G.R. No. L-29948 November 26, 1970
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RICARDO PAGKALIWAGAN, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

An information charged Ricardo Pagkaliwagan and Reynaldo de las Alas (at large) with murder for killing Aniano Cabaña on May 18, 1967, in Barrio Pantoc, Sariaya, Quezon, with evident premeditation, treachery, and superior strength. Pagkaliwagan was tried separately. The prosecution evidence, credited by the trial court, established that on said date, around 5:00 p.m., the deceased Cabaña and his companion Segundo Balsomo were walking home along a railroad track from a barrio fiesta. They met and walked with de las Alas and Pagkaliwagan, also returning from the fiesta, in this order: Balsomo first, followed by de las Alas, then Cabaña, and lastly Pagkaliwagan. While walking, Cabaña suddenly stabbed de las Alas in the back. De las Alas exclaimed that Cabaña was a traitor, drew his knife, and Balsomo shouted for Cabaña to run. Cabaña fled, chased by de las Alas and Pagkaliwagan. De las Alas overtook and stabbed Cabaña to death while Pagkaliwagan, armed with a bolo, stood by his side. The trial court found Pagkaliwagan guilty as a co-principal by conspiracy, inferring conspiracy from his acts of helping chase Cabaña and standing guard with a bolo during the stabbing. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.

ISSUE

Whether the circumstantial evidence—specifically, Pagkaliwagan’s act of chasing the deceased and standing by with a bolo during the stabbing—is sufficient to prove conspiracy and convict him of murder beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of conviction and acquitted Ricardo Pagkaliwagan. The circumstantial evidence relied upon by the trial court was insufficient to prove conspiracy or guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The two circumstances—(a) helping chase the deceased after the deceased’s initial treacherous stabbing of de las Alas, and (b) standing by with a bolo during the killing—were inconsistent with each other and did not meet the test for circumstantial evidence under Rule 133, Section 5 of the Rules of Court. The act of chasing did not necessarily indicate cooperation in a conspiracy to kill, especially as the witness Balsomo admitted he did not know if Pagkaliwagan was chasing Cabaña or de las Alas. The act of standing by with a bolo held “downwards” did not show actual cooperation in the killing. The complete absence of evidence of prior conspiracy or direct participation, coupled with the unexplained fact that Pagkaliwagan did not act when Cabaña first stabbed de las Alas if a conspiracy existed, rendered the evidence consistent with innocence. The presumption of innocence must prevail.