G.R. No. L-75034. June 30, 1988.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANCISCO ALBIOR y YBIOA, CARLOS MANALANGSANG y BAKATANO, RODOLFO VASQUEZ y BALUGO, JOHN DOE alias “JUN” and PETER DOE alias “BERNARDO,” accused; FRANCISCO ALBIOR, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Francisco Albior was charged with Robbery with Homicide with Rape. The information alleged that on May 30, 1984, in Quezon City, conspirators broke into the Garces residence, robbed it, raped and killed Dana May Garces. Albior, along with Carlos Manalangsang and Rodolfo Vasquez, was arraigned, while two other accused remained at large. Manalangsang later pleaded guilty and was sentenced. After trial, the lower court convicted Albior as a principal and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. Vasquez was convicted as an accessory. Albior appealed, arguing the evidence against him was insufficient and his constitutional rights were violated.
The prosecution’s case relied heavily on the extrajudicial statements of his co-accused. Carlos Manalangsang, in his sworn statement, initially implicated Albior as a look-out but later recanted, stating only he and Bernard Reyes committed the crime. Rodolfo Vasquez, in his statement, claimed he learned of the crime during a drinking session where Reyes and Manalangsang mentioned Albior’s participation. However, Vasquez later testified in court that his statement was given under threat and he was not allowed to read it. Albior himself had given an extrajudicial confession, but the trial court correctly excluded it for being obtained without a valid waiver of his right to counsel.

ISSUE

Was the guilt of accused-appellant Francisco Albior for the crime of Robbery with Homicide with Rape proven beyond reasonable doubt?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court acquitted Francisco Albior. The legal logic centers on the insufficiency of evidence to prove conspiracy and Albior’s participation beyond reasonable doubt. With Albior’s own confession properly excluded as inadmissible, the only remaining evidence against him consisted of the extrajudicial statements of his co-accused, Manalangsang and Vasquez. The Court found these statements to be unreliable and contradictory. Manalangsang’s statement was inconsistent, as he first implicated Albior but later explicitly stated only he and Reyes were the perpetrators. Vasquez’s statement was inherently hearsay, as he had no personal knowledge of the crime’s commission, and his subsequent court testimony discredited the circumstances under which his statement was taken.
For conspiracy to be established, evidence must show a common design and concerted action. The contradictory and uncorroborated hearsay accounts failed to meet this standard. The Court emphasized that while the crime was heinous, a conviction cannot rest on evidence that fails to engender moral certainty. The constitutional presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt must prevail. Consequently, the Court found no legal basis to sustain Albior’s conviction and ordered his acquittal.