GR 224301; (July, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 224301, July 30, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. BERNIE RAGURO Y BALINAS, JONATHAN PEREZ Y DE MATEO, ERIC RAGURO Y BALINAS, ELMER DE MAKILING, TEODULO PANTI, JR., AND LEVIE DE MESA, Accused-Appellants
FACTS
Accused-appellants were charged with Murder and Frustrated Murder for the death of Avelino Morales and the wounding of his brother Manuel on August 25, 2002, in Quezon City. The incident stemmed from a drinking spree during a birthday celebration where appellant Bernie Raguro, after being drunk, hurled invectives at the victims and was asked to leave. He later returned with co-accused Eric Raguro, Teodulo Panti, Jr., and Elmer Dimakiling, all armed with bladed weapons. Avelino was called out and attacked, resulting in his death. Manuel, who attempted to help, was also stabbed. The Regional Trial Court convicted all accused, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of all accused-appellants, specifically regarding the existence of conspiracy and the individual criminal liability of Levie De Mesa.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Bernie Raguro, Jonathan Perez, Eric Raguro, and Teodulo Panti, Jr., but acquitted Levie De Mesa. The Court held that conspiracy was duly proven against the four appellants through their collective and simultaneous actions. Bernie Raguro initiated the confrontation and returned with armed companions, Eric Raguro and Teodulo Panti, Jr., directly participated in the stabbing, and Jonathan Perez was identified as having stabbed Manuel Morales. Their coordinated assault demonstrated a unity of purpose and design.
However, the Court acquitted Levie De Mesa. The Prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Mere presence at the crime scene and inaction during the commission of the crime are not sufficient overt acts to establish conspiracy. The evidence did not show that De Mesa performed any act indicative of concurrence in the criminal design. Conspiracy requires that each accused must have performed an overt act in furtherance of the crime; absence of such act negates criminal liability under a conspiracy theory. The civil awards for the victims’ heirs were also modified in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.