GR 94210; (April, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 94210 . April 26, 1996.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PABLO MACAPAS, TRANQUILINO O. CALO, JR. and BELARMINO ALLOCOD, accused-appellants.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Pablo Macapas shot and killed Mariano Corvera, Sr. inside a courtroom in Butuan City immediately after Corvera testified in a frustrated murder case. An information for murder was filed against Macapas, his counsel Mayor Tranquilino Calo, Jr., and Calo’s driver, Belarmino Allocod, alleging conspiracy. The procedural history involved multiple petitions concerning the grant of bail to Calo and Allocod and the inhibition of judges, ultimately leading to the case being assigned to Judge Alfredo Lagamon. During trial, the prosecution presented evidence of prior threats by Calo against Corvera, stemming from a corporate dispute within NIASSI. Witnesses testified that Calo had stated it would be better to “liquidate” Corvera. The prosecution also presented evidence that Allocod drove the vehicle used to bring Macapas to and from the courthouse on the day of the killing.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the existence of a conspiracy among Macapas, Calo, and Allocod to commit murder.
RULING
The Supreme Court acquitted Calo and Allocod due to insufficient proof of conspiracy. The Court emphasized that conspiracy must be established by clear and convincing evidence, not merely by conjecture. While the evidence showed Calo had motive and made threatening remarks, and Allocod served as a driver, these facts alone do not constitute proof of a concerted criminal design. The act of driving the car, without evidence that Allocod knew of the murder plot, is an equivocal act that does not demonstrate shared criminal intent. The prosecution failed to present evidence that Calo and Allocod directly participated in planning or executing the killing inside the courtroom. Conspiracy cannot be presumed; it requires proof of an agreement to commit the crime. The Court ruled that the evidence did not overcome the presumption of innocence for Calo and Allocod. Their acquittal was without prejudice to any separate civil liability. The case against Macapas proceeded separately, as he was the direct perpetrator.