G.R. No. L-31582 - People of the Philippines vs. Raymundo S. Vistido

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-31582 October 26, 1977

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
RAYMUNDO VISTIDO y SABAYLE,defendant-appellant.

Ramon A. Gonzales & Associates for appellant.

Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, Assistant Solicitor General Dominador L. Quiroz and Solicitor Octavio R. Ramirez for appellee.

CONCEPCION JR.,J.:

In Criminal Case No. CCC-263-P.C. of the Circuit Criminal Court of Rizal, Pasig, Rizal, the accused Raymundo Vistido y Sabayle was charged together with Pepito Montaño and one John Doe (both at large) with the crime of murder, allegedly committed as follows:ñé+.£ªwph!1

Upon arraignment, the accused Raymundo Vistido pleaded not guilty.2Thereafter, trial proceeded, and in due time, the court rendered its decision finding the accused Raymundo Vistido guilty of the crime of murder, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:ñé+.£ªwph!1

The case is now before Us for mandatory review.

The evidence for the prosecution reveals that on November 1, 1969, between 3:00 and 4:00 o'clock in the morning, the deceased Restituto Belbes and his cousin, Reynaldo Pagtakhan after coming home from their work at the cemetery went to eat at the Marzan Restaurant on Taft Avenue, Pasay City.4After taking soup,5they took a taxi in going home.6While they were alighting from the taxi on M. Francisco St., Pasay City, Reynaldo Pagtakhan saw three men drinking wine ("nag-iinuman"), who turned out to be the accused Raymundo Vistido, Pepito Montaño, and one John Doe.7

Thereupon, Pepito Montaño told the deceased: 'Hoy Resting. pauwiin mo na iyong kasama," to which the latter answered: "Huwag pinsan ko ito."8Whereupon, the deceased approached the three, and immediately thereafter, a commotion, ensued. While Reynaldo Pagtakhan was trying to pacify them, Pepito Montaño suddenly stabbed the deceased, hitting him below the abdomen, and in the process also hit the right hand of Reynaldo Pagtakhan. The deceased fell to the ground. When he stood up, the accused

Raymundo Vistido boxed him once.9Then Pepito Montaño faced Reynaldo Pagtakhan and tried to stab him. The latter ran away but the former with his knife and his other companion, chased him.10Upon reaching their house, he called for his mother. "Inay, Inay, tulungan ninyo ako, dalhin ninyo ako sa hospital, dahil sa may sugat ako. Immediately, his mother called a taxi and brought him to the Philippine General Hospital.11Meantime, his cousin, the deceased Restituto Belbes, who has fled from the scene of the crime, arrived in their house.12He was likewise, taken to the Philippine General Hospital but was dead on arrival.13Reynaldo Pagtaksan's wound was treated at the same hospital, and after the treatment he and his mother went home.14

In the meantime, the accused Raymundo Vistido was picked up, as a suspect in the killing of the deceased, on M. Francisco St., Pasay City, by Pat. Loreto Aguna, who brought him to the police precinct.15At this time, Reynaldo Pagtakhan who was fetched by the police from their house, arrived at the police precinct.16He saw the accused Raymundo Vistido and Identified him to the investigator, Sgt. Francisco Tirona, as one of the perpetrators of the crime.17

"The accused Raymundo Vistido denied any participation in the commission of the crime. According to him, on the night of October 31, 1969, he was at home. Around 9:00 o'clock in the evening, his wife asked him to buy milk at a nearby store but was not able to do so because the store was already closed. In front of the store, he saw Conrado Catadrilla, Antonio Ramos, Pepito Montaño, and Esteban Pugna. The group offered him one-half glass of tanduay rhum. After drinking it, he felt tipsy and requested them to take him home. Conrado Catadrilla and Antonio Ramos accompanied the accused to his house, arriving thereat at about 10:00 o'clock in the evening, and immediately, he went to sleep.18

Around 4:00 o'clock in the morning of November 1, 1969, a Metrocom Unit came to his house and asked him to go with them as they would show to him some papers which he would sign. As he could not do anything, he went with them to the Pasay City Police Department. Immediately upon his arrival, he was maltreated by the police and repeatedly asked him: 'Who were your companions in the killing?" to which query he repeatedly answered: "I do not know because I was sleeping at home.19

The trial court rejected his alibi, and finding that there was conspiracy in the commission of the crime, convicted the accused of the crime of murder and imposed upon him the penalty of death. In this appeal, the accused as appellant does not question the correctness of the trial court's conclusion as to his alibi. However, he assails the courta quoin holding that there was conspiracy in the commission of the offense.20The Solicitor General maintains that there was conspiracy because the following proven facts show a concerted action among the accused, to wit: (1) Upon alighting from the taxi at M. Francisco Street, appellant Rayrnundo Vistido, accused Pepito Montaño, and John Doe, who were together drinking wine called the deceased; (2) The three accused, including the appellant, attacked the deceased as soon as he approached them, one of them, Pepito Montaño (at large) stabbed the deceased while appellant immediately boxed the deceased after he was thus stabbed; and (3) When Raymundo Pagtakhan, a companion of the deceased, tried to pacify them, the three accused turned on him and attacked him.21

We disagree. There is no question that 'a person may be convicted for the criminal act of another where, between them, there has been conspiracy or unity of purpose and intention in the commission of the crime charged."22It is, likewise settled that "to establish conspiracy, it is not necessary to prove previous agreement to commit a crime, if there is proof that the malefactors have acted in consort and in pursuance of the same objective.23Nevertheless, "the evidence to prove the same must be positive and convincing. As a facile device by which an accused may be ensnared and kept within the penal fold, conspiracy requires conclusive proof if we are to maintain in full strength the substance of the time honored principle in criminal law requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt before conviction.24

In the case at bar, the evidence for the prosecution does not comply with this basic requirement. To begin with, there is no evidence that appellant and his co-accused had any enmity or grudge against the deceased. On the contrary, the cousin of the deceased, Reynaldo Pagtakhan, testified that prior to the stabbing incident, they did not have any quarrel with them.25In the absence of strong motives on their part to kill the deceased, it can not safely be concluded that they conspired to commit the crime involved herein.26

Neither could it be assumed that when the appellant and his co-accused were together drinking wine, at the time and place of the incident, they were there purposely to wait for and to kill the deceased. For, they could not have surmised beforehand that between 3:00 and 4:00 o'clock in the morning of November 1, 1969, the deceased and his cousin after coming home from their work at the cemetery would go to the Marzan Restaurant, and thereafter, would take a taxi for home, and then, alight at M. Francisco Street. The meeting between the appellant's group and the deceased appears to be purely accidental which negates the existence of conspiracy between the appellant and his co-accused.

Besides, the appellant was unarmed; only his two companions (Pepito Montaño and one John Doe) were armed with daggers.27If he (appellant) had really conspired with his co-accused to kill the deceased, he could have provided himself with a weapon. But he did not. Again, this fact belies the prosecution's theory that the appellant had entered into a conspiracy with his co-accused to kill the deceased.28

Moreover, although the appellant and his co-accused acted with some degree of simultaneity in attacking the deceased, nevertheless, the same is insufficient to prove conspiracy.ℒαwρhi৷The rule is well-settled that "simultaneousness does not of itself demonstrate the concurrence of Will nor the unity of action and purpose which are the basis of the responsibility of two or more individuals.29To establish common responsibility it is not sufficient that the attack be joint and simultaneous; it is necessary that the assailants be animated by one and the same purpose.30In the case at bar, the appellant Raymundo Vistido and the accused Pepito Montaño, did not act pursuant to the same objective. Thus, the purpose of the latter was to kill as shown by the fact that he inflicted a mortal wound below the abdomen of the which caused his death. On the other hand, the act of the appellant in giving the deceased one fist blow after the latter was stabbed by the accused Pepito Montaño — an act which is certainly unnecessary and not indispensable for the consummation of the criminal assault — does not indicate a purpose to kill the deceased, but merely to "show off" or "press his sympathy or feeling of camaraderie with the accused Pepito Montaño. Thus, inPeople vs. Portugueza,31this Court held that:ñé+.£ªwph!1

and, inPeople vs. Vicente,32this Court likewise held:ñé+.£ªwph!1

By and large, the evidence for the prosecution failed to show the existence of conspiracy which, according to the settled rule, must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the crime itself. In the absence of conspiracy, the liability of the defendants is separate and individual each is liable for his own acts, the damage caused thereby, and the consequences thereof.33While the evidence shows that the appellant boxed the deceased, it is, however, silent as to the extent of the injuries, in which case, the appellant should be held liable only for slight physical injuries.34

ACCORDINGLY,the judgment of the trial court is modified and another one entered holding the appellant Raymundo Vistido y Sabayle guilty of the crime of slight physical injuries. He is thereby sentenced to suffer fifteen (15) days ofarresto menor.35Considering the period of preventive imprisonment that he has undergone, he is hereby ordered released immediately from custody. With costs against the appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Castro, C.J., Fernando, Barredo, Makasiar, Muñoz Palma, Martin, Santos, Fernandez and Guerrero, JJ., concur.1äwphï1.ñët

Antonio, J., agrees that appellant is guilty as accomplice in homicide.

Footnotes

Separate Opinions

AQUINO,J.,dissenting:

Appellant is guilty as an accomplice homicide with the mitigating circumstance of drunkenness (People vs. Babiera, 52 Phil. 97; People vs. Cortes, 55 Phil. 143).