G.R. No. 135048 December 3, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. LOMER MANDAO and JOHN DOE, accused, LOMER MANDAO, appellant.

FACTS

Lomer Mandao was charged with double murder for the killings of Francisco Villamino and Severino Bodiongan on January 6, 1986, in Barangay Colambutan Settlement, Tudela, Misamis Occidental. The Information alleged that he conspired with an unidentified armed companion who shot the victims. The prosecution’s version, based on eyewitnesses Roque Maquiling and Lolito Bodiongan, stated that appellant and his companion arrived at the victims’ location. The companion pulled out a gun and shot the victims. During the shooting, appellant was allegedly holding a hand grenade and threatening anyone who would try to help. After the shooting, both appellant and his companion fled. The defense presented alibi, claiming appellant was working as a laborer in Molave, Zamboanga del Sur, from 1984 to 1987 and had never been to Tudela prior to his arrest. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant of double murder, finding the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses credible and rejecting the alibi. The court sentenced him to two penalties of reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay indemnity.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution evidence is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused, Lomer Mandao, beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in establishing conspiracy in the commission of double murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court ACQUITTED appellant Lomer Mandao. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence merely showed appellant’s passive presence at the crime scene and his flight thereafter. The prosecution’s theory of conspiracy hinged on appellant’s alleged act of holding a hand grenade to threaten eyewitnesses during the shooting. However, the Court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses flawed with inconsistencies and improbabilities. Conspiracy must be proven with the same degree of proof as the crime itself—beyond reasonable doubt. Mere presence, knowledge, acquiescence, or approval of the act, without cooperation or agreement to cooperate, is insufficient to establish conspiracy. The prosecution did not present proof of any overt act by appellant showing concurrence of purpose or direct participation with the principal assailant. The Court emphasized that proof of conspiracy must pass the test of moral certainty, which was not met in this case. The challenged Decision was set aside, and appellant was ordered immediately released from custody unless held for another lawful cause.