GR 94065; (December, 1991)

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 94065 December 2, 1991

ROBERTO SITON y ENSALADA, petitioner,

vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

PARAS, J.:

Can there be a conspiracy in a free-for-all fight? This is the issue we are faced with.

At around 11:00 o’clock in the evening of February 9, 1985, Norberto Notar, a barangay tanod of the place, was outside the Hair Works Beauty Salon located near the corner of A. Francisco and Chromium Streets, Sta. Ana, Manila.
1 Also in the vicinity were accused-appellant Roberto Siton, Joey Calip, nephew of Notar, and Andres Borbon, a resident of the area.
2 Subsequently, a group of seven to eight young men, including Roylan Holgado, passed by, walking towards Chromium Street.

A brief exchange of words occurred between Norberto Notar and Holgado. Subsequently, a free-for-all ensued between the group of Holgado on one hand, and Norberto Notar, Joey Calip, Andres Borbon, and the accused-appellant, Roberto Siton, on another.

At the end of the melee, both Holgado and Notar suffered stab wounds. Holgado suffered two stab wounds, one of which was fatal, causing his death. He expired later at the Philippine General Hospital.
3 Notar was confined at the Manila Doctors Hospital for a stab wound on his left chest but was later released after recovering.
4

Prosecution witness Bernardo Ferrer testified that at around 10:30 o’clock on the night of February 9, 1985, he was with Gerry Flores at the corner of Aqua Marina and A. Francisco Streets when their friends from Tondo, numbering about seven arrived and invited them to a Valentine’s party. When they declined, the group, led by his friend, Roylan Holgado, proceeded towards Chromium Street. After five minutes, they heard shouts coming from the direction of Chromium Street. Thus, Ferrer and Flores proceeded to Chromium Street.
5 The trial court summarized what Bernardo Ferrer saw:

While approaching the place, Bernardo (Ferrer) saw Andres Borbon hit Roylan with a piece of wood on the head, Roberto Siton, alias “Berting Tura”, who was behind Roylan stabbed Roylan with an icepick on the right hip once. Thereafter, Joey Calip also stabbed Roylan on the right side of the waistline with a kitchen knife once. Afterwards, Roylan fell and was taken to Philippine General Hospital by his companions and Bernardo. The victim, Roylan was thereafter treated by the doctors but the same proved futile as he died.
6

Mario Pahita, a cashier at the Hair Works Beauty Salon, testified for the defense. He averred that at around 11: 00 o’clock on the night of February 9, 1985, he was in front of his beauty parlor with two of his beauticians, Joy and Rolly. Notar was also with them. They then saw a group of around seven to eight young men, including Roylan Holgado, walk past them, towards Chromium Street. After a while, they heard sounds of what seems to be stones being hurled at the roofs of houses. Then, they saw the same group of men retreating towards their direction. Notar asked Holgado what the noise was all about. The latter replied: “Wala yon.” The group, which appeared to be drunk and heavy-eyed, was advised by Notar to go home as the police might pass by.
7 The lower court summed up the ensuing events:

The group of Roylan resented the advice of Norberto and suddenly, the latter was boxed by one of the companions of Roylan. Later on, all of them ganged up on him. Roylan stabbed Norberto with an icepick. On the other hand, Joey Calip, nephew of Norberto, stabbed Roylan two (2) times at the right side of his stomach with a bladed weapon.
8

The defense presented another witness, Mario Baul, a member of Holgado’s group which figured in the free-for-all. He testified that he, together with Roylan Holgado and some five others, were on their way to his house on Chromium Street when they were met by Norberto Notar. After uttering some words which he (Baul) did not understand, Notar stood up and boxed Holgado. Then a free-for-all ensued. He did not see the accused-appellant Roberto Siton.
9

For his part, accused-appellant Roberto Siton gave an alibi and asseverated that in the evening of February 9, 1985, he was in Cainta, Rizal, in the house of his sister, Miguela Siton Soliman, a public school teacher. He was there from February 8, 1986 and stayed until February 15, 1986, to borrow money from his sister.
10

The trial court gave credence to the positive identification made by Bernardo Ferrer and disregarded the alibi of Roberto Siton, who was charged to have conspired with others in murdering the victim, Roylan Holgado. Consequently, the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch XI,
11 in a decision rendered on March 1, 1988, found Roberto Siton guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide and hereby sentences him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of TWELVE (12) YEARS of prision mayor as a minimum to SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS and FOUR (4) MONTHS of reclusion temporal as maximum, less preventive period of his confinement, and to pay the heirs of Roylan Holgado the amount of P30,000.00 as indemnity for the latter’s death.

SO ORDERED.
12

Unsatisfied with the judgment of the trial court, accused-appellant Roberto Siton elevated his case to the Court of Appeals. The Sixth Division of the Court of Appeals
13 upheld the angle of conspiracy and in a decision promulgated on March 27, 1990, affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court. The appellate court disposed:

WHEREFORE, finding the decision of March 1, 1988 of the RTC-Manila, Branch II, in Criminal Case No. 85-41920, to be in accordance with law and evidence, the same is hereby AFFIRMED in all respects. Costs against accused-appellant.

The Office of the City Fiscal of Manila is hereby directed to file the necessary information against the persons, whose identities are now known, although their present whereabouts are still unknown, and who, according to the information filed in the present case, conspired and confederated with each other and with the accused-appellant Roberto Siton in killing the deceased Roylan Holgado.

SO ORDERED.
14

Upholding its findings of the existence of a conspiracy, the appellate court
15 denied the accused-appellant’s motion for reconsideration in a
resolution
16 promulgated on June 26, 1990.

Accused-appellant Roberto Siton now comes before us and argues that the Court of Appeals erred in finding that there is conspiracy in a free-for-all. Consequently, it erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide.

The accused-appellant contends that in a free-for-all fight, the protagonists do not have the sole objective of mauling or killing a particular individual. Rather, the protagonists were excited by their reflexes to face their opponents as the exigency of the fighting demands.

Under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code, “conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.” In the case at bar (as testified by the defense witness, Mario Pahita), the deceased was stabbed by Joey Calip not because of a concerted action but in retaliation only to the act of the deceased in stabbing his relative, Norberto Notar. Certainly, there was no indication of a common purpose or design to constitute conspiracy.

The accused-appellant then asserts that even assuming that he had joined in attacking the victim, “such act alone does not satisfy the requirement of a conspiracy because the rule is that neither joint nor simultaneous action is per se sufficient proof of conspiracy. It must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the offense itself.”

There being no conspiracy, the accused-appellant submits that his liability should be limited to his participation only, assuming arguendo that he indeed participated.

The Solicitor-General, however, maintains that conspiracy was present because the malefactors, including Roberto Siton, acted in concert pursuant to the same objective, i.e., the killing of Roylan Holgado, which objective they were in fact able to attain. Settled is the rule that for conspiracy to exist, the evidence need not establish the actual agreement which shows the pre-conceived plan, motive, or interest, or purpose in the commission of the crime.
17

Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence as the same can be inferred from the acts of the conspirators to the effect that at the time the offense was committed the participants had the same purpose and were united in its execution.
18 Thus, when the defendants by their acts aimed at the same object, one performing one part and another performing another part so as to complete it, with a view to the attainment of the same object, and their acts, though apparently independent, were in fact concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association, concerted action, and concurrence of sentiments, conspiracy is present.
19

Alibi, as we have repeatedly held, must yield to and can not prevail over the positive identification made by the prosecution’s witness.
20 The testimony of defense witness Mario Baul as to the absence of accused-appellant can not likewise be given credence as he testified that he was somewhat drunk during the incident.
21

A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
22 In the present case, there is no showing that there was a previous agreement relating to the commission of the crime, it appearing that the meeting between the group of Notar and the group of Holgado was casual and unarranged, and the aggression ensued at the spur of the moment.
23 Although proof of the agreement may be inferred from the acts and conduct of the conspirators disclosing a common understanding among them with respect to the commission of the offense,
24 we have also invariably ruled that like the offense itself, conspiracy must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
25

Conspiracy, like any other ingredient of the offense, must be shown by clear and convincing evidence.
26 Indeed, conspiracy was not established since the attack on Roylan Holgado was not agreed upon beforehand. The meeting between the two groups was not planned in advance. It was unexpected and unarranged; the fracas was instantaneous, perhaps caused by the arrogance of Notar and the intoxication of Holgado (since the three alleged eyewitnesses gave conflicting testimonies on what exactly precipitated the free-for-all).

It is evident from the records that there could not have been a pre-conceived plan to attack Holgado as there was a free-for-all. This is very clear. Prosecution witness Bernardo Ferrer testified thus:

WITNESS:

There was a free-for-all, sir, “Naglabu-labo.”

COURT:

The companions of Roylan Holgado, numbering six (6) also engaged with [sic] the fistcuff fight with the group of Norberto Notar?

WITNESS:

Yes, Your Honor.
27

As early as 1929, this Court has ruled in People of the Philippine Islands v. Caballero, et al.
28 that it is not enough that the attack be joint and simultaneous; it is necessary that the assailants be animated by one and the same purpose. A conspiracy must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the crime itself.

We reiterated this ruling in People v. Bartolay (1971)
29 and in People v. Dorico (1973).
30 Once more, we rely on it. Consequently, we hold that conspiracy was not established beyond reasonable doubt.

Since conspiracy has not been proven, the responsibility of the accused is individual and the accused must be dealt with individually.
31

The right hip, sir.
32

No, sir. This is non-fatal (references, supplied).
33