Legal Research and Writing

Case Digest

1. People v. Carandang, GR No. 175926, July 6, 2011

FACTS

On April 5, 2011, Henry Milan’s sister sought the help of the La Loma Police Station 1 regarding an
alleged drug deal that will take place in their home. On the same day, the La Loma Police Station 1 Drug
Enforcement Unit led by SPO2 Red along with PO2 Alonzo, SPO1 Montecalvo, and SPO1 Estores went to
Milan’s residence in Brgy. Salvacion, Quezon City. The team circled the house and found that the door to
Milan’s room was open. This enabled them to see Henry Milan, Jackman Chua, and Restituto Carandang
inside. Milan immediately closed the door when the team introduced themselves as Police Officers. PO2
Alonzo and SPO2 Red pushed the door causing it to fall over as they were propelled inside. Gunshots
were fired right after PO2 Alonzo shouted “Walang gagalaw!”. Both PO2 Alonzo and SPO2 Red were
unfortunately killed immediately. Meanwhile, SPO1 Montecalvo fell down after getting shot by
Carandang. SPO1 Estores heard Chua commanding Milan to attack Montecalvo but the latter was able to
shoot Milan instead. This gave Estores the opportunity to pull Montecalvo out of the house and the
latter was later on brought to the hospital.

The trial court found that Carandang, Milan, and Chua are guilty of two counts of murder and one count
of frustrated murder for acting in conspiracy with each other.

ISSUE

Did the court err in holding that there was a conspiracy among Carandang, Milan, and Chua?

RULING

No, the court did not err in holding that there was a conspiracy among the three accused. Although
Milan and Chua argued that they did not shoot the police officers, their actions still warrant a conspiracy
which led to the death of both Red and Alonzo while gravely injuring Montecalvo. The court cited from
People V Sumalpong that “conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Evidence need not establish the actual
agreement among the conspirators showing a preconceived plan or motive for the commission of the
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 of participation of each.”

Judgement Affirmed.

2. People vs. Bokingko, GR No. 187536, August 10, 2011

FACTS

Noli Pasion and his wife Elsa resides in Balibago, Angeles City, Pampanga. Pasion owned a Pawnshop
which is attached to his house. In addition, he maintained two rows of apartment units behind his house
whereas the other row is still under construction. Dante Vitalicio, Pasion’s brother-in-law leases the
apartment unit number 5 while Michael Bokingo aka Bokingco and Reynante Col who were among the
construction workers employed by Pasion were staying in apartment number 3. On February 29, 2000,
Bokingco killed Pasion by hitting and beating his head and his body with a hammer. Vitalico heard a
commotion and went to check apartment number 3 where he saw Bokingco hitting someone who was
lying on the floor. Bokingco noticed Vitalico and attacked him with the hammer in his hand. The latter
was hit multiple times but was able to escape to his own house. Meanwhile, Elsa heard the noise as well
as her husband’s moans which caused her to immediately go down from the second floor. Elsa did not
reach the kitchen as she found herself being blocked by Col. She asked what he was doing inside their
house but Col immediately attacked her by spraying tear gas and poked a sharp object under her chin.
Col wanted Elsa to open the pawnshop’s vault but she didn’t know the combination so she offered him
money instead. Col dragged her towards the back door when she saw Bokingco open the screen door as
he said to Col “tara, patay na siya”. Col then let Elsa go and left with Bokingco. Bokingco was arrested in
Mindanao while Col was apprehended in Cainta, Rizal. During the preliminary investigation, Bokingco
admitted that he conspired with Col to plan the murder of Pasion. However, later on, Bokingco testified
on open court that he only attacked Pasion after the latter hit him in the head. The court found both
Bokingco and Col guilty of murder. The Court of Appeals affirmed and modified the decision to have Col
being guilty as conspirator beyond reasonable doubt of murder.

ISSUE

Should Col be deemed guilty as conspirator beyond reasonable doubt of murder.

RULING

No, Bokingco and Col’s acts did not show as a unified intention of killing Pasion. Col was nowhere near
the location where Bokingco was attacking Pasion. Instead, he was inside the house, blocking Elsa and
attempting to rob the vault. Bokingco only sought out Col to leave after the former killed Pasion. Also,
Bokingco’s admission to the open court that he only killed Passion because the latter hit him in the head
absolved Col from the murder of Pasion. Col was acquitted due to reasonable doubt.

3. People vs. Dadao et.al., GR No. 201860, January 22, 2014

FACTS
On July 11, 1993 in Brgy Salucot, Municipality of Talakag, Bukidnon, Ronie Dacion saw Marcelino Dadao,
Antonio Sulindao, Eddie Malogsi, and Alfermio Malogsi with the use of firearms and bolos help each
other kill his stepfather Pionio Yacapin in their house. This was corroborated by his younger brother
Edgar Dacion. The widow of Yacapin, Nenita corroborated the testimonies of the Dacion brothers.
Dadao, Sulindao, Eddie Malogsi, and Alfermio Malogsi reported to the police station in order to answer
the serious charge of murder against them. All of the four accused underwent an examination for
paraffin test which yielded negative results. All four of the accused gave their alibis noting that they were
not near the area when Yacapin was killed. The Malogsi brothers were not able to produce any witness
to corroborate their alibi. While Dadao and Sulindao produced witnesses who were all their friends or
family of which cannot be regarded as disinterested witnesses. The court found Dadao, Sulindao, Eddie
and Alfermio Malogsi guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder.

ISSUE

Did the court a quo gravely erred in convicting appellants of the crime charged despite failure of the
prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt?

RULING

No. Although the accused all had alibis, it failed due to positive identification of the witnesses. In
addition, they were not able to produce disinterested witnesses which the jurisprudence required. It has
also been established in jurisprudence that a paraffin test is not conclusive proof that a person did not
fire a gun. In addition, the prosecution stated that only the Malogsi brothers held firearms that were
used to shoot Pionio while Dadao and Sulindao only held bolos which contributed to them having a
negative paraffin test result. The court cited in People Vs Nelmida that “there is conspiracy when two or
more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and then decide to commit
it. It arises on the very instant the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the felony and
forthwith decide to pursue it. Once established, each and every one of the conspirators is made
criminally liable for the crime actually committed by any one of them. In the absence of any direct proof,
the agreement to commit a crime may be deduced from the mode and manner of the commission of the
offense or inferred from acts that point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community
of interest. As such, it does not matter who inflicted the mortal wound, as each of the actors incurs the
same criminal liability, because the act of one is the act of all.” Since the four accused conspired to kill
Yacapin, all four of them are equally liable. Marcelino Dadao, Antonio Sulindao, and Alfermio Malogsi are
affirmed guilty. The case for Eddie Malogsi was dismissed in view of his death.

4. People vs. Feliciano Jr. et.al., GR No. 196735, May 5, 2014

FACTS
On December 8, 1994, the 7 members of Sigma Rho fraternity namely Leandro Lachica, Amel Fortes,
Dennis Venturina, Mervin Natalicio, Cristobal Gaston, Jr., Felix Tumaneng, and Cesar Magrobang, Jr. were
eating their lunch at the Beach House Canteen of the University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City
when suddenly Venturina shouted “brads, brads!”. This is when the Sigma Rho fraternity members saw
10 to 20 men wearing masks/disguises who were armed with baseball bats and lead pipes rushing
towards them. These men attacked the members which caused injuries and the death of Venturina.
During the attack, some of the members were able to recognize some of their attackers due to them
either not wearing any mask or the mask that they wore fell off. These men were identified as members
of the Scintilla Juris fraternity. An information for murder of Ventura was filed against Danilo Feliciano,
Jr., Julius Victor L. Medalla, Warren L. Zingapan, Robert Michael Beltran Alvir, Christopher L. Soliva,
Reynaldo G. Ablanida, Carlo Jolette Fajardo, George Morano, Raymund E. Narag, Gilbert Merle
Magpantay, Benedict Guerrero, and Rodolfo Penalosa, Jr. While separate informations were filed against
the said accused for the attempted murder of the other Sigma Rho fraternity members. All the accused
had given their alibis with the common description that they could not have been around during the
attack as they were somewhere else. The court found Robert Michael Alvir, Danilo Feliciano, Jr.,
Christopher Soliva, Julius Victor Medalla, and Warren Zingapan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
murder and attempted murder.

ISSUE

Did the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals correctly ruled, on the basis of the evidence, that
accused-appellants were sufficiently identified?

RULING

Yes, the accused-appellants were sufficiently identified. Citing In People v. Benjamin Peteluna, “It is a
time-honored principle that the positive identification of the appellant by a witness destroys the defense
of alibi and denial.” The victims were able to positively identify their attackers and the victims did not
just name all of the Scintilla Juris members to make sure that all of them will be jailed. Instead, each
victim/eyewitness only named one or two of his attackers while some said that they did not see who hit
them. Since there was conspiracy was present, all of the accused were equally liable. The decision that
Robert Michael Alvir, Danilo Feliciano, Jr., Christopher Soliva, Julius Victor Medalla, and Warren Zingapan
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and attempted murder is affirmed.

5. People vs. Morilla, GR No. 189833, February 5, 2014

FACTS
On October 13, 2001, Javier Morilla and Mayor Ronnie Mitra were apprehended by the police in Real,
Quezon when they tried to transport more than 500 Kilos of Shabu while driving their vehicles on a
convoy. Mayor Mitra was able to successfully pass his Starex through a checkpoint while the police
officers were suspicious of Morilla’s ambulance. His request to let him go since he was with the mayor
was denied by the officers and continued to inspect the contents of the vehicle and found Shabu. This
led to the officers to chase Mayor Mitra and inspect his vehicle where they also found Shabu. Mayor
Mitra claimed that he did not know the contents of the sacks that his vehicle was carrying, while Morilla
claimed that he did not know that he was carrying illegal items. Both were found guilty and ordered to
serve life imprisonment.

ISSUE

Was the mere act of driving the ambulance on the date he was apprehended sufficient enough to prove
that he was part of a syndicated group involved in the illegal transportation of dangerous drugs?

RULING

The court said that “in conspiracy, it need not be shown that the parties actually came together and
agreed in express terms to enter into and pursue a common design. The assent of the minds may be and,
from the secrecy of the crime, usually inferred from proof of facts and circumstances which, taken
together, indicate that they are parts of some complete whole.” Both of the vehicles were loaded with
Shabu and drove as a convoy with Mayor Mitra as the lead vehicle. If he was not conspiring with the
mayor, he should not have told the police officers that he was with the mayor. The court cited People Vs
Del Mundo that says “The very act of transporting methamphetamine hydrochloride is malum
prohibitum since it is punished as an offense under a special law. The fact of transportation of the sacks
containing dangerous drugs need not be accompanied by proof of criminal intent, motive or knowledge.”
The guilty charges were affirmed.

Synthesizing the cases

The Supreme Court had decided five different cases to confirm if conspiracy is present between two or
more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and then decide to commit
it.

In People V Carandang, although Milan and Chua did not shoot the police officers; the actions that all
three demonstrated had a unified objective. Milan shut the door which gave Carandang time to prepare
the ambush, Carandang shooting and killing SPO2 Red and PO2 Alonzo while gravely injuring SPO1
Montecalvo, and Chua urging Milan to attack the fallen Montecalvo. All three were found equally liable
for their actions.

In People V Dadao, we see a case with similar characteristics. A victim was gunned down, but not all of
the accused were bearing firearms. The witnesses positively identified Marcelino Dadao, Antonio
Sulindao, Eddie Malogsi, and Alfemio Malogsi bearing firearms and bolos helping one another to kill
Yacapin. Although Dadao and Sulindao were only holding bolos and did not cause the fatal gunshot
wound to Yacapin; the four of the accused clearly conspired and are in agreement to kill the victim that
night. All four were found equally liable for their actions.

In People V Feliciano Jr, we see a very unfortunate death of a student inside the school premises. A
number of Scintilla Juris fraternity members attacked the 7 members of Sigma Rho who were taking their
lunch in the school canteen. The attack caused the death of Venturina and multiple injuries to the other
6 Sigma Rhoans. Although not all of the members of Scintilla Juris attacked and caused the fatal blow to
Ventura, they are all equally liable for their actions. The members of Scintilla Juris fraternity clearly
conspired to attack the Sigma Rhoans where we see that the act of one is the act of all.

In People V Morilla, Mayor Mitra and Morilla drove their vehicles on a convoy to transport illegal drugs.
It was clear that Mitra and Morilla conspired with each other to commit the felony. Their actions of
leaving together on a convoy and Morilla asking the police officers to let him go since he’s with Mitra
clearly shows this. They were both found equally liable for their actions.

From the above cased, the Supreme Court was able to show that there was a conspiracy present due to
there being two or more persons who came to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
decided to commit it. It was determined a conspiracy since there is a common design to commit a felony.

Meanwhile with People V Bokingco and Col, it seemed initially that there were two or more persons who
came to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony. However, it was later found that although
felonies were committed, they were not necessarily linked or planned by the two accused. It was just a
case of two persons committing two separate felonies at the same time. Col only wanted to rob the
pawnshop while Bokingco killed Pasion when the latter hit him in the head.

With the above synthesis of cases, we have analyzed the individual cases and then generalized them by
showing how the circumstances of a conspiracy is met and not met. By doing so, we can now understand
how to identify when a conspiracy is present or not.