People vs.

Larrañaga
G.R. Nos. 138874-75. February 3, 2004

FACTS:

On the rainy night of July 16, 1997, Marijoy and Jacqueline Chiong, sisters, failed to
come home on the expected time. Two days after, a young woman was found dead at
the foot of a cliff in Tan-awan, Carcar Cebu. Her pants were torn, her t-shirt was raised
up to her breast and her bra was pulled down. Her face and neck were covered with
masking tape, and attached to her left wrist was a handcuff. The woman was identified
as Marijoy. After almost ten months, accused Davidson Rusia surfaced and admitted
before the police having participated in the abduction of the sisters. He identified
appellants Francisco Juan Larrañaga, Josman Aznar, Rowen Adlawan, Alberto Caño,
Ariel Balansag, James Anthony Uy, and James Andrew Uy as co-perpetrators in the
crime. Rusia provided the following before the trial court: that he met Rowen and
Josman at Ayala Mall at 10:30 in the evening of July 16, 1997, who told him to ride with
them in a white car. Following them were Larrañaga, James Anthony and James
Andrew, who were in a red car. Josman stopped in front of the waiting shed where
Marijoy and Jacqueline were standing, and were then forced to ride the car. Rusia taped
their mouths while Rowen handcuffed them jointly, that after stopping by a safehouse at
Guadalupe, Cebu City, the group thereafter headed to the South Bus Terminal where
they met Alberto and Ariel, and hired the white van driven by the former. They traveled
towards Tan-awan, leaving the red car at the South Bus Terminal, that after parking their
vehicles near a precipice, they drank and had a pot session. Later, they started to rape
Marijoy inside the vehicle, and thereafter raped Jacqueline, that Josman instructed
Rowen and Ariel to bring Marijoy to the cliff and push her into the ravine, and that they
made fun of Jacqueline, who was made to run while being followed by the group while
boarding the van; and was beaten until she passed out.
In his defense, Larrañaga, through his witnesses, claimed the following:

that on July 16, 1997, he was at Quezon City taking his mid-term examinations at the
Center for Culinary Arts, that he also attended his teacher’s lecture in Applied
Mathematics, that in the evening of that day until 3:00 in the morning of July 17, 1997,
he was with his friends at the R & R Bar and Restaurant, Quezon City, that
representatives of four airline companies plying the route of Manila-Cebu-Manila
presented proofs showing that Larrañaga does not appear in their records from July 15
to July 17, 1997, and that his neighbors at Loyola Heights Condominium, Quezon City,
including the security guard saw him in his condo unit in the evening of July 16, 1997.

The brothers James Anthony and James Andrew claimed that they were at their home
in Cebu City, celebrating their father’s 50th birthday, which ended at 11:30 in the
evening.

Alberto and Ariel claimed that they had the van’s aircon repaired in the evening of July
16, 1997, accompanied by the former’s wife and the owners of the van. The repair shop
was only able to finish the work at 10:00 the following morning.
Josman claimed that he was at his house together with his friends about 8:00 in the
evening of July 16, 1997, ate dinner and drank, and thereafter went to BAI Disco,
transferred to DTM Bar, and went home at 3:00 the following morning.

Rusia was discharged as an accused and became a state witness. Still, the body of
Jacqueline was never found. The trial court found the other appellants guilty of two
crimes of kidnapping and serious illegal detention and sentenced each of them to suffer
the penalties of two (2) reclusiones perpetua. The appellants assailed the said decision,
arguing inter alia, that court erred in finding that there was consipiracy. James Anthony
was also claimed to be only 16 years old when the crimes were committed.

ISSUES:

1) Whether there was conspiracy.

2) Whether the trial court erred in characterizing the crime.
3) Whether the trial court erred in imposing the correct penalty.

HELD:

1) Yes. Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner by which the offense
was perpetrated, or may be inferred from the acts of the accused themselves, when
such point to a joint design and community of interest. The appellants’ actions
showed that they had the same objective to kidnap and detain the Chiong sisters.
The Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that the appellants indeed conspired in
the commission of the crimes charged.

People of the Philippines vs Ignacio Cupino, Vicente Dejoras & Ramon Galos
G.R. No 125688

Facts:

In the evening of August 16, 1989 at around 9:45pm, during the celebration of a
certain fiesta in Patag, Cagayan de Oro City, suspect Mr. Ramon Galos & victim Mr.
Gromyko Valiente were having a heated argument. Such incident was happening in
front of a particular store called Dod’s situated at the crossing of the town of Patag.
Suddenly a fist fight occurred between Mr. Galos and Mr. Valiente. During this instance,
the appellants arrived in the scene. Aftewards, all three individuals (Galos, Cupino and
Dejoras) ganged up against and beat up the victim Mr. Valiente. This resulted for the
victim to run away but likewise the three accused pursued him. When Mr. Galos was
able to reach the victim, he suddenly stabbed him twice in his stomach using a small
bolo. This caused the victim to fall down and thus crawl on the floor. Then afterwards,
Mr. Cupino pulled the bolo embedded within the victim’s body and tried to stab him as
well also. But Mr. Dejoras tried to prevent this from occurring by grabbing his friend’s
hand which held the small bolo. During this process, Dejoras wasn’t able to successfully
grab hold of his friend’s hand but instead caught the knife with its blade. This instantly
injured the hand of Mr. Dejoras. But nontheless, Mr. Cupino proceeded with his intent of
stabbing the victim. Then both Galos and Cupino immediately fled the scene. The
victim, Mr. Valiente, was left lying on the floor soaked with his own blood. He was
eventually brough to the hospital but later died. Mr. Dejoras, on the other hand, went to
a hospital in order to seek treatment upon the hand wound he incurred.

Issues:

Wether or not Conspiracy existed between the three people who were involved in this
case?

Held:

No, in relation with the different facts and statements from the witness (Mr. Bahian) &
evidences presented, it is definite that conspiracy only existed between Mr. Galos and
Mr. Cupino. It was obvious that both of them showed a common intent on killing the
victim Mr. Valiente. With Mr. Galos, the deed of conspiracy was seen from his act of
grabbing the hand of the fleeing victim then afterwards stabbing him twice. For Mr.
Cupino, he exemplified a unity of purpose with his co-accused Mr. Galos by pursuing
also the wounded victim. Then upon getting hold of the victim, he also stabbed him
twice using the same bolo that Mr. Galos initially utilized.

People v. Felix Ventura & Arante Flores

GR No. 148145-46 (5 July 2004)

FACTS:

In the early hours of Feb. 23, 2002, Sps. Jaime and Aileen Bocateja were fast
asleep in their room on the groundfloor of their 2-storey house. Their niece and older
daughter were asleep in their rooms on the second floor. At around 2:00 AM, Jaime
woke up from his sleep when Ventura and Arante stealthily entered the couple’s room
after they gained entry into the house by cutting a hole in the kitchen door. Ventura
pointed a revolver at Jaime’s face and announced a hold-up. Jaime tried to grab the
revolver. While struggling for possession of the gun, Flores stabbed Jaime three times.
Meanwhile, Aileen who had been awakened saw her husband in mortal danger and
started shouting for help. Flores stabbed her as well. She was stabbed in the chest that
punctured her lung. The spouses’ niece and daughter were also awakened and called to
their neighbors for help.
Ventura and Flores fled the Bocateja house, bringing nothing with them. The spouses
were brought to the hospital. Aileen died on the same day while Jaime was hospitalized
for 6 days. The appellants were intercepted by members of the Central Investigation
Unit of PNP. They recovered a .38 caliber revolver with (5) live bullets from Ventura, and
a blood-stained knife from Flores.
Shortly after their arrest, appellants were interviews by reporters from Bombo Radio to
whom they admitted responsibility for stabbing the spouses. Ventura explained that he
suspected his wife had an affair with Jaime.
Informations for frustrated murder and murder were filed against them.
RTC found the appellants GBRD of Frustrated murder and Murder. With regard to the
murder case, the RTC appreciated the aggravating circumstances of dwelling, nighttime
and by breaking of a door. The accused are meted the Supreme penalty of Death.

Issue:
WON there is conspiracy

Held:
While the acts done by the petitioners herein vary from those of their co-accused, there
is no question that they were all prompted and linked by a common desire to assault
and retaliate against the group of Loreto Navarro. Thus, they must share equal liability
for all the acts done by the participants in such a felonious undertaking. While
petitioners herein, Rogelio Pring and Alberto (Roberto) Roxas, on their part, had ganged
up Jesus Yumol who belonged to the group of their adversaries by hitting the latter with
a bench and a piece of wood, and that it was a certain David Ravago who stabbed the
deceased Loreto Navarro, nevertheless, it is a rule that conspirators would necessarily
be liable also for the acts of the other conspirators unless such acts differ radically or
substantially from that which they intended to commit

People of the Philippines vs. Juan Factao alias “Boyet”, Francis Labroda alias
“Abet,” and Tirso Servidad

FACTS:
Appellants Juan Factao, Albert Labroda, and Tirso Servidad were found guilty of muder
for killing Fernando Sardoma by inflicting gunshot wound on the vital part of the his
body. Evidence for the prosecution presented the following:
1) In the evening of August 23, 1991, Vicente Manolos, who was then in a kamalig near
the seashore with Eduardo Sardoma, Rolando Nierves, Noel Serrano, and Fernando
Sardoma, felt the urge to defecate. As he relieved himself outside beside the boat, he
saw Factao, armed with a garand rifle, and Labroda approach the hut. Factao then
aimed his gun at a hole in the hut’s bamboo wall and fired.
2) That same night, Jose Manuel Sermona saw Factao, Labroda, and Servidad walking
towards the kamalig of the victim and witnessed the shooting.
3) Eduardo Sardoma, upon hearing the explosion immediately went outside, met
Servidad and espied Factao and Labroda running from the scene.
Factao and Labrado claimed that at the time of the incident they were celebrating the
latter’s birthday and learned about the tragedy only the following day. On the other
hand, Servidad claimed that he was with Barangay Captain Faustino Nierves that
evening, who then instructed him to investigate when they heard an explosion from the
direction of the seashore.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there was conspiracy.

HELD:

Yes. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning
the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. There was no direct evidence to
show that Factao and Labroda agreed to commit the crime. Nonetheless, their acts
immediately before and after the shooting evince a commonality in design sufficient to
make them co-principals to the killing. The testimonies of the witnesses adequately
established conspiracy between Factao and Labroda.

However, the Servidad’s participation in the crime was not established. The mere
presence of a person at the scene of the crime does not make him a co-conspirator.
The prosecution failed to offer evidence that Servidad performed any act from which his
conspiracy to the crime may be deduced. Thus, he was acquitted.

People vs Dagani
G.R.no. 153675 August 16,2006

Facts:

This is a murder case filed against Otello Sanitano and Rolando Dagani for the killing of
Ernesto Javier. At about 4:45 in the afternoon of September 11, 1989, a group
composed of Ernesto Javier (Javier), Lincoln Miran (Miran), and two other individuals
had been drinking at the canteen located inside the compound of the Philippine National
Railways (PNR) along C.M. Recto Avenue, Tondo, Manila. All of a sudden, appellants,
who were security officers of the PNR and covered by the Civil Service Rules and
Regulations, entered the canteen and approached the group. Appellant Dagani shoved
Miran, causing the latter to fall from his chair. Dagani then held Javier while Santiano
shot Javier twice at his left side, killing the latter. The RTC ruled that Otello Santiano
and Rolando Dagani are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder defined
and punished under Art. 248, RPC, with the presence of the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender. Appellants invoked the justifying circumstances of self-defense and
lawful performance of official duty as PNR security officers. They also argued that the
prosecution failed to establish treachery and conspiracy.

Issue:

wether or not there was a conspiracy

Held:

The Supreme Court cannot agree with the findings of the courts a quo that the
appellants were in conspiracy simply because there is no evidence presented to show
that the appellants planned to kill Javier.

Wherefore the decision of the Court of Appeals is modified. Appellant Otello Santiano is
found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Homicide. Appellant Rolando Dagani is hereby
acquitted.

Li vs People
Date: April 14, 2004

Facts:

Kingston Li and Eduardo Sangalang were involved in a street brawl against Christopher
Arugay and Ronaldo Tan. The first blow was struck by Li who was armed with a
baseball bat. It hit Arugay, whom retaliated by inflicting a wound on Li’s head using a
bolo. After Li had fallen, Sangalang, armed with a knife, fatally stabbed Arugay at least
four times. Tan picked the baseball bat and struck Li on the head with a bat. Arugay died
while Li sustained incised wounds and a contusion. A case was filed against Li while
Sangalang has remained at large. The RTC found Li guilty of conspiring with Sangalang
with the murder of Arugay. The CA on the other hand ruled that both are guilty of
homicide, whether or not conspiracy exists. Li appealed. Thus, this case.

Issue: WON a conspiracy exists between Li and Sangalang.

Held:
The fact that both Li and Sangalang were in the same house at the same is not
sufficient to establish conspiracy. Before the brawl, it was not proven that Li has asked
for, or received, any assistance from Sangalang and based on the evidences it is hard
to conclude that Sangalang and Li had acted in concert to commit the offense. Stabbing
Arugay can be construed as a spur of the moment reaction by Sangalang upon seeing
that his friend was struck on the head. A finding of conspiracy cannot arise from such
spontaneous reaction.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ANTONIO HAMTON

Facts

Arthur Pangilinan, Arnold Lopez and Reynaldo Yambot guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crimes of kidnapping for ransom and illegal possession of firearms and imposing
upon each of them the supreme penalty of death and a prison term of six (6) years and
one (1) day to eight (8) years.

“Teofilo Garcia, and his wife, Leonida, were the sole distributors of the Singer Sewing
Machines under the business name ‘Gamier Industrial Sewing Machines’. On March 8,
1994, around eleven o’clock in the morning, two armed men, later identified as Jun
Notarte and Reynaldo Yambot, entered the Garcias’ office and showroom at 322 Shaw
Boulevard, Mandaluyong City and announced a hold-up. After emptying Teofilo’s drawer
of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) in cash, they took him with them outside to a
waiting light gray Mitsubishi Lancer. Inside the car were two other men, later identified
as herein appellant Arnold Lopez and Arthur Pangilinan. Teofilo was shoved into the
backseat of the car and blindfolded with black sunglasses covered with adhesive tapes.

“On March 10, 1994, around eleven o’clock in the morning, appellant, who identified
himself as ‘Adan Manalo,’ called up Leonida, telling her to prepare the amount of 10
million pesos as ransom money for her husband’s release. Adan Manalo calls Leonida
every 2 days asking if she already raised the money.

On March 17, 1994 Leonida informed that she now had One Million Two Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P1,200,000.00), appellant seemed finally satisfied. He then gave
Leonida instructions for the pay-off. At a little before four o'clock that afternoon, she
should be at the Magallanes flyover and open the hood of her car to make it appear that
it developed engine trouble. Appellant would then drive by and stop his car beside hers.
After he identifies himself as "Adan", Leonida should immediately hand over the ransom
money to him.

All this time, Leonida had been coordinating with the Task Force Habagat of the
Presidential Anti-Crime Commission (PACC). Eight teams were formed to monitor the
pay-off and conduct rescue operations. The ransom money was placed in a light blue
Dunlop bag (Exhibit G) and Leonida was instructed to wear a green dress for easy
identification at the pay-off site.
“About 3:45 in the afternoon of the same day, Leonida, accompanied by her driver,
arrived at the pay-off site on board her Pajero. A red Toyota Corolla then approached
and stopped just beside the Pajero. Leonida saw her husband seated between two men
at the back of the red car. Meanwhile, appellant, who was seated in front at the
passenger side, got down from the car. After identifying himself as "Adan‟, Leonida gave
the Dunlop bag containing the ransom money to him. The Toyota Corolla then sped
away.

Before they could do so, however, they noticed a speeding white Nissan Sentra behind
them. There is an exchange of gunfire, Jun Notarte managed to escape. However, his
companions, namely appellant, Arthur Pangilinan, and Reynaldo Yambot, were not as
lucky. After about ten minutes of intermittent firing, they were finally subdued and taken
into custody. Teofilo was successfully rescued, shaken but unharmed.

Separately apprehended in connection with his kidnapping incident was Antonio

Hamton. Having somehow learned about Teofilo’s abduction, Antonio, at the same time
that appellant was negotiating with [Leonida] for the ransom money, was also calling up
Leonida, pretending to be her husband’s kidnapper. Antonio’s ruse was eventually
discovered, but not before he was already able to extort Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000.00) from Leonida.

Issues:

1. Whether or not there has been a conspiracy to commit kidnapping for ransom?

Held:

1. Yes. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning
the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The agreement need not be proven
by direct evidence; it may be inferred from the conduct of the parties before, during and
after the commission of the offense, pointing to a joint purpose and design, concerted
action, and community of interest. Indeed, jurisprudence consistently tells us that
conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was
perpetrated.

In the case at bar, as the trial court correctly held, conspiracy may be deduced from the
appellants’ acts that show concerted action and community of interest. If it can be
proven that two (2) or more persons aimed their acts toward the accomplishment of the
same unlawful object -- so that their acts, though apparently independent, were in fact
connected and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association and
concurrence of sentiment -- then conspiracy may be inferred, even though no actual
meeting among them to concert means can be shown. Consequently, the conspirators
shall be held equally liable for the crime, because in a conspiracy the act of one is the
act of all.
Undoubtedly, in perpetrating the kidnapping for ransom, conspiracy existed among
herein accused-appellants. Viewed in its totality, the individual participation of each of
them pointed to a joint purpose and criminal design.

Adonis Aradillos and Albino Galabo vs. Court of Appeals and the People of the
Philippines

FACTS:

In the afternoon of February 3, 1992, on their way home from work, petitioners Adonis
Aradillos and Albino Galabo were rebuked by Gloria Alviola when she saw them cutting
an uprooted tree, which obstructed their passage through a bamboo bridge located on
the property of the latter’s husband. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners chased
Alviola, and when they caught up with her near her house, Galabo hit her several times
with a piece of wood and his carpentry bag causing her to fall down. Thereafter,
Aradillos hacked her twice with a carpentry ax, hitting her on the right side of the head
and on the forehead. Conversely, the petitioners invoke self defense, contending that
the Alviola’s injuries were the result of the struggle for the possession of the ax between
her and petitioner Aradillos. The trial court charged the petitioners with the crime of
frustrated homicide. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed their conviction; thus, the
petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUES:

1) Whether or not the petitioners acted in conspiracy.

2) Whether or not there was intent to kill on the part of the petitioners.

HELD:

1) No. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning
the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The prosecution failed to present
sufficient proof that there was a joint or simultaneous action between the petitioners.
The evidence shows that it was only Aradillos who struggled with Alviola and that she
did not sustain injuries from the alleged acts of Galabo. Moreover, Galabo’s presence at
the scene of the crime does not imply conspiracy. Nonetheless, it was held that Aradillos
is still liable for less serious physical injuries.

2) No. The intent to kill is the principal element of attempted or frustrated homicide, or
murder. As such, it must be proved in a clear and evident manner to exclude every
possible doubt as to the homicidal intent of the aggressor. Considering the testimonies
of the doctors, it appears that the injuries sustained by Alviola were not so grave so as
to sustain the prosecutions claim that the petitioners acted with the intent to kill. The
injuries, in fact, were clear manifestations that the act was not intentional. For if it were
so, Aradillos would have exerted such force that Alviola would have suffered more than
what she had sustained.
People of the R.P. vs. Pugay

"A Conspiracy exists when two or more people come to an agreement concerning
the commission of a felony and decide to commit it."

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The accused are pronounced by the RTC of Cavite guilty beyond reasonable doubt for
the crime of murder of Bayani Miranda and sentencing them to a prison term ranging
from 12 years (prison mayor) as mimimum to 20 years (prison temporal) as maximum
and for samson to be sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

Miranda and the accused Pugay are friends. Miranda used to run errands for Pugay and
they used to sleep together. On the evening of May 19, 1982 a town fiesta was held in
the public plaza of Rosario Cavite. Sometime after midnight accused Pugay and
Samson with several companions arrived (they were drunk), and they started making
fun of Bayani Miranda. Pugay after making fun of the Bayani, took a can of gasoline and
poured its contents on the latter, Gabion (principal witness) told Pugay not to do the
deed. Then Samson set Miranda on fire making a human torch out of him. They were
arrested the same night and barely a few hours after the incident gave their written
statements.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

Is conspiracy present in this case to ensure that murder can be the crime? If not what
are the criminal responsibilities of the accused?

There is no:
CONSPIRACY- is determined when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and
decide to commit it. Conspiracy must be proven with the same quantum of evidence as
the felony itself, more specifically by proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is not essential
that there be proof as to the existence of a previous agreement to commit a crime. It is
sufficient if, at the time of commission of the crime, the accused had the same purpose
and were united in its executed.

Since there was no animosity between miranda and the accused, and add to the that
that the meeting at the scene of the incident was purely coincidental, and the main
intent of the accused is to make fun of miranda.

Since there is no conspiracy that was proven, the respective criminal responsibility of
Pugay and Samson arising from different acts directed against miranda is individual
NOT collective and each of them is liable only for the act that was committed by him.
People vs. Manero (G.R. Nos. 86883-85)

Facts:

On 11 April 1985, the Manero brothers Norberto Jr., Edilberto and Elpidio, along with
Rodrigo Espia, Severino Lines, Rudy Lines, Efren Pleñago and Roger Bedaño, were
inside the eatery of one Reynaldo Diocades. They were conferring with three others of a
plan to liquidate a number of suspected communist sympathizers. Among their targets
are: Fr. Peter, Domingo Gomez, Bantil, Fred Gapate, Rene alias Tabagac and
Villaning." "Fr. Peter" is Fr. Peter Geremias, an Italian priest suspected of having links
with the communist movement; "Bantil" is Rufino Robles, a Catholic lay leader who is
the complaining witness in the Attempted Murder; Domingo Gomez is another lay
leader, while the others are simply "messengers". On the same occasion, the
conspirators agreed to Edilberto Manero's proposal that should they fail to kill Fr. Peter
Geremias, another Italian priest would be killed in his stead. They later on nailed a
placard near the carinderia bearing the names of their intended victims.

Later, at 4:00 pm, the Manero brothers, together with Espia and the four (4) appellants,
all with assorted firearms, proceeded to the house of "Bantil", their first intended victim,
which was also in the vicinity of Deocades'carinderia. After a heated confrontation,
Edilberto drew his revolver and fired at the forehead of Bantil who was able to parry and
was hit at the lower portion of his ear. Bantil tried to run but he was again fired upon by
Edilberto. Though Bantil was able to seek refuge in the house of a certain Domingo
Gomez, Norberto Jr. ordered his men to surround the house so that Bantil would die of
hemorrhage. Moments later, while Deocades was feeding his swine, Edilberto strewed
him with a burst of gunfire from his M-14 Armalite. Deocades cowered in fear as he
knelt with both hands clenched at the back of his head. This again drew boisterous
laughter and ridicule from the dreaded desperados. At 5:00 o'clock, Fr. Tulio Favali
arrived at Km. 125 on board his motorcycle. He entered the house of Gomez. While
inside, Norberto, Jr., and his co-accused Pleñago towed the motorcycle outside to the
center of the highway. Norberto, Jr., opened the gasoline tank, spilled some fuel, lit a
fire and burned the motorcycle. As the vehicle was ablaze, the felons raved and
rejoiced. Upon seeing his motorcycle on fire, Fr. Favali accosted Norberto, Jr. But the
latter simply stepped backwards and executed a thumbs-down signal. At this point,
Edilberto asked the priest: "Ano ang gusto mo, padre (What is it you want, Father)?
Gusto mo, Father, bukon ko ang ulo mo (Do you want me, Father, to break your head)?"
Thereafter, in a flash, Edilberto fired at the head of the priest. As Fr. Favali dropped to
the ground, his hands clasped against his chest, Norberto, Jr., taunted Edilberto if that
was the only way he knew to kill a priest. Slighted over the remark, Edilberto jumped
over the prostrate body three (3) times, kicked it twice, and fired anew. The burst of
gunfire virtually shattered the head of Fr. Favali, causing his brain to scatter on the road.
As Norberto, Jr., flaunted the brain to the terrified onlookers, his brothers danced and
sang "Mutya Ka Baleleng" to the delight of their comrades-in-arms who now took
guarded positions to isolate the victim from possible assistance.
From this judgment of conviction only accused Severino Lines, Rudy Lines, Efren
Pleñago and Roger Bedaño appealed with respect to the cases for Murder and
Attempted Murder. The Manero brothers as well as Rodrigo Espia did not appeal;
neither did Norberto Manero, Jr., in the Arson case. Consequently, the decision as
against them already became final.

Issue:

Whether or not the appellants can be exculpated from criminal liability on the basis of
defense of alibi which would establish that there is no conspiracy to kill.

Held:

The court did not appreciate the defense of alibi of the Lines brother, who according to
them, were in a farm some one kilometre away from the crime scene. The court held
that “It is axiomatic that the accused interposing the defense of alibi must not only be at
some other place but that it must also be physically impossible for him to be at the
scene of the crime at the time of its commission.” There is no physical impossibility
where the accused can be at the crime scene in a matter of 15-20 minutes by jeep or
tricycle. More important, it is well-settled that the defense of alibi cannot prevail over the
positive identification of the authors of the crime by the prosecution witnesses. In this
case, there were two eyewitnesses who positively identified the accused.

Contrary to the claim of the Lines brothers, there is a community of design to commit
the crime. Based on the findings of the lower court, they are not merely innocent
bystanders but in fact were vital cogs in the murder of Fr. Fuvali. They performed overt
acts to ensure the success of the commission of the crimes and the furtherance of the
aims of the conspiracy. While accused-appellants may not have delivered the fatal shots
themselves, their collective action showed a common intent to commit the criminal acts.

There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement to commit a

crime and decide to commit it. It is not essential that all the accused commit together
each and every act constitutive of the offense. It is enough that an accused participates
in an act or deed where there is singularity of purpose, and unity in its execution is
present
While it may be true that Fr. Favali was not originally the intended victim, as it was Fr.
Peter Geremias whom the group targetted for the kill, nevertheless, Fr. Favali was
deemed a good substitute in the murder as he was an Italian priest. The accused
agreed that in case they fail to kill the intended victims, it will be suffice to kill another
priest as long as the person is also Italian priest.

Estrada v. Sandiganbayan

FACTS:
As an offshoot of the impeachment proceedings against Joseph Ejercito Estrada, then
President of the Republic of the Philippines, five criminal complaints against the former
President and members of his family, his associates, friends, and conspirators were filed
with the respondent Office of the Ombudsman.
The respondent Ombudsman issued a Joint Resolution finding probable cause
warranting the filing with the Sandiganbayan of several criminal Informations against the
former President and the other respondents therein. One of the Informations was for the
crime of plunder under Republic Act No. 7080 and among the respondents was herein
petitioner Jose Jinggoy Estrada, then mayor of San Juan, Metro Manila.

ISSUE:

Should the charge against petitioner be dismissed on the ground that the allegation of
conspiracy in the Information is too general?

HELD:

No. In the crime of plunder, different parties may be united by a common purpose. In the
case at bar, the different accused and their different criminal acts have a commonality to
help the former President amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth. Sub-
paragraphs (a) to (d) in the Amended Information alleged the different participation of
each accused in the conspiracy. The gravamen of the conspiracy charge, therefore, is
not that each accused agreed to receive protection money from illegal gambling, that
each misappropriated a portion of the tobacco excise tax, that each accused ordered
the GSIS and SSS to purchase shares of Belle Corporation and receive commissions
from such sale, nor that each unjustly enriched himself from commissions, gifts, and
kickbacks; rather, it is that each of them, by their individual acts, agreed to participate,
directly or indirectly, in the amassing, accumulation and acquisition of ill-gotten wealth of
and/or for former President Estrada.