Julia Rapada, can be held liable as a principal by inducement?

Ruling:

1. No. Conspiracy has not been shown beyond reasonable doubt to hold all six accused as
co-principals in the crime of murder. As the lower court observed, the stabbing
happened in the "spur of the moment." Conspiracy means, however, an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and a decision to commit it. If the tragedy was a
chance stabbing, there can be no conspiracy to speak of.

Hence, the parties' liability should be considered individually.

It is our considered opinion that only Romeo, Delfin, and Fortunato should be held as principals
in the crime of murder. Romeo is guilty, as he admitted in open court, by direct
participation, 32 while Delfin and Fortunate are liable as principals by cooperation. 33 In holding
the victim by his arms, both allowed Romeo to inflict upon him a stab wound. 34

Alex, Dante, and Cirilo, on the other hand, should be held as simple accomplices 35 for their acts
of pelting the victim with rocks. Since the deceased had already sustained two stab wounds, the
act of hurling rocks at him was not indispensable to justify holding them legally liable as
principals.

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's Decision insofar as it found Romeo, Delfin, and Fortunate,
all surnamed Agapinay, guilty as co-principals of murder. We however, find Alex, Dante, and
Cirilo, also all surnamed Agapinay, guilty as accomplices in the commission of the same
offense.

2. No. it is of the opinion of this Court that Julia Rapada cannot be held liable as a principal
by inducement. Her words, " Kill him and we will bury him" 27 amount but to imprudent
utterances said in the excitement of the hour or in the heat of anger (it does not appear
whether or not Rapada held a grudge against the deceased), and not, rather, in the
nature of a command that had to be obeyed.
G.R. No. 128966 August 18, 1999

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
EDWIN DE VERA y GARCIA, RODERICK GARCIA y GALAMGAM, KENNETH FLORENDO
and ELMER CASTRO, accused,
EDWIN DE VERA y GARCIA, appellant.

PANGANIBAN, J.:

Facts:

Edwin De Vera y Garcia, together with Roderick Garcia, Kenneth Florendo and Elmer Castro
was charged with Murder before the RTC-QC in connection with the killing of one Frederick
Capulong. De Vera and Garcia pleaded no guilty during arraignment. The other two accused,
Florendo and Castro, were at large. During trial, the prosecution presented as witness one
Bernardino Cacao, who testified that about 1:30 in the afternoon of June 8, 1992, while bring out
the garbage, the witness saw a car passing by, driven by victim Frederick Capulong together
with 4 other passengers. He knew the victim by name who was a resident of the subdivision. He
recognized and identified two of the passengers as Kenneth Florendo and Roderick Garcia.
Then he heard unintelligible voices coming from the car, moments later, he saw the victim
dragged out of the car by Florendo and brought to a grassy place. Florendo was holding a gun,
and aimed and fired the gun at the victim, hitting him between the eyes. After the shooting,
Florendo and his companions fled.

Appellant claims that he had no part in the killing, and that it was Florendo who had shot the
victim. He avers that he merely accompanied the other accused and Florendo, who was his
friend. A few hours after the shooting the incident, appellant was picked up by the police, who
subsequently tortured and coerced him into signing his statement regarding the incident.

Based on the testimony of Bernardino Cacao, the trial court ruled that it was indeed Kenneth
Florendo who had actually shot the victim, Roderick Capulong. It convicted appellant as a
principal, however, because the scientific and forensic finding on the criminal incident directly
and substantially confirmed the existence of conspiracy among the four accused.

Issue:

1. Whether or not appellant should be convicted as principal?

2. Whether or not there was conspiracy between the Florendo, Castro, Garcia and
appellant De Vera?

Ruling:
 1. No. Appellant should be convicted only as an accomplice, not as a principal. In other
words, appellant's presence was not innocuous. Knowing that Florendo intended to kill
the victim and that the three co-accused were carrying weapons, he had acted as a
lookout to watch for passersby. He was not an innocent spectator; he was at the locus
criminis in order to aid and abet the commission of the crime. These facts, however, did
not make him a conspirator; at most, he was only an accomplice.

The Revised Penal Code defines accomplices as "those persons who, not being included in
Article 17, cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts." The
Court has held that an accomplice is "one who knows the criminal design of the principal and
cooperates knowingly or intentionally therewith by an act which, even if not rendered, the crime
would be committed just the same." To hold a person liable as an accomplice, two elements
must be present: (1) the "community" of criminal design; that is, knowing the criminal design of
the principal by direct participation, he concurs with the latter in his purpose;" and (2) the
performance of previous or simultaneous acts that are not indispensable to the commission of
the crime.

The distinction between the two concepts needs to be underscored, in view of its effect on
appellant's penalty. Conspirators and accomplices have one thing in common: they know and
agree with the criminal design. Conspirators, however, know the criminal intention because they
themselves have decided upon such course of action. Accomplices come to know about it after
the principals have reached the decision, and only then do they agree to cooperate in its
execution. Conspirators decide that a crime should be committed; accomplices merely concur in
it. Accomplices do not decide whether the crime should be committed; they merely assent to the
plan and cooperate in its accomplishment. Conspirators are the authors of a crime; accomplices
are merely their instruments who perform acts not essential to the perpetration of the offense.

In the present case, Appellant De Vera knew that Kenneth Florendo had intended to kill
Capulong at the time, and he cooperated with the latter. But he himself did not participate in the
decision to kill Capulong; that decision was made by Florendo and the others. He joined them
that afternoon after the decision to kill had already been agreed upon; he was there because
"nagkahiyaan na." This is clear from his statement.

Significantly, the plan to kill could have been accomplished without him. It should be noted
further that he alone was unarmed that afternoon. Florendo and Garcia had guns, and Castro
had a baseball bat.

In any event, the prosecution evidence has not established that appellant was part of the
conspiracy to kill the victim. His participation, as culled from his own Statement, was made. after
the decision to kill was already a fait accompli.

2. The Court disagree that there was conspiracy between Florendo, Castro, Garcia and
Appellant De Vera, the trial court relied mainly on the testimony of Eyewitness Cacao.
Specifically, based on the facts that appellant was seen with the other accused inside
the victim's car; the victim was clearly struck with a blunt object while inside the car, and
it was unlikely for Florendo to have done it all by himself; moreover, it was impossible for
De Vera and Garcia to have been unaware of Florendo's dark design on Roderick. It is
axiomatic that the prosecution must establish conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt. In
the present case, the bare testimony of Cacao fails to do so.
Aside from the fact that he saw De Vera inside the car, where an altercation occurred, thereafter
he saw Florendo drag out of the vehicle an apparently disabled Capulong and shoot the victim
in the head, no other act was imputed to the appellant. Mere presence does not amount to
conspiracy. Indeed, the trial court based its finding of conspiracy on mere presumptions, and not
on solid facts indubitably indicating a common design to commit murder. As the Court has
repeatedly stated, criminal conspiracy must be founded on facts, not on mere surmises or
conjectures. Clearly, Cacao's testimony does not establish appellant's culpability.