G.R. No. L-71272 January 29, 1987
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JIMMY TAMBA, ROBERTO DIONSON, GERONDIO DESTOR and CARLOS DOLOR, accused-appellants.

FACTS

On April 22, 1973, a drinking party was held at Leoncio Dolor’s house in Sitio Mao, Ampatuan, Maguindanao. Among the attendees were the victim Celso Elevencionado and the accused appellants Carlos Dolor and Gerondio Destor, along with Jimmy Tamba and Roberto Dionson. Later that afternoon, after Elevencionado had left to rest, appellants Dolor and Destor, together with Dionson, waited for approximately two to three hours near a mitan-ag tree along the path they knew the victim would take.
When Elevencionado passed by on his way to pasture his carabaos, he sensed danger, raised his hands in surrender, and declared he was unarmed and would not fight. Despite this, Dolor, Destor, and Dionson assaulted him. They then called for Jimmy Tamba, who was still at the drinking party. Tamba responded and, while Dolor and Destor held the victim’s arms and Dionson held his feet, Tamba proceeded to stab Elevencionado multiple times, causing his death. The trial court convicted Tamba, Dolor, and Destor of murder. Tamba withdrew his appeal, leaving Dolor and Destor to appeal the decision.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the existence of a conspiracy among the accused, thereby making appellants Dolor and Destor equally liable for the murder committed by Jimmy Tamba.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding conspiracy duly established. The Court rejected the appellants’ defenses, primarily alibi and lack of motive, as insufficient to overcome the positive identification by prosecution witnesses. The victim’s children, Nida, Nilo, and Darlyn Elevencionado, clearly identified Dolor and Destor as active participants who held the victim, enabling Tamba to stab him. This coordinated action—waiting in ambush, jointly assaulting the victim, summoning Tamba, and physically restraining Elevencionado—demonstrated a unity of purpose and design indicative of conspiracy.
The legal logic is that once conspiracy is proven, each conspirator is liable for the acts of the others in furtherance of the common criminal objective. The Court emphasized that the proximity of the appellants’ alleged locations to the crime scene rendered their alibi weak and unavailing against direct eyewitness testimony. Furthermore, the Court ruled that proof of motive is not indispensable for conviction when the crime and the accused’s participation are positively established, as in this case. The vicious and coordinated nature of the attack itself supplied the evidence of collective criminal intent. Consequently, as co-conspirators, Dolor and Destor are equally responsible for the fatal stabbing carried out by Tamba. The decision was affirmed with modification, increasing the civil indemnity to Thirty Thousand Pesos.