G.R. No. 90736. April 12, 1993.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GORGONIO BUNTAN, SR. Y GERVACIO and JOHN DOE @ BAMMY, accused. GORGONIO BUNTAN, SR. Y GERVACIO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On February 2, 1986, between 1:00 and 2:00 p.m., Crisguno Lusico was shot and killed at his residence in Navotas, Metro Manila. The prosecution’s evidence, primarily from witnesses Joselita Lusico (the victim’s 14-year-old sister) and Eulalia Lusico (the victim’s sister-in-law), established that the co-accused “Bammy” first passed by the house alone, peeped through the window, and left. He returned shortly with appellant Gorgonio Buntan, Sr. “Bammy” again peeped, nodded, pulled out a gun, and shot the victim four times. Appellant was standing behind “Bammy,” about two to three arm-lengths away. After the shooting, both left casually. The dying victim identified his assailants as “Bammy” and appellant. Appellant was apprehended the next day while playing mahjong. He denied involvement, claiming he was at the house of Atty. Misael Villanueva during the incident. The Regional Trial Court found appellant guilty of Murder, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to pay indemnity. Appellant appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant conspired with “Bammy” in the killing of Crisguno Lusico.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and acquitted appellant on the ground of reasonable doubt due to insufficient evidence of conspiracy.
The Court held that conspiracy must be proven as clearly as the crime itself. While it can be inferred from conduct, mere presence at the scene of the crime is not enough. In this case, no direct evidence of conspiracy was shown. The prosecution’s theory that appellant acted as a “look-out” was based solely on Joselita’s testimony that appellant was “observing who will be coming,” which the Court found implausible. There was no evidence of any prior meeting or conversation between appellant and “Bammy,” nor any specific act suggesting appellant acted as a look-out. Given that “Bammy” had earlier reconnoitered alone and returned to shoot, a look-out was deemed unnecessary. Appellant’s mere presence during the shooting did not establish a common design or purpose to commit the crime.
The Court also addressed ancillary issues: (1) The failure to conduct a police line-up was not fatal, as there is no law requiring it, and appellant was already identified by alias; (2) Appellant’s right to counsel during custodial investigation was not violated, as there was no showing he was interrogated or that any confession was extracted from him.