Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

9th Judicial Region
Branch 9
Dipolog City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRIM. CASE NO. 15952

Plaintiff,

- versus – -for-

ROQUE BICOY, JR. AND RAMIL “MURDER”

LAGUDAS
Accused.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -//

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Prefatory Statement)

… “But where the trial court overlooked, misunderstood

or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and
substance which can affect the result of the case, this
Court is duty-bound to correct this palpable error for the
right to liberty, which stands second only to life in the
hierarchy of constitutional rights, cannot be lightly
taken away. xxx”1

ACCUSED RAMIL LAGUDAS, thru the undersigned

counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully
moves for the reconsideration of the Decision issued by this
Honorable Court dated August 18, 2020 finding the accused
guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and hereby states that:

1. The said Decision of this Honorable Court was

promulgated in the presence of the accused on
September 25, 2020 and he has 15 days within which
to move for reconsideration or until October 10, 2020;

2. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads as follows:

… “WHEREFORE, on the basis of all the foregoing

consideration, judgment is rendered finding accused
Roque Bicoy, Jr. and Ramil Lagudas GUILTY of the
crime of Murder by treachery and evident premeditation
1
November 29, 2017 G.R. No. 229701 EDWINA RIMANDO y FERNANDO, Petitioner
vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent

Page 1 of 8
 under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and hereby
sentences them to reclusion perpetua will all its
accessory penalties….”2

3. This Motion for Reconsideration is submitted on the

ground of errors of law or fact in the judgment under
Sec. 3, Rule 121 of the Rules of Court;

4. With due respect, the findings or conclusions by this

Honorable Court in its the Decision stating that there
was CONSPIRACY and that accused RAMIL LAGUDAS
is liable as a principal by indispensable cooperation
are contradictory to existing jurisprudence;

5. As to the First chain3, mere presence of accused

RAMIL LAGUDAS at the scene of the crime or even
knowledge of the plan or acquiescence thereto when
accused Roque Bicoy made the open declaration that
he will kill Edgar Bicoy are not sufficient grounds to
hold accused RAMIL LAGUDAS liable as a conspirator.

In fact the wife of accused Roque Bicoy was also

present when he made the declaration. His wife was
also present during the killing but only accused RAMIL
LAGUDAS was indicted and subsequently convicted.

Hence, justice, equity, and fairness had been deprived

of accused RAMIL LAGUDAS. His liberty has been
swiftly taken away, to borrow the words from the
Supreme Court.

In another Supreme Court decision4, we are guided

that:

… “Well-settled is the rule that the existence of

conspiracy cannot be presumed.  Quite the contrary, the
evidence for it must be shown beyond reasonable
doubt.  As this Court has repeatedly stated, criminal
conspiracy must be founded on facts, not on mere
surmises or conjectures.  Prior agreement or assent is
usually inferred from the acts of the accused showing
concerted action, common design and objective, actual
2
Page 51, Decision
3
Page 33, Decision
4
(emphasis mine) G.R. No. 139179      April 3, 2002 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,
vs. WILFREDO TOLENTINO Y ESPERAT and JONATHAN FABROS Y CASTRO, accused,
JONATHAN FABROS Y CASTRO, appellant, citing the case of People v. Santiago, 342 SCRA
52, October 4, 2000.

Page 2 of 8
 cooperation, and concurrence of sentiments or
community of interests. Mere presence at the scene of
the crime or even knowledge of the plan or
acquiescence thereto are not sufficient grounds to
hold a person liable as a conspirator.  Therefore, the
task in every case is to determine whether the
particular acts established by the requisite quantum of
proof reasonably yield that inference….”
Furthermore, as established in this Honorable Court’s
Decision, accused Roque Bicoy harbored ill-will and
animosity against Edgar Bicoy.5 A strong motive
therefore exist only on the part of accused Roque Bicoy
to kill Edgar Bicoy but not on the part of accused
RAMIL LAGUDAS.

The following pronouncement of the Supreme Court

therefore is applicable in the instant case:

… “In the absence of strong motives on their part to kill

the deceased, it can not safely be concluded that they
conspired to commit the crime involved herein….”6

This is in consonance with the long line of cases

decided by the Supreme Court regarding conspiracy.
In the following case, the Supreme Court asserted:

… “We stress that mere knowledge, acquiescence or

approval of the act, without the cooperation and the
agreement to cooperate, is not enough to establish
conspiracy. Even if the accused were present and
agreed to cooperate with the main perpetrators of the
crime, their mere presence does not make them parties
to it, absent any active participation in the furtherance
of the common design or purpose. Likewise, where the
only act attributable to the other accused is an apparent
readiness to provide assistance, but with no certainty
as to its ripening into an overt act, there is no
conspiracy.v  In this case, while accused-
appellant's presence and act of pointing at the
victim and his group may mean he approved of the
crime or that he was ready to assist his co-accused,
absent any other overt act on his part, there is no
conspiracy.

5
Page 30, Decision, On conspiracy, 3rd par. line 4
6
G.R. No. 170289 April 8, 2010 ROSIE QUIDET, Petitioner,
vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Page 3 of 8
 We emphasize that the prosecution must establish
conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt. A conviction
premised on a finding of conspiracy must be founded on
facts, not on mere inferences and presumption….”  7

6. As to the Second chain8, there was no active

participation in the actual commission of the crime by
accused RAMIL LAGUDAS. No evidence was
established proving that he was bringing a deadly
weapon.

The Supreme Court had appreciated this fact in a

decided case:

… “petitioner was unarmed during the incident, thus,

negating his intent to kill the victims….”9

When he jumped off and let the canoe face towards

Edgar Bicoy, it cannot be safely inferred that he was
performing an overt act in pursuance or in furtherance
conspiracy. The Supreme Court stated in its decision
that:

… “In order to hold an accused liable as co-principal by

reason of conspiracy, he or she must be shown to have
performed an overt act in pursuance or in furtherance of
conspiracy.

This Court has held that an overt or external act is

defined as some physical activity or deed, indicating
the intention to commit a particular crime, more than a
mere planning or preparation, which if carried out to its
complete termination following its natural course,
without being frustrated by external obstacles nor by
the spontaneous desistance of the perpetrator, will
logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense.
The raison d'etre for the law requiring a direct overt
act is that, in a majority of cases, the conduct of the
accused consisting merely of acts of preparation has
never ceased to be equivocal; and this is necessarily so,
irrespective of his declared intent. It is that quality of
being equivocal that must be lacking before the act
7
(emphasis mine) June 19, 2017 G.R. No. 227306 PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. ROBERTO ESPERANZA JESALVA alias "ROBERT
SANTOS", Accused-Appellant
8
Page 33, Decision
9
G.R. No. 170289 April 8, 2010 ROSIE QUIDET, Petitioner, vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Page 4 of 8
 becomes one which may be said to be a commencement
of the commission of the crime, or an overt act or before
any fragment of the crime itself has been committed,
and this is so for the reason that so long as the
equivocal quality remains, no one can say with
certainty what the intent of the accused is. It is
necessary that the overt act should have been the
ultimate step towards the consummation of the design.
It is sufficient if it was the first or some subsequent step
in a direct movement towards the commission of the
offense after the preparations are made. The act done
need not constitute the last proximate one for
completion. It is necessary, however, that the attempt
must have a causal relation to the intended crime. In
the words of  Viada,  the overt acts must have an
immediate and necessary relation to the offense….” 10

Be that as it may, aside from the fact that moving the

canoe in such a way that it will face Edgar Bicoy is not
a criminal act, it does not also show unity of purpose.
There was no other evidence to show unity of design.

The Supreme Court in another decision ratiocinated,

to wit:

… “In this case, no unity of purpose was shown. The

only involvement of appellant was his holding of the
hand of Palma when he was stabbed by Bernales on
the left chest. There was no other evidence to show
unity of design.

… The mere holding of the victim's hand does not

necessarily prove intention to kill.

… All that appellant did was to hold the hand of Palma,

which is not a crime….”11

In this case the accused was holding the hand of the

victim when he was stabbed by another assailant.
Nevertheless the Supreme Court ACQUITTED the
accused of the crime charged.

10
November 29, 2017 G.R. No. 229701 EDWINA RIMANDO y FERNANDO, Petitioner
vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent
11
G.R. No. 99379 April 22, 1994 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. EDUARDO JORGE Y RAMIREZ, accused-appellant.

Page 5 of 8
 In the same vein, the Supreme Court12 had
pronounced:

… “In the absence of conspiracy, accused-appellant is

responsible only for the consequences of his own
acts.  In this case, all that accused-appellant did was
to stare and point at the victim and his
companions.  These, however, are not crimes.”

7. Besides, the testimonies of some prosecution

witnesses are contrary to reason and natural course of
events. Accused RAMIL LAGUDAS could have easily
turned around the canoe to another direction by using
the paddle and not by diving and swimming in the sea
in order to move it. It was more difficult on his part to
do so as experience dictates us.

… “Jurisprudence is consistent that for testimonial

evidence to be believed, it must both come from a
credible witness and be credible in itself – tested by
human experience, observation, common knowledge
and accepted conduct that has evolved through the
years….”13

Accused RAMIL LAGUDAS’ testimony is more credible:

that he was catching fish at that time;

8. As to the conclusion that accused RAMIL LAGUDAS is

a principal by indispensable cooperation, no evidence
was established that his acts of paddling or using his
boat, and that of moving it in the direction facing
Edgar Bicoy, were of such importance that the crime
would not have been committed without him or that he
participated in the actual killing.

… “As aforesaid to be considered as a principal by

indispensable cooperation, there must be direct
participation in the criminal design by another act
without which the crime could not have been committed.

…Neither was it established that appellant's acts were

of such importance that the crime would not have been

12
June 19, 2017 G.R. No. 227306 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee
vs. ROBERTO ESPERANZA JESALVA alias "ROBERT SANTOS", Accused-Appellant
13
G.R. No. 174369               June 20, 2012 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff
Appellee, vs. ZAFRA MARAORAO y MACABALANG, Accused-Appellant.

Page 6 of 8
 committed without him or that he participated in the
actual killing….”14

Roque Bicoy could perpetrate the crime alone without

riding a banca or without RAMIL LAGUDAS.

9. As to the Third chain15, it was established as a fact

that after Edgar Bicoy was shot and killed, Ramil
Lagudas went back to the banca and joined Roque
Bicoy and his wife. Then, Ramil Lagudas paddled the
banca going back to the seashore.

This Honorable Court in its Decision then concluded

that the existence of conspiracy between Roque Bicoy
Jr. and Ramil Lagudas is clear.

However, in the following decided case by the

Supreme Court, the three accused simultaneously fled
although in different directions after a crime has been
committed:

… “The fact that the petitioner fled from the scene after
the shooting does not suffice to prove the conspiracy
there being no evidence to convince us that his running
away from the scene had been interwoven with a pre-
conceived plan or agreement to kill the victim. Fear of
implication in the crime could have been a plausible
reason for the petitioner's act of fleeing. 16

Thus, conspiracy cannot be proven in this set of facts.

Accused RAMIL LAGUDAS has no choice except to ride
in the banca and joined in the group because that was
their means of transport in going back and forth to the
fish coral.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, in the interest of due

process and substantial justice, it is most respectfully prayed
of this Honorable Court that the Decision convicting accused
RAMIL LAGUDAS beyond reasonable doubt be reversed and
accused acquitted of the crime.
14
GR. Nos. 102361-62 May 14, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-
appellee, vs. RUDY FRONDA
15
Page 38, Decision
16
G. R. No. L-57519 September 13, 1988 DELFIN ORODIO, petitioner,
vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents.

Page 7 of 8
 Accused further prays for such other reliefs which are
deemed just and equitable under the premises.

8 October 2020, Dipolog City, Philippines.

ATTY. EULOGIO L. LAGUDAS, JR.

COUNSEL FOR ACCUSED RAMIL LAGUDAS
IBP NO. 11293 1-11-20
PTR NO. 7741096 1-7-20
ROLL OF ATTYS. NO. 56396
MCLE COMP. NO. V-0001798 4-14-19
MCLE COM. NO. VI (ON PROCESS)
Back Capitol Site, Dipolog City

NOTICE OF HEARING

Branch Clerk of Court

Branch 9, RTC
Dipolog City

Sir/Madam:

Greetings!

Please submit the foregoing Motion for Reconsideration

for the consideration and approval of this Honorable Court.

ATTY. EULO. L. LAGUDAS, JR

COUNSEL FOR THE ACCUSED

CC:

Prov’l Pros. Office

Bulwagan ng Katarungan
Gen. Luna St., Dipolog City

Date Received:
Received by:

Page 8 of 8