G.R. No. 213601 , July 27, 2016
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. FRANKIE GERERO, ROLITO GERERO y ARMIROL, CHRISTOPHER GERERO, ALFIE ESPINOSA y MENDEZ and RENATO BARTOLOME y JAIME, Accused, ROLITO GERERO y ARMIROL, ALFIE ESPINOSA y MENDEZ and RENATO BARTOLOME y JAIME, Accused-Appellants

FACTS

The accused-appellants, along with others, were charged with Murder for the killing of Robert Glee on October 8, 2002, in Rodriguez, Rizal. The prosecution alleged that appellants, armed with bolos, barged into the victim’s house, challenged him to a fight, and simultaneously hacked him. The victim fled but was caught in a nearby carinderia, where the attack continued, resulting in his decapitation. The widow, Marilyn Glee, testified that the motive was envy, as some appellants were her husband’s co-workers. The defense presented a different narrative, claiming the killing was a sudden act by Frankie Gerero alone during a drinking session, and that the other appellants merely witnessed the event and fled.
The Regional Trial Court found appellants Rolito Gerero, Alfie Espinosa, and Renato Bartolome guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder, sentencing each to reclusion perpetua and ordering them to pay indemnities. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modification, imposing reclusion perpetua without parole and adjusting the awarded damages. The appellants elevated the case to the Supreme Court, contending that conspiracy was not established and that the qualifying circumstances were not proven.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether conspiracy among the appellants was proven beyond reasonable doubt to hold them equally liable for the crime of Murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of conspiracy and the conviction for Murder. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement to commit a felony and decide to execute it. The Court emphasized that conspiracy need not be proven by direct evidence but can be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime, indicating a common purpose and unity of action.
In this case, the Court found conspiracy was sufficiently established by the appellants’ collective and simultaneous actions. The prosecution evidence showed they arrived together, jointly challenged the victim, barged into his house as a group, and collectively hacked him with bolos. Their concerted pursuit of the fleeing victim to the carinderia and the continuation of the attack, culminating in decapitation, demonstrated a unified criminal purpose. The defense of mere presence and sudden flight was rejected, as their synchronized offensive conduct indicated prior concert. Given the conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, making each appellant equally liable for the killing.
The crime was properly qualified as Murder due to the presence of treachery. The attack was sudden and unexpected, denying the victim any opportunity to defend himself, which ensured the execution of the crime without risk to the appellants. The Court modified the damages in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, increasing the awards for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to ₱100,000.00 each, awarding ₱50,000.00 as temperate damages, and imposing interest on all monetary awards. The penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole was affirmed.