GR 30588 89; (June, 1970) (Digest)

G.R. No. L-30588-89 June 10, 1970
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMA GALLEMA, ET AL., defendants, RODOLFO LACADEN alias RUDY LACADEN, VICENTE GAGARIN and MAXIMO CAPINDING, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Criminal Cases Nos. 403-G and 404-G were filed against Roman Gallema, Benjamin Delo, and appellants Rodolfo Lacaden, Vicente Gagarin, and Maximo Capinding for the murder of Rufino Madriago and Conrado Gardose on the evening of November 11, 1967, in Barrio Guiset, Guimba, Nueva Ecija. The cases were tried jointly only for the appellants, as Gallema and Delo remained at large. The prosecution’s evidence included the testimony of Tirso Rapisora, who stated that Gallema and Delo, while drinking in his store, discussed being stoned by the victims, proposed to waylay and kill them, and mentioned calling appellants to accompany them, while armed with scythes. It also included an extrajudicial statement (Exhibits I and I-1) by appellant Gagarin, sworn before Municipal Judge Alfredo Guiang, detailing that Gallema and Delo invited appellants to a dance; on the way, they encountered Madriago and Gardose; Gallema stabbed Madriago, and Delo stabbed Gardose; appellants ran away; and the next day, Gallema and Delo threatened them to keep silent. The defense testimony from the appellants essentially corroborated Gagarin’s affidavit, adding that they were invited to a party or dance, were present during the attack but did nothing to stop it, and ran away out of fear, later receiving threats from Gallema and Delo.

ISSUE

Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that appellants Rudy Lacaden, Vicente Gagarin, and Maximo Capinding conspired with Roman Gallema and Benjamin Delo in the murder of Rufino Madriago and Conrado Gardose.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija and acquitted appellants Rudy Lacaden, Vicente Gagarin, and Maximo Capinding due to insufficiency of evidence. The Court found that the trial court’s conclusions of conspiracy were based on speculation and premises not borne out by the record. Specifically, the Court held: (1) there was no evidence that appellants overtook the victims or were aware of Gallema and Delo’s armed and evil intent when they joined them; (2) carrying a scythe or bolo in rural areas is not necessarily indicative of criminal intent; (3) the trial court’s surmise that appellants inflicted lacerated wounds was unsupported, as the autopsy revealed only stab wounds and no evidence showed appellants carried weapons capable of causing lacerations; (4) appellants’ immediate flight when the attack began suggested they were unaware of the intent to kill until it happened; and (5) their failure to report the crime was explained by fear from subsequent threats. The Solicitor General concurred, recommending acquittal due to the prosecution’s failure to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.