G.R. No. 204990. February 22, 2017.
RAMON AMPARO Y IBAÑEZ, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

An Information charged Ramon Amparo and three others with robbery in band. The prosecution alleged that on April 26, 2007, the accused, armed with bladed weapons, conspired to rob Raymond Ignacio inside a passenger jeepney in Manila. Ignacio testified that two men directly accosted him, with one poking a knife at him and the other announcing the hold-up. He identified Amparo as one of two other men seated in the front beside the driver. Ignacio stated he did not see what Amparo was doing during the incident but saw him place a knife on the jeepney bench after a police warning shot.
Police Officer SPO3 Renato Perez testified he responded to the commotion, arrested the main perpetrator, and, upon the passengers’ pointing, ordered Amparo and two others to alight. Perez frisked them and claimed to have recovered a fan knife from Amparo. Amparo denied involvement, testifying he was arrested elsewhere while working as a parking attendant. The Regional Trial Court convicted all accused of robbery in band, a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner Ramon Amparo conspired with his co-accused in committing the crime of robbery in band.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court acquitted Ramon Amparo. The Court emphasized that conspiracy must be proven as clearly and convincingly as the crime itself. It cannot be presumed but must be established by overt acts showing a common purpose to commit the felony. For robbery in band under Article 296 of the Revised Penal Code, mere presence at the scene is insufficient for conviction; the prosecution must prove the accused knowingly and intentionally participated in the criminal design.
The Court found the evidence against Amparo wanting. The victim, Ignacio, explicitly admitted he did not witness Amparo perform any act in furtherance of the robbery. His claim of seeing Amparo place a knife on the bench was uncorroborated and insufficient to prove prior armed participation. SPO3 Perez’s testimony regarding the recovery of a weapon from Amparo was deemed unreliable, as it was not supported by physical evidence or corroborating witnesses. The alleged pointing-out by other passengers was hearsay, as those passengers were never presented in court. Amparo’s mere presence in the jeepney, without proof of any conscious collaboration or direct contribution to the robbery, did not constitute conspiracy. The prosecution failed to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence.