G.R. No. L-13895; September 30, 1963
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AMBROSIO BELEN, ET AL., defendants, FAUSTO PERITU, SOTERO PERITU, FERNANDO PERITU, ANDRES BLAS, MAXIMO DELINILA, FLORENTINO ESTIPULAR, SOTERO BANAY, CRISPULO MABALO and FLORENCIO HIDALGO, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The appellants, along with Ambrosio Belen, were charged with the double murder of spouses Hilario Zuniega and Felicisima Peritu. The prosecution established that on December 9, 1952, the group went to the victims’ house. Belen shot and killed both victims. Several appellants then assisted in digging a grave, burying the bodies, cleaning the crime scene, and removing the victims’ belongings. The crimes remained concealed until an investigation nearly a year later, where a ruse by a PC lieutenant led to the discovery of the grave and the exhumation of the bones. Sworn statements were subsequently taken from the appellants.
At trial, Belen pleaded guilty and testified against his co-accused. The appellants, while admitting their presence and actions, uniformly claimed they acted under duress. However, their accounts were inconsistent, with one faction blaming appellants Mabalo and Hidalgo for the threats, and Mabalo and Hidalgo in turn blaming appellant Andres Balas and the others. The trial court convicted all ten appellants, sentencing each to double life imprisonment and ordering indemnity.

ISSUE

Whether the appellants are guilty as co-conspirators in the crime of double murder, notwithstanding their claims of having acted under intimidation.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, finding conspiracy duly proven. The legal logic rests on the principle that conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The Court found the appellants’ sworn written statements, detailing a meeting on December 6, 1952, to discuss the plan to kill the victims, as clear evidence of this agreement. Their subsequent collective actions—proceeding to the house, some standing guard, others assisting in the burial and cleanup—were concerted acts in furtherance of the common criminal design.
The defense of compulsion was rejected due to the appellants’ contradictory and irreconcilable versions of who allegedly coerced them. The Court held that their individual admissions in their sworn statements were binding and demonstrated voluntary complicity. Once conspiracy is established, the act of one is the act of all, making each conspirator equally liable for the crimes committed. The Court appreciated the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, inherent in the proven conspiracy, and dwelling. However, it declined to impose the death penalty, finding the degree of perversity insufficient to justify it. The civil indemnity was increased to P6,000.00 for each victim. The judgment was modified only as to the indemnity and affirmed in all other respects.