G.R. No.

175926 July 6, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RESTITUTO CARANDANG,

accused. HENRY MILAN AND JACKMAN CHUA, accused-appellants.

Action: Appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Facts:
 On April 5, 2001, the drug enforcement unit of La Loma Police Station 1 received a
request for assistance from Milan’s sister regarding a drug deal that would allegedly take
place in her house in Quezon City.
 The team was composed of SPO2 Wilfredo Pilar Red, PO2 Dionisio Alonzo, SPO1
Rodolfo Estores, and SPO1 Wilfredo Montecalvo. The team reached the house at 4 PM.
After the policemen introduced themselves as police officers, Milan shut the door and
gunshots rang.
- PO2 Alonzo and SPO2 Red were instantly killed.
- SPO1 Montecalvo was also shot but was brought to the Chinese General
Hospital.
- Chua shouted “Sugurin mo na!” which prompted Milan to lunge at SPO1
Montecalvo but the latter shot Milan instead.
- Milan was also shot during the incident and was brought to the hospital.
Carandang and Chua remained inside the house and requested for the
presence of Colonel Reyes and Ramon Tulfo. They eventually surrendered
at 11 pm-12 midnight.
 Prosecution’s witnesses: SPO1 Montecalvo, SPO1 Estores, P/Sr. Insp. Calaro, P/Supt.
Roxas and Dr. Wilson Tan.
 Defense’s side: They were just playing card games when the gunfire ensued.
 Trial court: guilty of two counts of murder and one count of frustrated murder.
 Court of Appeals: affirmed the trial court’s decision with modifications as to the
penalties. Only Milan and Chua appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issue:
WON there was conspiracy among the appellants.
WON there is treachery to qualify murder and frustrated murder instead of homicide and
frustrated homicide.

Ruling and Rationale:

 People v. Sumalpong: “Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decided to commit it. Evidence
need not establish the actual agreement among the conspirators showing a preconceived
plan or motive for the commission of a 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
and participation of each.”
 Conclusion that the appellants conspired was based on the following:
 - Before Carandang shot the victims (Milan’s closing of door when police
officers introduced themselves, allowing Carandang to wait in ambush)
- After the shooting (Chua’s directive to Milan to attack SPO1 Montecalvo
and Milan’s following such instruction)
 Conspiracy arises on the very moment the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to
commit the subject felony. As co-conspirators, all three are considered principals by
direct participation.
 Treachery is present in the case because the execution of the attack made it impossible
for the victims to defend themselves or to retaliate. Milan’s closing of the door allowed
Carandang to wait in ambush and prevented the police officers from having the chance to
defend themselves.
 Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals with modifications
1. Criminal Cases No. Q-01-100061 and Q-01-100062
Article 248, RPC: Penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death
Article 63, RPC: Penalty for no other modifying circumstance other than the
qualifying circumstance of treachery is reclusion perpetua

Heirs of SPO2 Red

a. P75,000 as civil indemnity (P50,000 solidarily borne by Carandang, Milan, and
Chua; P25,000 borne by Milan and Chua only)
b. P50,000 as moral damages
c. P149,734 as actual damages
d. P2,140,980 as indemnity for loss
e. P30,000 as exemplary damages solidarily borne by Milan and Chua only

Heirs of PO1 Alonzo

a. P75,000 as civil indemnity (P50,000 solidarily borne by Carandang, Milan,
and Chua; P25,000 borne by Milan and Chua only)
b. P50,000 as moral damages
c. P139,910 as actual damages
d. P2,269,243.62 as indemnity for loss
e. P30,000 as exemplary damages solidarily borne by Milan and Chua only

2. Criminal Case Q-01-100063

Article 61, paragraph 2, RPC: Penalty for frustrated murder is one degree lower tan
the reclusion perpetua to death, which is reclusion temporal

a. P14,000 as actual damages

b. P40,000 as moral damages (P20,000 by Carandang, Milan, and Chua; P20,000 by
Milan and Chua)
c. P20,000 as exemplary damages solidarily borne by Milan and Chua only
d. P20,000 as reasonable attorney’s fees
Appellants were also ordered to pay interest on all damages at legal rate of 6% per
annum.