GR 27822; (February, 1973) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-27822 February 28, 1973
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DANIEL PALACPAC, et al., defendants-appellants.
FACTS
The accused, members of the Palacpac family and others, were convicted of murder for the deaths of Corporal Matias Bassig and informer Vicente Luis. The incident occurred on January 31, 1964, in Baggao, Cagayan. The trial court found that the victims, PC soldiers and their companion, were invited into the house of Agustin Palacpac under the pretense of hospitality during a family gathering. Once inside, they were suddenly attacked by the armed group. Vicente Luis was hacked to death, and when Cpl. Bassig attempted to retrieve a carbine, he was also attacked and killed. The prosecution’s theory was that the accused mistakenly believed the victims were members of a notorious bandit gang, and they attacked hoping to claim a reward.
ISSUE
The primary issues on appeal were: (1) whether Agustin Palacpac should be convicted of murder or the lesser crime of homicide, and (2) whether the guilt of appellants Canuto Tolentino, Jose Corpuz, and Leopoldo Palad was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. For Agustin Palacpac, the Court held that the qualifying circumstances of treachery and premeditation were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The attack occurred at his house during a family gathering, and there was insufficient evidence to establish a deliberate and preconceived plan to kill with alevosia. His participation, while criminal, constituted homicide, not murder. Consequently, his sentence was reduced accordingly.
For appellants Tolentino, Corpuz, and Palad, the Court ruled for acquittal. The evidence against them did not overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence. The trial court’s finding of conspiracy was based on their mere presence at the scene and general participation in the ensuing melee. The Supreme Court emphasized that conspiracy must be proven as clearly and convincingly as the crime itself. Mere presence, without clear evidence of a prior agreement to commit the crime or of acts demonstrating a common purpose to kill, is insufficient for a conviction. The prosecution failed to establish their individual criminal acts with moral certainty. Therefore, their guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, warranting their acquittal.