G.R. No. 229701, November 29, 2017
EDWINA RIMANDO y FERNANDO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Edwina Rimando, along with her husband Romeo, was charged with violating Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code for possession of counterfeit US dollar bills. The prosecution evidence established that Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) agents, acting on a tip, conducted a test-buy and subsequent entrapment operation. On September 14, 2012, at Savory Restaurant in Makati, Romeo Rimando arrived with Edwina. Romeo handed 100 pieces of counterfeit $100 bills to the poseur-buyer, BSP officer Alex Muñez, and received marked money in return. Romeo then walked over to Edwina and placed the marked money inside her bag. Upon the pre-arranged signal, both were arrested. The trial court and the Court of Appeals convicted Edwina, finding she conspired with her husband in the illegal transaction.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner Edwina Rimando conspired with her husband in the possession and sale of counterfeit US dollar bills.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court acquitted Edwina Rimando, ruling that conspiracy was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that conspiracy must be established by clear and convincing evidence, not merely deduced from presumption. While Edwina’s presence at the crime scene and her act of receiving the marked money from her husband were incriminating, these acts alone were insufficient to prove a conscious common design to commit the crime.
The legal logic centers on the principle that conspiracy requires proof of an intentional participation in the criminal transaction with a community of criminal purpose. The evidence showed only that Edwina accompanied her husband and that he placed the money in her bag. There was no proof she had prior knowledge of the counterfeit nature of the dollars, participated in the negotiations, or performed any act indicative of a shared criminal intent. Her actions were equally consistent with mere passive presence or innocent accompaniment of her spouse. When inculpatory facts are capable of two interpretations—one consistent with guilt and another with innocence—the evidence fails the test of moral certainty, and the interpretation favoring innocence must prevail. Consequently, the prosecution failed to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence, warranting her acquittal. The Court reversed the CA decision and acquitted Edwina Rimando.