8/12/2019 People vs Pilola

1/2

PEOPLE VS PILOLAGR 121829, June 27, 2003Callejo Sr., J.

Facts: Appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City convicting appellant Pilola ofmurder. Victim Joselito Capa and Azul together with accused Aguilos and Lagliba had a heated argumentduring ther drinking spree. Pacified by store owner Rolan, the two accused left the premises. The victimand Azul were about to leave when the two accused blocked their way. Aguilos and Julian traded fistblows. Victim tried to pacify the two, however, his intervention did not sit well with Odilon. He stabbed thevictim with a knife. When appellant and one Ronnie Diamante saw Odilon stab the victim, they joined thefray, pulled out their knives, rushed to the scene and stabbed thevictim.

Appellant argues that the prosecution failed to prove that he conspired with Ronnie and Odilon in stbbingthe victim to deth. He contends that for one to be a conspirator, his participation in the criminal resolutionof another must either precede or be concurrent with the criminal acts; that the incident was only achance encounter between the victim, the appellant and his co-accused. He contends that in the absenceof a conspiracy, the appellant cannot be held liable as a principal by direct participation.

Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in concluding that there was conspiracy anent the assailed

incident.

Held: There is conspiracy when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it. Itmust be proved separately from and with the same quantum of proof as the crime itself and need not beproven by direct evidence. Conspiracy may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, duringand after the commission of the crime, showing that it had acted with a common purpose and design.Conspiracy may be implied if it is proved that two or more persons aimed by their acts towards theaccomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their combined acts, thoughapparently independent from each other, where, in fact, connected and cooperative, indicating acloseness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment. There may be conspiracy even ifoffender does not know the identities of the other offenders, and even though he is not aware of all thedetails of the plan of operation or was not in on the scheme from the beginning. One need only toknowingly contribute his efforts in the furtherance of it. If conspiracy is established, all the conspirators are

liable as co-principals regardless of the manner and extent of their participation since in contemplation oflaw, the act of one would be the act of all.

To hold an accused liable as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to have performedan overt act in pursuance of furtherance of conspiracy. The mere presence of an accused at the situs ofthe crime will not suffice; mere knowledge, acquiescence or approval of the act without cooperation oragreement to cooperate on the part of the accused is not enough to make him a party to conspiracy.There must be intentional participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the commondesign and purpose. Conspiracy exists if, at the time of the commission of the offense, the accused hadthe same purpose and were united in its execution.

Even if two or more offenders do not conspire to commit homicide or murder, they may be held criminallyliable as principals by direct participation if they perform overt acts which immediately cause or accelerate

the death of the victim, applying Article 4, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. In such a case, it is notnecessary that each of the separate injuries is fatal in itself. It is sufficient if the injuries cooperated inbringing about the victim's death. Both the offenders are criminally liable for the same crime by reason oftheir individual and separate overt criminal acts.

To hold a person liable as an accomplice, two elements must concur: (a) the community of criminaldesign; and (2) the performance of previous or simultaneous acts that are not indispensable to thecommission of the crime. Accomplice come to know about the criminal resolution of the principal by directparticipation after the principal has reached the decision to commit the felony and only then does theaccomplice agree to cooperate in its execution. Accomplices do not decide whether the crime should be

8/12/2019 People vs Pilola

2/2

committed; they merely assent to the plan of the principal by direct participation and cooperate in itsaccomplishment. However, where one cooperated in the commission of the crime by performing overtacts which by themselves are acts of execution, he is a principal by direct participation, and not merely anaccomplice.

All things considered, we rule that Ronnie and the appellant conspired with Odilon to kill the victim;hence, all of them are criminally liable for the latter's death. The appellant is not merely an accomplice butis a principal by direct participation.

Judgement affirmed with modifications.