People Vs Roche

People vs Roche G.R. No. 115182. April 6, 2000 Facts: An information for the murder of Roderick Ferol was filed against accused-appell ant Restituto Roche and three others, namely, Marcelino Fallore, Francisco Grego rio, and one John Doe. The Court found that the prosecution evidence has establi shed beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of accused Restituto Roche for the crime of murder but could not make a pronouncement as to the guilt of accused Dorico C aballes because he remained at large and therefore could not be arraigned.Findin g that the prosecution evidence failed to establish the guilt of accused Francis co Gregorio and Marcelino Fallore, both accused were acquitted. Issue: Whether or not the accused-appellant should held liable for the killing o f Roderick Ferol on the ground of conspiracy? Held: No. In the case at bar, Rogelio Rossel testified that he did not see Rest ituto Roche at the time Dorico Caballes was stabbing Roderick Ferol. Apart from Helen Amarille and Rodel Ferol, whose testimonies are highly suspect, no other w itness was presented to prove that accused-appellant directly participated in th e commission of the offense or performed an act which would show community of pu rpose with Dorico Caballes. Even if it is assumed as true that accused-appellant was responsible for telling Dorico Caballes it was Roderick Ferol who had tripp ed him (Restituto), this would not suffice to find accused-appellant in conspira cy with Dorico Caballes. For conspiracy to exist, proof of an actual planning of the perpetration of the crime is not a condition precedent. It may be deduced from the mode and manner i n which the offense was perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the accused evi ncing a joint or common purpose and design, concerted action and community of in terest. In People v. Elijorde, Conspiracy must be proved as indubitably as the crime its elf through clear and convincing evidence, not merely by conjecture. To hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to ha ve performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity. Hence, conspiracy exists in a situation where at the time the malefactors were committi ng the crime, their actions impliedly showed unity of purpose among them, a conc erted effort to bring about the death of the victim. In a great majority of case s, complicity was established by proof of acts done in concert, i.e., acts which yield the reasonable inference that the doers thereof were acting with a common intent or design. Therefore, the task in every case is determining whether the particular acts established by the requisite quantum of proof do reasonably yiel d that inference. Indeed, there is no proof to show accused-appellant, together with Dorico Caball es, had resolved to attack Roderick Ferol. Instead, we think the assault on Rode rick Ferol was an impulsive act by Dorico Caballes borne out of the desire to ge t even with him for the offense committed against his brother. In no way can suc h act be attributed to accused-appellant. Neither can accused-appellant be held liable as an accomplice for the crime char ged. The following requisites must concur in order that a person may be consider ed an accomplice: (a) community of design, i.e., knowing that criminal design of the principal by direct participation, he concurs with the latter in his purpos e; (b) he cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts; and, (c) there must be a relation between the acts done by the principal and those attributed to the person charged as accomplice. There is no evidence to show that accused-appellant performed any previous or si multaneous act to assist Dorico Caballes in killing Roderick Ferol. In fact, it has not been proven that he was aware of Dorico Caballes plan to attack and kill Roderick Ferol. Absent any evidence to create the moral certainty required to c onvict accused-appellant, we cannot uphold the trial courts finding of guilt. Ou r legal culture demands the presentation of proof beyond reasonable doubt before any person may be convicted of any crime and deprived of his life, liberty, or

even property. The hypothesis of his guilt must flow naturally from the facts pr oved and must be consistent with all of them.