USA College of Law

Yap – 1C
Case Name People v. Francisco
Topic Murder
Case No. | Date G.R. No. 118573-74 May 31, 2000
Ponente GONZAGA-REYES, J.:
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a
crime and decide to do it. Proof of the agreement need not rest on direct evidence as the same may be
inferred from the conduct of the parties indicating a common understanding among them with respect
to the commission of the offense.
Doctrine
One’s overt act, to be shown in pursuance of the conspiracy, may consist of active participation in the
actual commission of the crime itself, or it may consist of moral assistance to his conspirators by being
present at the time of the commission of the crime, by exerting moral ascendancy over the other co-
conspirators by moving them to execute or implement the conspiracy

RELEVANT FACTS
 On October 27, 1992 at about midnight, Ariel De Dios and Serafin Mangali went to the house of Manny Pascual at Naval
Street, Navotas. After a short talk at the gate, the three proceeded in a nearby store on board a jeep. They ordered San
Miguel Pale Pilsen for each one of them, sat on a bench and continued their conversation. Shortly thereafter, a man
identified as Efren Francisco, who was sitting on the right side of Ariel spat at the latter.
 Ariel then talked with the man and asked the latter why he spat at him. The man did not answer and just kept on smiling.
Ariel then hit the man on the nape and the latter ran away. With Serafin on the wheel, the three proceeded to Manny's
house. After talking for about five minutes at the gate, Serafin and Ariel boarded on the jeep while Manny went inside the
house
 Upon passing by the gate of Manny's house, Ariel saw a man, who turned out to be accused Antonio Sioco, a few meters
from the gate pointing at them
 that Ricardo went towards Serafin, grabbed the latter by the neck and Serafin held on the steering wheel; and resisted the
pull; that another person who came from the jeep grabbed Serafin by the arm and tried to loosen Serafin's grip on the
steering wheel; that another person, who turned out to be accused Teodoro Francisco came armed with a knife-like
instrument and stabbed Serafin on the left armpit;
 Reynaldo stabbed him on the left part of the stomach; that Ariel asked Reynaldo why he stabbed him but the latter got
stunned (napatanga) and did not answer; that Ariel then pushed Reynaldo, ran at the rear portion of the jeep and told
Serafin to run
 that at that instance, Serafin was being mauled beside the jeep; that Ariel ran towards Manny's gate, knocked twice and
called Manny's name twice;
 Manny's father went out together with his daughter and Ariel told them to help Serafin as he was being mauled;thereafter
brought at the Manila Doctors Hospital.

ISSUE: W/N the primary witness’ testimony is credible and that all of the respondents are liable of the crime Murder and
Frustrated Murder
RULING: No. The mere fact that the principal witness was the victim of the crime does not make him a biased witness and
does not make his testimony incredible. It would be unnatural and illogical for him to impute the crime to an innocent
person and let the culprit escape prosecution.

A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a crime and decide to
do it. Proof of the agreement need not rest on direct evidence as the same may be inferred from the conduct of the parties
indicating a common understanding among them with respect to the commission of the offense. It is not necessary to show
that two or more persons met together and entered into an explicit agreement setting out the details of an unlawful
scheme or the details by which an illegal objective is to be carried out. It may be deduced from the mode and manner in
which the offense was perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the accused evincing a joint or common purpose and design,
concerted action and community of interest. In this case, the two John Does pulled the victim out of the jeepney. As the
victim was getting down, he was stabbed by the appellant.  As to Antonio his participation was limited to shouting “heto na
sila”.In a case, we ruled that the phrase “andiyan na”, which has similar import with the phrase herein, does not have
conclusive conspiratorial meaning for the supposedly damning utterances are susceptible of varied interpretations.
One’s overt act, to be shown in pursuance of the conspiracy, may consist of active participation in the actual commission of
 USA College of Law
Yap – 1C
the crime itself, or it may consist of moral assistance to his conspirators by being present at the time of the commission of
the crime, by exerting moral ascendancy over the other co-conspirators by moving them to execute or implement the
conspiracy.

As to Ricardo’s physical disability, the limp suffered by him due to polio has not been shown to restrict his means of action,
defense or communication with his fellow beings as required by Art 13(8).  The location of the stab wounds (stomach)
manifest his intention to kill thus contradicting his claim of not intending to commit so grave a wrong.
The mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation must immediately preceded the act and that it was adequate to excite
a person to commit a wrong, which must accordingly be proportionate in gravity.

The lack of aversion in the information of “intent to kill” does not not make it insufficient. An information is sufficient if it
states the designation of the offense by statute. The information more than substantially satisfies the requirement of
designating the offense of frustrated murder considering that it contains the acts constituting the felony, the name of the
crime by statue and the stage (frustrated) of the commission of the crime by definition. Besides the absence of the
averment of intent to kill may be inferred from the allegation that the stab wound would have caused the death of the
victim.

RULING
The Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Malabon, Metro Manila finding the accused-appellants Ricardo Francisco y Cupcupin,
Reynaldo Franciso y Cupcupin and Teodoro Francisco y Cupcupin guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER and
FRUSTRATED MURDER is hereby MODIFIED.

Accused-appellant Antonio Sioco is ACQUITTED of the crimes charged based on reasonable doubt and is ordered released
immediately from confinement unless he is held for some other lawful cause.

SEPARATE OPINIONS
(optional)

NOTES