GR 85204; (June, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 85204 June 18, 1990
JORGE TAER, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Jorge Taer was convicted of cattle rustling under Presidential Decree No. 533. The prosecution established that in the early morning of December 6, 1981, his co-accused, Emilio Namocatcat, arrived at Taer’s house with two stolen male carabaos. Namocatcat asked Taer to tend the animals and instructed him to tell any inquiring persons that the carabaos had merely strayed. Taer agreed and kept the animals for ten days until the rightful owners, Tirso Dalde and Eladio Palaca, discovered and recovered them. The trial court found a conspiracy between Taer and Namocatcat, convicting Taer as a principal. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the evidence sufficiently establishes that Jorge Taer conspired with Emilio Namocatcat in the crime of cattle rustling, thereby making him liable as a principal, or if his liability is merely that of an accessory.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the decision, holding that Taer is guilty only as an accessory, not as a principal by conspiracy. The Court clarified that conspiracy must be proven by clear and convincing evidence of a prior agreement and concerted action toward a common criminal goal. The evidence showed Taer’s involvement began only after the theft was completed; he was not present during the actual taking of the carabaos. His act of receiving and concealing the stolen animals, upon Namocatcat’s instruction to lie about their origin, constituted assistance given after the fact to prevent the discovery of the crime. This makes him liable as an accessory under Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code, not a co-conspirator. The extrajudicial confession of Namocatcat implicating Taer is inadmissible hearsay against Taer under the res inter alios acta rule. Applying P.D. 533 in relation to the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for the accessory is two degrees lower than that for the principal. The Court imposed an indeterminate sentence of four months of arresto mayor as minimum to two years of prision correccional as maximum.