ARTICLE 8 CONSPIRACY custodial investigation).

Because of this
confession, farmer Hadji Aladin Malang Cabalo,
People v. Pagalasan Ronie Puntuan and Fernando Quizon were
GR No. 131926 & 138991 arrested and detained at Camp Fermin Lira
(June 18, 2003) Barracks, General Santos City.
 The following day, the Lim’s received a letter,
FACTS: supposedly‖ from the kidnappers, ordering the
 Spouses George and Desiree Lim have 3 children; release of Michael and Ronnie Puntuan, for they
one of them is 10 year old Christopher. On are said to be innocent, and asking for 3M pesos
September 4, 1994, their maid was in their for the release of Christopher. Three days after,
kitchen when someone knocked. She opened the the Lim’s received another letter signed by
door thinking that it was Fernando Cortez, their Mubarak II or 2 (same sign as the note given by
security guard. Instead, 4 masked men armed the masked men). It says that they don‘t want the
with handguns and grenades barged in. Fernando military to be involved neither to prejudice
was with them with his arms tied behind his back. innocent people. They demanded the release of
The men asked the maid to knock at the bedroom Ronnie Putuan in 3 days or their son would not be
where the family was. One of the men was left in released alive. Then, the morning of the following
the sala while the 3 others went into the day, Christopher was rescued by police without
bedroom and informed the Lims that nobody will any ransom being paid. (How and where? It didn‘t
get hurt if they are given what they want. They say)
took money and valuables. They gave Desiree a
note and took with them George and Christopher.
One of the men asked George for the key to his DEFENSE
Nissan car and they asked George and his son to 1. Fernando Cortez, the security guard, said he was
occupy the backseat of the car. 2 of the men sat washing the car when the incident took place. The
on either side of the Lims and one occupied the gate was surrounded by 10 foot wall and the gate
passenger seat beside the driver. After about 15 was locked. He was shocked when 4 masked men,
minutes at Sitio Tupi, the 3 men alighted with armed with handguns, suddenly arrived. They
Christopher and George was transferred to the poked their guns at him, maltreated him, and tied
front seat beside the driver. He was told that he his hands behind his back. The masked men
will be brought to Maasim. knocked at the door of the house and when the
 The police were informed of what happened. housemaid Julita Sarno opened it, the men
They established a mobile checkpoint. When the dragged Ferdinand towards the entrance, to make
driver of the Nissan saw the checkpoint 30 meters it appear that he was the one knocking. The
ahead, he stopped removed his mask and told masked men then barged into the sala and tied
George not make any false move. The police Julita‘s hands. Ferdinand claimed he never met
questioned them. George told them that his name any of the kidnappers before September 4, 1994.
is Albert Lim for fear of the driver, Michael He was puzzled why he was being implicated in
Pagalasan. The police noticed that George is the case.
trembling. They got Pagalasan out of the car and 2. Michael Pagalasan, he is simply a conductor of his
George identified himself. They saw a handgun uncle‘s jeepney and made his living out of it. On
and grenade when they searched the car. They the evening of September 4, 1994, at about 9:00
were taken to the police station where the p.m., he was in their house. His friend Bong
security guard was being investigated. arrived, and invited him for a stroll and to
 On Sept 5, 1994, in his extrajudicial confession, accompany the latter to get his motorcycle.
Michael said that he with 3 others, Aladin, Michael agreed. They took a tricycle and arrived
Ferdinand (a muslim) and Bong (resident of Purok at the Villa Consuelo Subdivision. Michael was
Islam) kidnapped the Lims upon the order of surprised when the tricycle stopped near the gate
Aladin‘s brother, Ronnie Cabalo. (Note: He of the Lim residence and masked men suddenly
withdrew this confession saying he was forced appeared, poking their guns at him. Bong fled,
and intimidated into making it and he was not leaving Michael alone to fend for himself. The
provided with counsel of his own choice during masked men ordered Michael to drive a car, and
 warned him that if he refused, he would be killed. sentenced to suffer the EXTREME PENALTY OF
Momentarily, one of the men emerged from the DEATH insofar as the case of George Lim is
house, with George Lim in tow. George gave the concerned. The same penalty of death shall also
key to his Nissan car to one of the kidnappers, be imposed against Michael Pagalasan in the case
who in turn handed it over to Michael. The men of Christopher Neal Lim who was kidnapped on
forced George and his son Christopher to board the same occasion and was released only on the
the car. Father and son were seated between two sixth day after his captivity.)
masked men. Afraid for his life, Michael was
forced to drive the car with one of the kidnappers Issue:
pointing a gun at him, seated to his right at the  WON Pagalasan is guilty of kidnapping George
passenger‘s side. The kidnappers ordered Michael and Christopher Lim under Article 267 of the
to drive the car towards the direction of Barangay Revised Penal Code (main issue)
Ligaya.  WON there is a conspiracy committed between
Three of the men alighted, bringing Pagalasan and his cohorts (Article 8 of the RPC)
Christopher with them. Michael then pleaded to
George to bring him first to Tambler, where the
jeepney of his uncle was parked. Michael wanted HELD:
to sleep there instead of going home. George  Yes. He is guilty of kidnapping (with no ransom)
agreed, and drove the car himself through under Article 267 and guilty of slight illegal
Barangay Makar. George told Michael that they detention of George under Article 268 of the
had to travel along Espina road instead of the Revised Penal Code.
regular road because they might encounter  Yes, conspiracy between the accused and his
policemen, and Christopher might be killed by the cohorts exists
kidnappers. However, the car had to stop at the
intersection of the national highway when George RATIO:
saw the policemen and their mobile police car
parked at the intersection. Michael was then Guilty of Kidnapping:
arrested by the police, blindfolded, and brought 1. For Christopher (Article 267 Paragraph 4,
to the mobile car where he was also beaten. His kidnapping): Pagalasan and others conspired to
head was banged against the sides of the mobile kidnap George and Christopher and detained
car. And then he made his extrajudicial them illegally but prosecution failed to prove that
confession. they intended to extort ransom. (see the 3 letters
below). Of the 3 letters only the second letter is
INITIAL RULING OF THE RTC asking for ransom and it is not signed by
On October 17, 1994, with Case No. 11062 MUBARAK II or 2. It is possible that it did not
 Information is filed in RTC for violation of PD 1866 come from the kidnappers or others are acting
(kidnapping with ransom) against Michael independently to benefit from the situation. Even
(judgment: Sept. 24, 2007- for failure of the if the letter asking for ransom came from the
prosecution to prove the accusation against the kidnappers, Pagalasan‘s conspiracy with them
accused Michael Pagalasan beyond reasonable already ended at the time of his arrest. There is
doubt, he is hereby acquitted of the crime no proof that what is contained in the second and
charged.) third letters is with the knowledge and
On November 3, 1994, with Case No. 11098 concurrence of Pagalasan.
 Michael, Ronnie Cabalo, Aladin Cabalo, Ferdinand 2. For George (Article 268, slight illegal detention):
Cortez, a certain John Doe identified as Fernando, George had been kidnapped and detained illegally
and Peter Doe were charged with kidnapping for by the appellant and his allies, but only for less
ransom in an Information in RTC (judgment: the than a day. George regained his freedom after the
accused Michael Pagalasan is hereby found guilty appellant had been arrested at the intersection of
of the crime of kidnapping for ransom as defined the national highway and Espina Road. There is no
and penalized under Article 267 as amended by evidence that the appellant and his allies
Section 8 of Republic Act 7659, and there being kidnapped George for the purpose of extorting
no modifying circumstance to consider, he is ransom for his release. There is likewise no
 evidence that they inflicted any serious physical palatandaan na galing sa amin, pakiusap lang yon na
injuries on George, or simulated public authority, dapat ninyong sundin, madidisgrasya ang aming dala kung
or threatened to kill him. Furthermore, there is no kayo‘y magkakamali ng hakbang.
evidence that the appellant and his allies Maliwanag sana sa inyo ang aming mga salaysay.
intended to detain the victim for more than three
days. The appellant is not entitled to the 2. The letter received by George on September 6, 1994,
privileged mitigating circumstance under the second letter, reads:
second paragraph of Article 268 of the Revised Ronie Puntuan
Penal Code because he did not voluntarily release Michael Pagalasan
George within three days from the kidnapping.
Mr. G. Lim palayain ninyo ang suspek ninyo. Wala silang
On conspiracy: kasalanan bago natin tapusin ang usapan tatlong milyong
 There is conspiracy when two or more persons piso (3,000,000) katumbas ng kalayaan ng mahal ninyong
agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it. anak. Paalisin ang mga sundalo. Kailangan ang Black Out
Conspiracy as a mode of incurring criminal liability News. Huwag kang magkakamali Mr. Lim. Kunting sipyot
must be proven separately from and with the mo patay ang anak mo. Isang araw lamang ang tagal
same quantum of proof as the crime itself. namin sa inyo.
Conspiracy need not be proven by direct
evidence. After all, secrecy and concealment are 3. The handwritten letter received by George on
essential features of a successful conspiracy. September 9, 1994, third letter, reads:
Settled as a rule of law is that the conspiracy Para sayo Mr. & Mrs. Lim,
continues until the object is attained, unless in
the meantime the conspirator abandons the Mr. Lim, gusto ko lang ipaabot sayo ang maikli
conspiracy or is arrested. The loner a conspiracy is kong kataga. Unang-una, ayaw namin na mga asong
deemed to continue, the greater the chances that militar na makialam. Pangalawa, ayaw namin sa grupo na
additional persons will be found to have joined it. idamay ang tao na walang-alam. Alalahanin mo mabuti
 Each conspirator is liable is liable for everything lahat ng mga kataga na iniwan ko sayo, Mr. Lim. Ang
that is done by his confederates which follows taong dinampot ng militar sa purok islam na si Ronie, ang
incidentally in the execution of a common design taong yan walang conection (sic) sa grupo, sa madaling
as one of its probable and natural consequence usapan, Mr. Lim, alalahanin mo ang anak mo sa oras na
even though it was not intended as part of the tatlong araw na taong yan hindi makalabas. Ang isipin mo
original design. ang anak mo hindi rin makalabas hanggat sa mabulok sa
 In this case, the collective, concerted and lupa (maliwanag).
synchronized sets of Pagalasan with his three
cohorts before, during and after the kidnapping Baka matanong lang ni Prosecutor…
constitute concrete proof that he and his
companions conspired with each other to attain a Elements of Kidnapping (Article 267 of the RPC)
common objective; to kidnap George and 1. That the offender is a private individual;
Christopher and detain them illegally. Pagalasan 2. That he detains another or in any manner deprives the
was a principal by his direct participation in the latter of his liberty;
kidnapping of the two victims. 3. That the act of detention must be illegal; and
4. That in the commission of the offense, any of the
THE LETTERS following circumstances is present:
1. The handwritten letter received by Desiree on a. That the detention lasts for more than 3 days;
September 4, 1994, first letter, reads: b. That it is committed simulating public
Para Sa Inyo Mr. & Mrs. Lim, authority;
c. That any serious physical injuries are inflicted
Una wag na wag kayong gumawa ng hakbang na hindi upon the person detained or threats to kill him
namin alam o gusto, lalong-lalo na sa pakikipag-usap sa are made; or
militar o magkoordinate sa militar ay hindi namin gustong d. That the person detained is a minor, female, or
mangyari ang ganon mga sistem. Ang pangalawa, wag na a public officer.
wag kayong tumanggap ng negotiator na walang
 3) Whether or not the trial court erred imposing the
correct penalty.
People vs Larranaga HELD:
FACTS: 1) Yes. Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and
On the night of July 16, 1997, victims Marijoy and manner by which the offense was perpetrated, or may be
Jacqueline Chiong failed to come home on the expected inferred from the acts of the accused themselves, when
time. Two days after, a young woman was found dead at such point to a joint design and community of interest.
the foot of a cliff. Her pants were torn, her t-shirt was The appellants’ actions showed that they had the same
raised up to her breast and her bra was pulled down.Her objective to kidnap and detain the Chiong sisters. The
face and neck were covered with masking tape and Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that the appellants
attached to her left wrist was a handcuff. The woman was indeed conspired in the commission of the crimes
identified as Marijoy.After almost ten months, accused charged.
Davidson Rusia surfaced and admitted before the police 2) Yes. The rule is that when the law provides a single
having participated in the abduction of the sisters. He penalty for two or more component offenses, the
identified appellants Francisco Juan Larrañaga, Josman resulting crime is called a special complex crime. Article
Aznar, Rowen Adlawan, Alberto Caño, Ariel Balansag, 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 8
James Anthony Uy, and James Andrew Uy as co- of R.A. 7659, provides that in the crime of kidnapping and
perpetrators in the crime. Rusia provided the following serious illegal detention, when the victim is killed or dies
before the trial court: as a consequence of the detention, or is raped or is
1) That at 10:30 in the evening of July 16, 1997, he met subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum
Rowen and Josman and told him to ride with them in a penalty shall be imposed. Thus, the resulting crime will
white car. Following them were Larrañaga, James change from complex crime to special complex crime. In
Anthony and James Andrew who were in a red car. the present case, the victims were raped and subjected to
Josman stopped the white car in front of the waiting shed dehumanizing acts. Thus, the Court held that all the
where the sisters Marijoy and Jacqueline were standing appellants were guilty of the special complex crime of
and forced them to ride the car. Rusia taped their mouths kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide
while Rowen handcuffed them jointly. and rape in the case where Marijoy is the victim; and
2) That after stopping by a safehouse, the group simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention in the case
thereafter headed to the South Bus Terminal where they of Jacqueline.
met Alberto and Ariel, and hired the white van driven by 3) Yes. Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code provides that
the former. They traveled towards south of Cebu City, by reason of minority, the imposable penalty to the
leaving the red car at the South Bus Terminal. offender is one degree lower than the statutory penalty.
3) That after parking their vehicles near a precipice, they James Anthony was only 16 years old when the crimes
drank and had a pot session. Later, they started to rape were committed. As penalty for the special complex crime
Marijoy inside the vehicle, and thereafter raped of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide
Jaqueline. and rape is death, the correct penalty to be imposed
4) That Josman intructed Rowen and Ariel to bring should be reclusion perpetua. On the other hand, the
Marijoy to the cliff and push her into the ravine. penalty for simple kidnapping and serious illegal
The claims of Rusia were supported by other witnesses. detention is reclusion perpetua to death. One degree
He was discharged as an accused and became a state lower from the said penalty is reclusion temporal. There
witness. Still, the body of Jacqueline was never found. The being no aggravating and mitigating circumstance, the
trial court found the other appellants guilty of two crimes penalty to be imposed on him should be reclusion
of kidnapping and serious illegal detention and sentenced temporal in its medium period. Applying the
each of them to suffer the penalties of two (2) reclusiones Indeterminate Sentence Law, he should be sentenced to
perpetua. The appellants assailed the said decision, suffer the penalty of twelve (12) years of prision mayor in
arguing inter alia, that court erred in finding that there its maximum period, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years
was consipiracy. James Anthony was also claimed to be of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as maximum.
only 16 years old when the crimes were committed. With regard to the rest of the appellants, the statutory
ISSUES: penalty as provided above should be imposed. Therefore,
1) Whether or not there was conspiracy. trial court erred in merely imposing “two (2) reclusiones
2) Whether or not the trial court erred in characterizing perpetua”.
the crime.
Fernan vs People documents, the general vouchers covering the supply of
Yung facts nasa notes na ni ma’am ang haba kasi and materials cannot be properly accomplished and submitted
wala digest sa net hehe to the disbursing officer for the preparation of checks.

Held: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ARNORLD

Petitioners acted in conspiracy with one another GARCHITORENA Y
CAMBA A.K.A “JUNIOR”, JOEY PAMPLONA A.K.A “NATO” AND
Petitioners vigorously claim error on the part of JESSIE GARCIA Y
the lower court when it made the finding that they were ADORINO, accused-appellants
co-conspirators with the other parties accused despite the Facts:
dearth of evidence to amply demonstrate complicity. September 22, 1995, at around 9:00 in the evening, Dulce Borero
along with hisbrother Mauro Biay y Almarinez was selling “balut” at
We are not convinced by petitioners’ postulation. Sta. Inez Almeda Subdivision, Brgy. Dela Paz, Biñan, Laguna.Dulce
Borero was about seven (7) arms length away from her brother
Indeed, the burden of proving the allegation of MauroBiay. Accused Jessie Garcia called Mauro Biay and as Mauro
conspiracy falls to the shoulders of the prosecution. Biay approached Jessie, the latter twisted the hand of Mauro and
Considering, however, the difficulty in establishing the Jessie’s companions (co-accused) Arnold Garchitorena and Joey
existence of conspiracy, settled jurisprudence finds no Pamplona began stabbing Mauro repeatedly witha shiny
need to prove it by direct evidence. bladed instrument. Witness saw her brother Mauro struggling to
We find that the conspiracy in the instant cases resembles freehimself while being stabbed by the (3) accused, until her brother
the “wheel” conspiracy. The 36 disparate persons who slumped facedown on the ground. Arnold instructed his two co-
constituted the massive conspiracy to defraud the accused to run away. Borero claims she wanted to shout but nothing
government were controlled by a single hub, namely: came out from her mouth. Witness went home to call for her elder
Rolando Mangubat (Chief Accountant), Delia Preagido brother Teodoro Biay, but when theyreturn to the scene the victim
(Accountant III), Jose Sayson (Budget Examiner), and was no longer there as he had been brought to thePerpetual Help
Edgardo Cruz (Clerk II), who controlled the separate Hospital. Trial Court: Guilty, Court of appeals: Affirmed, Supreme
“spokes” of the conspiracy. Petitioners were among the Court: Affirmed andModifications
many spokes of the wheel.
After a close re-examination of the records, the Court Defense:Joey Pamplona-denied that he participated in the stabbing
finds no reason to disturb the finding of the anti-graft Jessie Garcia-defense of alibi
court that petitioners are co-conspirators of the other Arnold Garchitorena –defense of insanity
accused, headed by Chief Accountant Rolando Mangubat, Issue/s:
who were similarly convicted in practically all the 119 Is there conspiracy shown in the case? (Art. 8 RPC)
counts of estafa. Undisturbed is the rule that this Court is Held:
not a trier of facts and in the absence of strong and Yes, accuse appellants were together in performing the concerted
compelling reasons or justifications, it will accord finality acts in pursuit of their common objective. Jessie Garcia grabbed the
to the findings of facts of the SB. The feeble defense of victim’s hands and twistedhis arms; in turn, Joey Pamplona, together
petitioners that they were not aware of the ingenuous with Arnold Garchitorena, strangled Mauro Biay and straddled the
plan of the group of accused Mangubat and the Mauro Biay on the ground, then stabbed him.
indispensable acts to defraud the government does not
merit any consideration. The State is not tasked to
adduce direct proof of the agreement by petitioners with
the other accused, for such requirement, in many cases,
would border on near impossibility. The State needs to
adduce proof only when the accused committed acts that
constitute a vital connection to the chain of conspiracy or
in furtherance of the objective of the conspiracy. In the
case at bench, the signing of the fake tally sheets and/or
delivery receipts, reports of inspection, and requests for
supplies and materials by petitioners on separate
occasions is vital to the success of the Mangubat Group in
siphoning off government funds. Without such fabricated
People vs Carandang come to an agreement concerning the commission of a
Plaintiff: People of the PhilippinesDefendant: Restituto felony and decide to commit it. Evidence need not
CarandangPetition for: ReviewAccused of: 2 counts of establish the actual agreement among theconspirators
murder and 1 count of frustrated murderRuling Trial showing a preconceived plan or motive for the
Court: Guilty of 2 counts of murder and 1 count of commission of the crime. Proof of concerted action
frustrated murderRuling Court of Appeals: Guilty of 2 before, during and after the crime, which demonstrates
counts of murder and 1 count of frustrated murderRuling their unity of designand objective, is sufficient. When
Supreme Court: Affirmed with modifications conspiracy is established, the act of one is the act of
all regardless of the degree of participation of each.
Facts of the Case: The act of closing the door by Milan gave Carandang
(According to the victims) ample time to move into a morestrategic position for
April 5, 2001, the drug enforcement unit of La Loma gunfire. Chua likewise urged Milan to attack Monteclavo.
Police Station received a request forassistance from the Thecircumstantial evidence support the unity of purpose
sister of accused Milan regarding a drug deal about to of the minds of the three.Appellants further alleged that
take place intheir house. the incident occurred so rapidly that conspiracy
The station commander delegated tasks to interrogate isimpossible to commit. However, this Court ruled that
the sister of Milan and toproceed to the house in Calavite there is no requirement for conspiracy toexist that there
Street. be sufficient period of time to elapse.
At around 4:00pm, the police went to the house and Conspiracy arises on the very moment the plotters agree
declared their presence. In thehouse were the accused to commit the felony.
Henry Milan, Jackman Chua and Restituto Carandang.
Upon hearing the police arrival, Milan shut the door.
PO2 Alonzo and SPO2 Red pushed the door open.
Suddenly gunshots were fired byCarandang which hit
Alonzo and Red. SPO1 Monteclavo was likewise hit but [ GR No. 201860, Jan 22, 2014 ]
was onlyinjured. Chua uttered to Milan
PEOPLE v. MARCELINO DADAO Antonio Sulindao, Eddie
“Sugurin mo na!”. Malogsi and Alfemio Malogsi,

Reinforcements came at 4:30 pm. Negotiations ensued. FACTS: the above-named accused, conspiring,
Milan was sent to the hospitaltogether with Monteclavo. confederating and mutually helping with (sic) one
Chua and Carandang remained in the house and another, with intent to kill, by means of treachery, armed
demanded certain persons to meetwith. with guns and bolos, did then and there wilfully,
A paraffin test was conducted which yielded negative on unlawfully and criminally attack, assault and sho[o]t
Chua while positive forCarandang. PIONIO YACAPIN, hitting his back and left leg, inflicting
(According to the accused) wounds that cause[d] his death thereafter.
Carandang claims that he had no firearm. He was only in
Prosecution's first witness, Ronie Dacion, a 14[-]year old
the house of Milan to talk
stepson of the victim, Pionio Yacapin, testified that on July
about his cellphone’s SIM card.
11, 1993 at about 7:30 in the evening he saw accused
Marcelino Dadao, Antonio Sulindao, Eddie Malogsi and
Successive gunshots erupted while they remained
[A]lfemio Malogsi helping each other and with the use of
hidden under the bed.
firearms and bolos, shot to death the victim, Pionio
Yacapin in their house at Barangay Salucot, Talakag,
Issue: Whether or not there was conspiracy among the
Bukidnon.
appellants in the present case

Ruling: The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the

Court of Appeals with modification.The appellants alleged The testimony of the second witness for the prosecution,
that there is lack of direct evidence showing that they Edgar Dacion, a 12[-]year old stepson of the victim,
conspired corroborates the testimony of his older brother Ronie
with Carandang during the latter’s act of shooting the policemen. Dacion.
However, Conspiracy existswhen two or more persons
Prosecution's third witness, Nenita Yacapin, the widow of HELD: With regard to appellants' assertion that the
the victim, also corroborates the testimony of the negative result of the paraffin tests that were conducted
prosecution's first and second witness. The said witness on their persons should be considered as sufficient
further testified that she suffered civil and moral damages ground for acquittal, we can only declare that such a
[due to] the death of her husband. statement is misguided considering that it has been
established in jurisprudence that a paraffin test is not
conclusive proof that a person has not fired a gun.[16] It
should also be noted that, according to the prosecution,
Prosecution's fourth witness, Bernandino Signawan,
only Eddie and Alfemio Malogsi held firearms which were
testified that at about 10:00 o'clock in the evening of July
used in the fatal shooting of Pionio Yacapin while
11, 1993, Ronie and Edgar Dacion reached to [sic] his
Marcelino Dadao and Antonio Sulindao purportedly held
house and related to him that their stepfather was killed
bolos. Thus, it does not come as a surprise that the latter
by accused Eddie Malogsi, [A]lfemio Malogsi, Marcelino
two tested negative for powder burns because they were
Dadao and Antonio Sulindao. Witness Signawan further
never accused of having fired any gun. Nevertheless, the
testified that on the following morning, he and the other
evidence on record has established that all four accused
people in Ticalaan including the barangay captain, Ronie
shared a community of criminal design. By their concerted
and Edgar Dacion returned to the house of the victim and
action, it is evident that they conspired with one another
found the latter already dead and in the surrounding
to murder Pionio Yacapin and should each suffer the same
[area] of the house were recovered empty shells of
criminal liability attached to the aforementioned criminal
firearms.
act regardless of who fired the weapon which delivered
the fatal wounds that ended the life of the victim.

Prosecution's fifth witness, SPO2 Nestor Aznar, testified In People v. Nelmida,[17] we elaborated on the principle
that he was the one who prepared the sketch of the hut of criminal conspiracy and its ramifications in this manner:
where the incident happened and further testified that
There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to
the four accused were in the custody of the government
an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
and in the following morning of the incident, he was at
then decide to commit it. It arises on the very instant the
the scene of the crime and found in the yard of the hut
plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the
eight (8) garand empty shells caliber 30m[m].
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
The prosecution presented its sixth and last witness, any one of them. In the absence of any direct proof, the
Modesto Libyocan, who testified that on the evening of agreement to commit a crime may be deduced from the
July 11, 1993, at Barangay Salucot, he saw in the house of mode and manner of the commission of the offense or
the victim, Pionio Yacapin, lights caused by flashlights and inferred from acts that point to a joint purpose and
heard several gunshots from the house of the victim, and design, concerted action, and community of interest. As
that the family left their house on that evening and went such, it does not matter who inflicted the mortal wound,
to Ticalaan where they learned that Pionio Yacapin was as each of the actors incurs the same criminal liability,
killed in his house and that early the following morning, because the act of one is the act of all. (Citation and
July 12, 1993, he was with some companions, barangay emphasis omitted.)
officials of Ticalaan in the house of the victim where they
found him dead and sustaining gunshot wounds.

ACCUSED charged guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the

crime of Murder.

CA: dismissed

ISSUE: 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.
PEOPLE VS OCTA PEOPLE vs. MORILLA
G.R. No. 189883
FACTS: 4 armed men stopped and boarded a Honda Civic February 5, 2014
car being driven by Johnny Corpuz who was with his
brother Mike Adrian Batuigas. Johnny was then forced to
the backseat and was blindfolded and handcuffed. The
armed men first contacted Johnny's mother-in-law and FACTS:
informed her that theywere just on a trip. The victims were
later brought to a safe house where one of the
kidnapperscontacted Johnny's wife, Ana Marie Corpuz. During a checkpoint, Mayor Mitra, Willie Yang and Ruel
Upon confirmation that his husband was kidnapped,Ana Dequilla were caught illegally transporting
Marie sought the assistance of the PACER where several methamphetamine hydrochloride by means of two (2)
communications were had. Thekidnappers demanded for a motor vehicles, namely a Starex van with commemorative
ransom of P20M but was reduced to P538K. She was then plate to read "Mayor" and a municipal ambulance.
instructedto meet a man with a red cap who would ask her
"saan yung padala ni boss". She saw the man butfirst asked During the trial, Mayor Mitra argued that he was without
for confirmation from one of the kidnappers by talking to any knowledge of the contents of the sacks and explained
the man. The man with the redcap turned out to be the that he only accommodated the request of a certain Ben
accused and was described by Ana Marie as good looking, Tan because the latter bought his fishing boat. Likewise,
lightly built, inhis early 20s around 5'4" in height and with Morilla insisted that he thought what he was transporting
dimples. After the ransom was given, the victims were wooden tiles and electronic spare parts together with
werereleased.The accused invoked the defense of denial Dequilla. The other passenger of the ambulance, Yang, in
and alibi and that he was a victim of the kidnapping aswell. his defense, did not bother to inquire about the contents
On appeal, he argued that he was not a co-conspirator of the vehicle as he was merely an accommodated
since he cannot be considered as aconspirator to the passenger of the ambulance.
kidnapping in the absence of concrete proof that he
actually participated in theexecution of the essential ISSUES:
elements of the crime by overt acts indispensable to its 1) Whether or not intent or knowledge is material in
accomplishment.His receipt of the ransom money determining the culpability of an accused in drug
transpired only after the kidnapping had been cases (NO)
consummated andwas not an essential element of the
crime.Crime charged: Kidnapping for ransom 2) Whether or not the finding of conspiracy is correct (YES)
RTC: Guilty as charged HELD:
CA: Affirmed the RTC
1) NO, intent or knowledge is not material in determining
Issue:Is the accused liable for the felony charged as a co- the culpability of an accused in drug cases.
conspiratorz.

Held: Yes. As held in People v. Bautista:Conspiracy exists The very act of transporting methamphetamine
when two or more persons come to an hydrochloride is malum prohibitum since it is punished as
agreementconcerning the commission of a felony and an offense under a special law. Morilla and Mayor Mitra
decide to commit it. Where allthe accused acted in concert were caught in flagrante delicto in the act of transporting
at the time of the commission of the offense,and it is the dangerous drugs on board their vehicles. "Transport"
shown by such acts that they had the same purpose or as used under the Dangerous Drugs Act means "to carry or
commondesign and were united in its execution, convey from one place to another." It was well established
conspiracy is sufficientlyestablished. It must be shown that during trial that Morilla was driving the ambulance
all participants performed specific actswith such closeness following the lead of Mayor Mitra, who was driving a Starex
and coordination as to indicate a common purpose van going to Manila. The fact of transportation of the sacks
ordesign to commit the felony. containing dangerous drugs need not be accompanied by
proof of criminal intent, motive or knowledge.
2) YES, the finding of conspiracy is correct. During the preliminary investigation. Bokingco admitted
that he conspired with Col tokill Pasion and that they
planned the killing several days before because they got
The finding of conspiracy by both courts is correct. A "fedup" with Pasion. On arraignment, Bokingco entered a
conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an guilty plea while Col pleaded notguilty. During the pre-
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and trial, Bokingco confessed to the crime charged.The trial
decide to commit it. To determine conspiracy, there must court rendered judgment finding appellants guilty beyond
be a common design to commit a felony. reasonable doubt ofmurder, there being the two
aggravating circumstances of nighttime and abuse
Morilla’s argument that the mere act of driving the ofconfidence to be considered against both accused and
ambulance on the date he was apprehended is not the mitigating circumstance ofvoluntary plea of guilty in
sufficient to prove that he was part of a syndicated group favor of accused Bokingo only, sentencing them to
involved in the illegal transportation of dangerous drugs is Death.The Court of appeals affirmed the decision of the
misplaced. trial court however lowering thepenalty to reclusion
perpetua pursuant to RA 7659.
In conspiracy, it need not be shown that the parties
actually came together and agreed in express terms to ISSUES:Whether appellant Col is guilty beyond reasonable
enter into and pursue a common design. The assent of the doubt as a co-conspirator based on
minds may be and, from the secrecy of the crime, usually Bakingo’s admission that Col is a co-consiprator
inferred from proof of facts and circumstances which,
taken together, indicate that they are parts of some HELD:No. Col is hereby ACQUITTED beyond reasonable
complete whole. In this case, the totality of the factual doubt.In order to convict Col as a principal by
circumstances leads to a conclusion that Morilla conspired direct participation in the case before us, it isnecessary
with Mayor Mitra in a common desire to transport the that conspiracy between him and Bokingco be proved.
dangerous drugs. Both vehicles loaded with several sacks Conspiracy existswhen two or more persons come to an
of dangerous drugs, were on convoy from Quezon to agreement to commit an unlawful act. It may be inferred
Manila. If indeed he was not involved in conspiracy with from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after
Mayor Mitra, he would not have told the police officers the commission of thecrime. Conspiracy may be deduced
that he was with the mayor. from the mode and manner in which the offensewas
perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the accused
evincing a joint or commonpurpose and design, concerted
action, and community of interest. Unity of purpose
andunity in the execution of the unlawful objective are
People vs Bokingco
essential to establish the existence ofconspiracy.
FACTS:For review is the Amended Decision dated 14
Their acts did not reveal a unity of purpose that is to kill
November 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-
Pasion. Bokingco had alreadykilled Pasion even before
H.C. No. 00658, Bokingo and Col guilty as conspirators
he sought Col. Their moves were not coordinated
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and
becausewhile Bokingco was killing Pasion because of his
sentencing them to suffer the penalty f
pent-up anger, Col was attempting torob the
reclusion perpetua.
pawnshop. In order that the admission of a conspirator
may be received against his or her co-conspirators, it is
An Information was filed against Bokingo and
necessary that first, the conspiracy be first proved
Col, charging them of the crime of murder wherein they
by evidence otherthan the admission itself; second, the
“conspired together armed with a claw hammer and with
admission relates to the common object; and third,it has
intent to kill by means of treachery, evident
been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying
premeditation, abuse of confidence, and nighttime, did
out the conspiracy. As wehave previously discussed, we
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack,
did not find any sufficient evidence to establish
assault and maul NOLI PASION, by hitting and beating his
theexistence of conspiracy. It was during the preliminary
head and other parts of his body withsaid hammer,
investigation that Bokingco mentioned his and Col’s plan
thereby inflicting upon said NOLI PASION fatal wounds on
to kill Pasion
his head and body which caused his death.”
.
Bokingco’s confession was admittedly taken coerced into confessing the crime, thereason why they
without the assistance of counsel in violation of Section pleaded guilty the first time. They later on retracted
12, Article III of the 1987Constitution. Therefore, the the guilty plea.
extrajudicial confession has no probative value
and isinadmissible in evidence against Col Issue: Whether or not there was conspiracy to extort
ransom

Ruling: The Supreme Court affirmed the judgement on

People vs Castillo
Castillo but acquitted Padayhag. Castillo herself admitted
GR No: 132895Date: March 10,
to the fact that Rocky was with her for nights and that
Facts of the Case:
shefound the money bag in the church in Obando. Her
(According to the victims)
claims that she only wanted to visit Rockyand that no
On March 1, 1995, Rossana Baria the yaya of Luis Cebrero
harm was done to him do not absolve her of the crime of
IV aka Rocky, was informed by Fernie another maid of the
kidnapping. Castillo’s alleged coerced confession was still
household, that someone else would fetch Rocky. A
the same with her testimony in court.For Padayhag, her
tricycle arrived with Evangeline Padayhag who fetched
only participation in this event was fetching Rocky from
Rocky. They went to McDonald’s were they met Elizabeth
his house. Nomoney was found with her. To be proven
Castillo. The three of them then went to the house of
guilty as a co-principal by conspiracy , there must be
Imelda, sister of Elizabeth. About 5:30 pm, the father
asufficient and unbroken chain of events that directly and
of Rocky reported to the police that his son was missing.
definitely links the accused to thecommission of the crime
About 7:30 pm, the father received a phone call from the
without any space for baseless suppositions or frenzied
kidnapper wanting ransom amounting to 1 million. Mrs.
theories to filter through.Conspiracy is established by the
Cebrero withdrawed 800,000.00 from the bank which
presence of two factors: (1) singularity of intent; and (2)
gave them the serialnumbers of the said money. The
unity in execution of an unlawful objective. The two must
kidnapper called again stating the address where the
concur. Performance of an act that contributes to the goal
father would leave the money.It was in a church in
of another is not enough. The act must be motivated by
Paco, Obando, Bulacan. Major Ronnie Eleazar of the
the sameunlawful intent. Neither joint nor simultaneous
Intelligence Security Group(ISG) with his officers,
action is per se sufficient indicium of conspiracy, unless
watchedthe vicinity of the money drop off area. After 40
proved to have been motivated by a common design.
minutes, 2 women arrived and took the money bag.
To inquire as to the liability of an individual as a
March 5, 1995, Rocky was returned to his father.
conspirator, her acts before, during andafter the crime
Acquiring the addresses of the accused in the
must be looked into. Padayhag never visited Rocky and
Employment Agency, the ISG went toNavotas to locate
Elizabeth after they were situated in Imelda’s house. She was
Padayhag.
not present when Elizabeth took the money. She likewise refused
Padayhag went willingly with the ISG. No money was
to go to Dipolog with Elizabeth. The act of fetching Rocky
found with her. Another ISG team was dispatched to
does not constitute an offenseor even an accomplice to
Dipolog were Elizabeth Castillo was located. The ISG
the crime. She did not know the intent of Elizabeth to
found the black bag containing 277,000.00 with the same
kidnap Rocky.
serial numbers.

JACA VS PEOPLE
(According to the accused) FACTS: The petitioners occupied appointive positions in
Elizabeth Castillo, was a former house helper at the the different divisions of the Cebu City government at the
Cebrero household who did not payher monthly wages. time material to the controversy: Gaviola was the City
Castillo called Padayhag, saying that Padayhag’s boyfriend is sick. Administrator;[5] Cesa was the City Treasurer;[6]
The two did not go tothe boyfriend’s house but went instead Bacasmas was the Chief Cashier of the Cash Division,
to a playground. Castillo instructed Padayhag to fetch Rocky. which is under the Office of the City Treasurer, and Jaca
Upon return, they went to Imelda’s house. Castillo admitted to was the City Accountant.
Imelda that she wanted to see Rocky but she had
no permission. Castillo was with Rocky for four days. City Auditor Rodolfo Ariesga created a team of auditors,
Castillo was then searching for a new employmentaround with the task of conducting a surprise audit[8] of the cash
Obando. The same time the money was to be left in a and other accounts handled by all accountable officers
church there. Padayhag and Castillo alleged that she was assigned at the Cash Division, Office of the City Treasurer.
W hile Badana reported for work in the early morning of through gross and inexcusable negligence, and of
March 5, 1998, she immediately left upon learning of the incurring collective criminal responsibility through a
planned surprise audit to be conducted that day; she has conspiracy.
not reported for work since. The audit team reported that
Badana incurred a cash shortage of P18,527,137.19. On x x x As we have consistently held, evidence of guilt must
July 1, 1998, the Ombudsman charged the petitioners and be premised upon a more knowing, personal and
Bacasmas with violation of Section 3(e) of RA No. deliberate participation of each individual who is charged
3019[19] before the Sandiganbayan under the following with others as part of a conspiracy.
Information:[20]
Furthermore, even if the conspiracy were one of silence
and inaction arising from gross inexcusable negligence, it
is nonetheless essential to prove that the breach of duty
That on or about the 5th day of March 1998, and for borders on malice and is characterized by flagrant,
[sometime] prior thereto, at Cebu City, Philippines, and palpable and willful indifference to consequences insofar
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above- as other persons may be affected.[104]
named accused, public officers, having been duly
appointed to such public positions above-mentioned, in As earlier discussed, considering that the gravity of
such capacity and committing the offense in relation to negligence required by law for a violation of Section 3(e)
Office, conniving and confederating together and of RA No. 3019 to exist falls short of the degree of bad
mutually helping xxx each other, with deliberate intent, faith or partiality to violate the same provision, a
with manifest partiality, evident bad faith and with gross conspiracy of silence and inaction arising from gross
inexcusable negligence, did then and there allow Rosalina inexcusable negligence would almost always be inferred
G. Badana, Cashier I of the Cebu City Government to only from the surrounding circumstances and the parties'
obtain cash advances despite the fact that she has acts or omissions that, taken together, indicate a common
previous unliquidated cash advances, thus allowing understanding and concurrence of sentiments respecting
Rosalina G. Badana to accumulate Cash Advances the commission of the offense.[105] The duties and
amounting to P18,522,361.96, Philippine Currency, which responsibilities that the occupancy of a public office carry
remains unliquidated, thus accused in the performance of and the degree of relationship of interdependence of the
their official functions, had given unwarranted benefits to different offices involved here determine the existence of
Rosalina G. Badana and themselves, to the damage and conspiracy where gross inexcusable negligence was the
prejudice of the government, particularly the Cebu City mode or commission of the offense.
Government.
For emphasis, the petitioners are all heads or their
respective offices that perform interdependent functions
in the processing of cash advances. The petitioners'
The petitioners argue that the information is fatally attitude of buck-passing in the face of the irregularities in
defective for violating their right to be informed of the the voucher (and the absence of supporting documents),
nature and cause of accusation against them. The as established by the prosecution, and their indifference
prosecution could not have validly alleged that the to their individual and collective duties to ensure that
petitioners committed the offense "with deliberate laws and regulations are observed in the disbursement of
intent, with manifest partiality, evident bad faith and with the funds of the local government of Cebu can only lead
gross inexcusable negligence"[43] since these several to a finding of conspiracy of silence and inaction,
modes of committing the crime are inconsistent with each contemplated in Sistoza. The Sandiganbayan correctly
other; the violation is more so when one considers the observed that
prosecution's allegation of conspiracy, which presupposes
intent and the absence of negligence.[44] Because of this Finally, it bears stressing that the separate acts or
serious flaw in the information, the information omissions of all the accused in the present case
effectively charged no offense for which they can be contributed in the end result of defrauding the
convicted. government. Without anyone of these acts or omissions,
the end result would not have been achieved. Suffice it to
Conspiracy and conviction say that since each of the accused contributed to attain
the end goal, it can be concluded that their acts, taken
In Sistoza, the Court already intimated on the possibility collectively, satisfactorily prove the existence of
of committing a violation of Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019 conspiracy among them.[106]
WHERFFORE, premises considered, we hereby DENY the would border on near impossibility. The State needs to
petitions for lack of merit and thereby AFFIRM the adduce proof only when the accused committed acts that
decision dated December 16, 2004 and the resolution constitute a vital connection to the chain of conspiracy or
dated February 1, 2005 of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal in furtherance of the objective of the conspiracy. In the
Case No. 24099 case at bench, the signing of the fake tally sheets and/or
delivery receipts, reports of inspection, and requests for
supplies and materials by petitioners on separate
occasions is vital to the success of the Mangubat Group in
siphoning off government funds. Without such fabricated
Fernan vs People documents, the general vouchers covering the supply of
Yung facts nasa notes na ni ma’am ang haba kasi and materials cannot be properly accomplished and submitted
wala digest sa net hehe to the disbursing officer for the preparation of checks.

Held:
Petitioners acted in conspiracy with one another
Sharica Mari Go-Tan vs. Spouses Perfecto and Juanita Tan
Petitioners vigorously claim error on the part of G.R. No. 168852
the lower court when it made the finding that they were September 30, 2008
co-conspirators with the other parties accused despite the
dearth of evidence to amply demonstrate complicity. Facts:

We are not convinced by petitioners’ postulation. Petitioner Sharica filed a Petition with Prayer for the
Issuance of a Temporary Protective Order (TPO) against her
Indeed, the burden of proving the allegation of husband,Steven, and her parents-in-law, Spouses Perfecto
conspiracy falls to the shoulders of the prosecution. C. Tan and Juanita L. Tan (respondents) in violation of
Considering, however, the difficulty in establishing the Section 5, paragraphs (e)(2)(3)(4), (h)(5), and (i) of Republic
existence of conspiracy, settled jurisprudence finds no Act (R.A.) No. 9262, otherwise known as the "Anti-Violence
need to prove it by direct evidence. Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004."
We find that the conspiracy in the instant cases resembles
the “wheel” conspiracy. The 36 disparate persons who Respondents contend that they cannot be included in the
constituted the massive conspiracy to defraud the charge since they are not among the personalities liable as
government were controlled by a single hub, namely: enumerated under the said law by virtue of “expresio unius
Rolando Mangubat (Chief Accountant), Delia Preagido est exclusion alterius.”
(Accountant III), Jose Sayson (Budget Examiner), and
Edgardo Cruz (Clerk II), who controlled the separate Ruling:
“spokes” of the conspiracy. Petitioners were among the The Court ruled in favor of petitioner with regard to the
many spokes of the wheel. inclusion of the respondent spouses.
After a close re-examination of the records, the Court
finds no reason to disturb the finding of the anti-graft A provision of the said law expressly provides for the
court that petitioners are co-conspirators of the other suppletory application of the RPC (Section 47 of R.A. No.
accused, headed by Chief Accountant Rolando Mangubat, 9262), which allowed legal principles developed in the RPC
who were similarly convicted in practically all the 119 may be applied in a supplementary capacity to crimes
counts of estafa. Undisturbed is the rule that this Court is punished under special laws, such as R.A. 9262.
not a trier of facts and in the absence of strong and
compelling reasons or justifications, it will accord finality Citing jurisprudence, the court held that the “principle of
to the findings of facts of the SB. The feeble defense of conspiracy under Article 8 of the RPC may be applied
petitioners that they were not aware of the ingenuous suppletorily to R.A. No. 9262 because of the express
plan of the group of accused Mangubat and the provision of Section 47 that the RPC shall be
indispensable acts to defraud the government does not supplementary to said law. Thus, general provisions of the
merit any consideration. The State is not tasked to RPC, which by their nature, are necessarily applicable, may
adduce direct proof of the agreement by petitioners with be applied suppletorily. Thus, the principle of conspiracy
the other accused, for such requirement, in many cases, may be applied to R.A. No. 9262. For once conspiracy or
action in concert to achieve a criminal design is shown, the
act of one is the act of all the conspirators”.

Furthermore, Section 5 of R.A. 9262 recognizes the acts of

violence against women and their children may be
committed by an offender through another

The maxim "expressio unios est exclusio alterius" finds no

application in the case at bar since it is only an "ancillary
rule of statutory construction” and not of universal
application nor is it conclusive. It should be applied only as
a means of discovering legislative intent when not plainly
indicated.

However, proving conspiracy is a matter of evidence and

can be best decided after fullblown trial on the merits