G.R. No. L-66615 July 26, 1985
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. REYNALDO M. CAITOR and DANIEL R. MERCADO, accused-appellants.

FACTS

The accused-appellants, Reynaldo Caitor and Daniel Mercado, along with others, were charged with the murder of Bashier Majid, a student at Southwestern University (SWU) in Cebu City. The prosecution evidence established that on March 10, 1983, Caitor and Mercado, who were members of the SWU security force along with their co-accused, were pointed to Majid by Pepoy Embuscado. They then proceeded to forcibly pull Majid from a pushcart near the university gate, drag him inside the campus, and maul him. While Caitor, Mercado, and others held and beat Majid, Pepoy Embuscado shot him three times, causing fatal wounds. Eyewitness Benjamin Fernandez positively identified the appellants’ active participation in dragging the victim and the subsequent mauling inside the gate before the shooting.
The defense presented a different version, claiming the incident began when Majid allegedly attempted to snatch a blue bag from a female student. The appellants testified they merely responded to a commotion and tried to pacify Majid, who was struggling with Pepoy Embuscado over a gun, which accidentally discharged. However, the defense’s credibility was severely undermined when a key witness, Francisco Santosidad, admitted under cross-examination that his prior testimony about the blue bag—a central element of their narrative—was untrue and that he never saw such a bag.

ISSUE

Whether the accused-appellants, Reynaldo Caitor and Daniel Mercado, are guilty of murder, considering the defense of lack of conspiracy and their actions after the shooting.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic rests on the established presence of conspiracy, which the Court inferred from the appellants’ collective and coordinated actions leading to the killing. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. It can be deduced from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the crime, indicating a common purpose or design.
The appellants’ acts—being pointed to the victim, jointly dragging him from a public area into a more secluded campus area, participating in the mauling, and ordering the gate closed—demonstrated a united effort to isolate and subdue Majid, paving the way for Pepoy Embuscado to shoot him. This sequence shows a community of criminal purpose. Their defense that they were merely trying to pacify a situation was rejected as implausible and contradicted by the positive eyewitness account. Their post-crime conduct, such as remaining at the scene and allegedly assisting authorities, does not negate conspiracy; the Court, agreeing with the Solicitor General, viewed these acts as potentially part of a plan to evade liability. The penalty was affirmed with an increase in civil indemnity to Thirty Thousand Pesos.