G.R. No. 129535. July 20, 1999.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CALIXTO RECONES, CARLOS WAHING and PABLO DEGAMO, alias “OBLOY”, accused, PABLO DEGAMO, alias “OBLOY”, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused Pablo Degamo, along with Calixto Recones and Carlos Wahing, was charged with the murder of Tranquilino Garate. The prosecution alleged that on July 7, 1993, in Clarin, Bohol, the three conspired to attack the victim. Recones struck Garate on the head four times with a broken concrete land marker while Wahing pummeled him. Eyewitness William Amodia testified that Degamo, while not delivering blows, acted as a lookout during the assault and later threatened Amodia with a knife to prevent his testimony. Another witness, Maricho Belamala, corroborated that Degamo blocked the victim’s path, enabling the attack. The victim, a 67-year-old retired treasurer, died from his injuries. Recones pleaded guilty in a separate trial, Wahing remained at large, and Degamo pleaded not guilty, claiming mere presence at the scene without participation.

ISSUE

Whether accused-appellant Pablo Degamo is guilty of murder as a co-conspirator despite not inflicting the fatal blows.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed Degamo’s conviction for murder but modified the penalty. The legal logic rests on the established principle of conspiracy. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. It need not be proven by direct evidence but can be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the crime, indicating a common design. Here, the trial court correctly found conspiracy from the collective actions of Recones, Wahing, and Degamo. Degamo was not a passive spectator; his act of blocking the victim’s escape and serving as a lookout demonstrated indispensable cooperation and a community of criminal purpose with his co-accused. Consequently, in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, making Degamo equally liable for the murder committed by Recones. The Court upheld the factual findings of the trial court, noting the credible and consistent testimonies of prosecution witnesses absent any ill motive. However, the penalty was reduced. The crime was committed in July 1993, prior to the re-imposition of the death penalty by Republic Act No. 7659 in December 1993. With no modifying circumstances, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua, not death. The Court also awarded moral damages. A discrepancy in the date of the crime in the Information was deemed a harmless typographical error.