G.R. No. L-57519 September 13, 1988
DELFIN ORODIO, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Delfin Orodio, together with Angel and Manuel Obedoza, was convicted of murder by the Court of First Instance of La Union. The prosecution established that on June 18, 1975, in Santol, La Union, the victim Marceliano Turalba was shot and killed while walking to his fields, followed by his wife and daughter. The wife, Herminigilda, saw Angel Obedoza point a long firearm at her husband and fire. Both Herminigilda and her daughter Florie testified that they saw Manuel Obedoza and Delfin Orodio present with Angel at the scene. After the shooting, the three fled in different directions. The victim died shortly thereafter.
During the pendency of their appeal to the Court of Appeals, the Obedoza brothers withdrew their appeals, leaving only Orodio’s. The appellate court affirmed his conviction with a penalty modification to reclusion perpetua. The trial court had anchored Orodio’s liability on conspiracy, finding that his presence at the crime scene alongside the gunman constituted moral support and that he exerted moral ascendancy over Angel Obedoza, thereby furthering the criminal design.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the evidence suffices to prove conspiracy between petitioner Delfin Orodio and the Obedoza brothers, thereby holding him liable for murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Delfin Orodio. The Court held that conspiracy must be proven as clearly and convincingly as the crime itself. It cannot be presumed but must be established by evidence of concerted action towards a common purpose. The mere presence of an accused at the scene of the crime, without any clear act showing a common criminal design, is insufficient to establish conspiracy.
In this case, the evidence merely showed Orodio’s presence near the location of the shooting and his subsequent flight. The trial court’s conclusion that he provided moral support and exerted moral ascendancy was based on conjecture, not on concrete proof. The prosecution failed to present any evidence of prior agreement, coordinated action, or specific acts by Orodio indicating he shared the criminal intent to kill the victim. His presence alone, unexplained though it was, did not constitute that “overt act” necessary to infer participation in a conspiracy. Without proof beyond reasonable doubt of his direct participation or conspiratorial agreement, Orodio’s criminal liability could not be sustained. The Court emphasized that while conspiracy can be inferred from circumstances, the inference must be strong and must exclude any reasonable possibility of innocence. Here, the evidence fell short of that standard.