G.R. No. L-38606 July 14, 1978
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RODOLFO MARAÑO, ET AL., accused. FELIX AVELLANA and CIRIACO NUELAN, JR., accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused Rodolfo Maraño, a bakery employee, stabbed his employer Saw Lim (who survived) and co-worker So Tao (who died) on June 5, 1971, in Daet, Camarines Norte. He was convicted of robbery with homicide and frustrated homicide. Co-accused Felix Avellana and Ciriaco Nuelan, Jr., fellow bakery helpers, were also convicted by the trial court as co-conspirators. The court based this finding on the premise that while Maraño committed the assaults, Avellana and Nuelan posted themselves at the store’s only exit. Maraño did not appeal, but Avellana and Nuelan did, contesting their alleged complicity.
The prosecution’s evidence against the appellants was inconsistent. At the initial trial, witness Medardo Madi claimed he peeped into the bakery and saw Avellana and another holding So Tao during the stabbing. Employer’s wife Anita Lim initially testified the appellants were merely “behind” So Tao. At Nuelan’s separate trial, however, she changed her testimony, stating they were “holding” the victim. Madi did not testify at Nuelan’s trial. Other bakery workers, in their police statements given shortly after the incident, implicated only Maraño and did not mention any robbery. Maraño himself denied any conspiracy with the appellants.

ISSUE

Whether the evidence is sufficient to prove that appellants Avellana and Nuelan conspired with Maraño to commit robbery with homicide and frustrated homicide.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court acquitted Avellana and Nuelan due to insufficient evidence and reasonable doubt. The legal logic centers on the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt for conspiracy, which the prosecution failed to meet. Conspiracy must be established as clearly and convincingly as the crime itself; it cannot be presumed from mere presence or ambiguous acts. The trial court’s inference of conspiracy from the appellants’ alleged act of posting themselves at the door was unsupported by the evidence.
The Court found the testimonial evidence fatally inconsistent and unreliable. Anita Lim’s materially altered testimony between trials damaged her credibility. Madi’s testimony was not subject to cross-examination by Nuelan, violating his constitutional right to confrontation. The testimony of a new witness, Loreto Guadalupe, regarding a conversation about separation pay, was deemed flimsy and irrelevant to proving a conspiracy for robbery and homicide. The appellants’ conduct after the incident—reporting the crime, visiting the victim, and being paid wages—was inconsistent with guilt. The prosecution’s failure to present consistent, credible evidence demonstrating a prior agreement or concerted action to commit the crimes created reasonable doubt. Without proof of conspiracy, the appellants cannot be held liable as particeps criminis for Maraño’s independent criminal acts.