TOPIC:

CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT A FELONY (ART. 8)

PEOPLE v. AGUILOS, GR No. 121828, 27 June 2003

FACTS:

On 5 February 1988, at around 11:30 in the evening, Elisa Rolan was watingfor her husband to arrive at their store in Mandaluyong
City. Joselito Capa and Julian Azul Jr. were drinking beer. Although already drunk, Edmar Aguilos and Odilon Lagliba joined them.
While drinking, Edmar and Julian got into a heated argument. Elisa then advised them to go home as she was already closing up.
When Joselito and Julian were about to leave, Edmar and Odilon returned, blocking their way. Elisa shouted “ Tama na. Tama na”
however, she was ignored. Edmar and Julian continued to trade fist blows until they reach the store at the end of the street.
Odilon positioned himself on top of a pile of hollow blocks and watched as Edmar and Julian swapped punches. Joselito tried to
intervened and apparently it did not sit well with Odilon. He then pulled out his knife with his right hand and stepped down from his
perch. He placed his left arm around Joselito’s neck, and stabbed the latter. Ronnie and
Pilola saw their gangmate Odilon from across the street stabbing Joselito and decided to join the fray. They pulled out their knives,
rushed to the scene and stabbed Joselito. Joselito fell in the canal. Odilon and Pilola fled, while Ronnie went after Julian and tried to
stab him. Julian ran away. When he noticed that Ronnie was no longer running after him, he stopped and looked back. He saw the
latter pick up a piece of hollow block and bashed Joselito’s head. Ronnie also struck a broken bottle to Joselito. Ronnie then fled
from the scene and Joselito died on the spot. Pilola denied stabbing the victim and stated his alibi that at the time the commotion
was happening, he remained inside the house of Julian Cadion because he was experiencing excessive pain due to ulcer. Julian
Cadion corroborated his testimony.
Agripina Gloria, a female security guard testified that at the time of the commotion, she saw Ronnie took a knife in the kitchen of her
niece’s house and run towards the scene. She saw what Ronnie did however did not see Odilon or Pilola anywhere within the
vicinity of the incident.
The trial court found Pilola guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder with neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstance, was
sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE:

Whether there was conspiracy among Pilola, Ronnie and Odilon in stabbing Joselito.

RULING:

ANSWER:
Yes. There may be conspiracy even if an offender does not know the identities of the other offenders, and even though he is not
aware of all the details of the plan of operation or was not in on the scheme from the beginning

LAW:

Even if two or more offenders do not conspire to commit homicide or murder, they may be held criminally liable as principals by
direct participation if they perform overt acts which mediately or immediately cause or accelerate the death of the victim, applying
Article 4, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code:

Art. 4. Criminal liability. – Criminal liability shall be incurred:

1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.

In such a case, it is not necessary that each of the separate injuries is fatal in itself. It is sufficient if the injuries cooperated in
bringing about the victim’s death. Both the offenders are criminally liable for the same crime by reason of their individual and
separate overt criminal acts.30 Absent conspiracy between two or more offenders, they may be guilty of homicide or murder for the
death of the victim, one as a principal by direct participation, and the other as an accomplice, under Article 18 of the Revised Penal
Code:

Art. 18. Accomplices. – Accomplices are the persons who, not being included in Article 17, cooperate in the execution of the offense
by previous or simultaneous acts.

To hold a person liable as an accomplice, two elements must concur: (a) the community of criminal design; that is, knowing the
criminal design of the principal by direct participation, he concurs with the latter in his purpose; (b) the performance of previous or
simultaneous acts that are not indispensable to the commission of the crime.Accomplices come to know about the criminal
resolution of the principal by direct participation after the principal has reached the decision to commit the felony and only then does
the accomplice agree to cooperate in its execution. Accomplices do not decide whether the crime should be committed; they merely
assent to the plan of the principal by direct participation and cooperate in its accomplishment.However, where one cooperates in the
commission of the crime by performing overt acts which by themselves are acts of execution, he is a principal by direct participation,
and not merely an accomplice.

The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength is absorbed by treachery.  There is no mitigating circumstance that
attended the commission of the felony. The penalty for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion perpetua to
death. Since no aggravating and mitigating circumstances attended the commission of the crime, the proper penalty is reclusion
perpetua, conformably to Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code.

APPLICATION:

In this case, Odilon all by himself initially decided to stab the victim. The appellant and Ronnie were on the side of the street.
However, while Odilon was stabbing the victim, the appellant and Ronnie agreed to join in; they rushed to the scene and also
stabbed the victim with their respective knives. The three men simultaneously stabbed the hapless victim. Odilon and the appellant
fled from the scene together, while Ronnie went after Julian. When he failed to overtake and collar Julian, Ronnie returned to where
Joselito fell and hit him with a hollow block and a broken bottle. Ronnie then hurriedly left. All the overt acts of Odilon, Ronnie and
the appellant before, during, and after the stabbing incident indubitably show that they conspired to kill the victim.

The victim died because of multiple stab wounds inflicted by two or more persons. There is no evidence that before the arrival of
Ronnie and the appellant at the situs criminis, the victim was already dead. It cannot thus be argued that by the time the appellant
and Ronnie joined Odilon in stabbing the victim, the crime was already consummated.

All things considered, we rule that Ronnie and the appellant conspired with Odilon to kill the victim; hence, all of them are criminally
liable for the latter’s death. The appellant is not merely an accomplice but is a principal by direct participation.

Even assuming that the appellant did not conspire with Ronnie and Odilon to kill the victim, the appellant is nevertheless criminally
liable as a principal by direct participation. The stab wounds inflicted by him cooperated in bringing about and accelerated the death
of the victim or contributed materially thereto.

The records show that the appellant knew that he was charged for the stabbing of the victim. However, instead of surrendering to
the police authorities, he adroitly evaded arrest. The appellant’s flight is evidence of guilt and, from the factual circumstances
obtaining in the case at bar, no reason can be deduced from it other than that he was driven by a strong sense of guilt and
admission that he had no tenable defense.

Unquestionably, the nature and location of the wounds showed that the killing was executed in a treacherous manner, preventing
any means of defense on the part of the victim. As testified to by Dr. Bienvenido Muñoz, the victim was stabbed, not just once, but
eleven times mostly on the chest and the abdominal area. Six of the stab wounds were fatal, causing damage to the victim’s vital
internal organs.

RULING:

The trial court correctly directed the appellant to pay to the heirs of the victim Joselita Capa the amount of ₱50,000 as civil indemnity
ex delicto, in accord with current jurisprudence.The said heirs are likewise entitled to moral damages in the amount of ₱50,000, also
conformably to current jurisprudence. In addition, the heirs are entitled to exemplary damages in the amount of ₱25,000.

WHEREFORE, the Decision, dated May 3, 1995, of Branch 164 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City in Criminal Case No.
73615, finding appellant Rene Gayot Pilola GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder is AFFIRMED WITH
MODIFICATION. The appellant is hereby directed to pay to the heirs of the victim Joselito Capa the amount of ₱50,000 as civil
indemnity; the amount of ₱50,000 as moral damages; and the amount of ₱25,000 as exemplary damages.