G.R. No. 135204; April 14, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. NARCISO RAMOS y MATIAS, et al., accused. EULALIA SAN ROQUE DE FRANCISCO y DELA CRUZ alias “LALING”, appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Eulalia San Roque de Francisco, was charged with Murder along with several co-accused for the killing of her live-in partner, William Lomida, on February 11, 1993, in Caloocan City. The Information alleged that the accused, conspiring together, tied the victim to a santol tree, stabbed and shot him, and subsequently burned his body. During trial, prosecution witness Bernie Ambal testified that he saw the appellant open her door to the armed co-accused, who then took William Lomida with them. Ambal followed the group and witnessed the killing from a distance. He testified that the victim pleaded to the appellant for help, but she merely turned her back. After the co-accused stabbed and shot Lomida, they burned his body, with the appellant watching. The appellant jumped bail after the prosecution rested its case. The trial court, based on the prosecution’s evidence, found her guilty of Murder and sentenced her to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the appellant’s guilt for the crime of Murder, specifically her participation in a conspiracy to kill the victim.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court upheld the finding 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 may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated, or from the acts of the accused evincing a joint or common purpose and design. The appellant’s actions—opening the door to the armed assailants, accompanying the victim to the scene of the crime, turning her back on his pleas, and staying to watch the entire gruesome killing and burning—conclusively demonstrated her concurrence with the criminal design. Her conduct before, during, and after the crime indicated a community of criminal purpose with her co-accused. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was also present, as the attack was sudden and deliberate, rendering the victim defenseless. However, as the crime was committed before the effectivity of Republic Act No. 7659, the proper penalty under the Revised Penal Code was an indeterminate sentence. The Court thus modified the penalty to an indeterminate sentence of 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as minimum, to reclusion perpetua, as maximum. The awards for civil indemnity, moral, and exemplary damages were affirmed, with temperate damages additionally granted.