Case Summary (G.R. No. 231765)
Background and Charges
An Information for Murder was lodged against PO1 Carlo B. Delos Santos and several others, including Salvador C. Galos and Danilo Arevalo. The charges stemmed from the fatal shooting of Pio V. Ontog, Jr., alleged to have occurred on March 7, 2007, marked by armed assault and characterized by treachery, evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength, and abuse of public position. Delos Santos pleaded not guilty, and the case venue was moved from Masbate to Quezon City.
Facts as Established by the Court of Appeals
On the day of the incident, Pio Ontog, along with PO1 Ronald B. Medalla and barangay tanod Joseph Oliva, went to Barangay Captain Arevalo’s residence to discuss a dispute involving public road use. They encountered Galos and Almoete drinking with the Arevalos. A confrontation ensued when Galos assaulted Medalla with a firearm, escalating to Galos shooting Pio. Witnesses heard the Barangay Captain urging violence against Pio. Oliva attempted to report the incident but was allegedly obstructed by Delos Santos and another armed policeman, Pelones, who briefly detained him. After release, Oliva successfully reported the shooting to political allies opposed to the Arevalos. The incident was politically charged, with affiliations evident among the parties involved. Pio was declared dead on arrival at the hospital.
Defense Version of Events
The defense contested the prosecution’s narrative, portraying Galos as at Danilo’s house to collect fish payment when Medalla confronted Danilo. A physical altercation with Medalla ensued during which the firearm accidentally discharged, hitting Pio. Galos denied participating in any conspiracy and escaped the scene after being threatened by Danilo. Delos Santos claimed his presence was limited to securing transport for Pio to the hospital and denied any interference with Oliva’s attempt to report the crime.
Lower Court Rulings
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Delos Santos guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, relying heavily on the testimony linking him to conspiracy through obstructing Oliva’s reporting of the crime. Sentencing included reclusion perpetua and payment of damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modification by increasing the awarded damages and adding legal interest.
Issues on Appeal
Delos Santos challenged the sufficiency of evidence on conspiracy and the qualifying circumstances such as treachery and premeditation. He argued that his mere presence and alleged failure to prevent the crime did not suffice as proof of conspiracy or active participation in the murder.
Supreme Court Analysis on Conspiracy
The Supreme Court emphasized that conspiracy requires a unity of purpose and intention to commit the crime, which may be inferred from conduct but must be supported by positive and conclusive evidence equal in degree to proving the crime itself. Mere presence, knowledge, acquiescence, or approval without active cooperation or intentional participation is insufficient to establish conspiracy. The Court delineated that passive behavior, such as allegedly preventing the reporting of the crime after it had occurred, does not amount to conspiracy or accessory liability.
Application to the Present Case
The Court found that the evidence did not demonstrate Delos Santos’ intentional participation or active cooperation in the shooting. The murder was consummated by Galos without Delos Santos’ assistance. The respondent’s acquiescence or mere proximity during the incident did not meet the strict proof requirements for conspiracy. The prosecution failed to establish that Delos Santos had a common design with the principal accused in furtherance of the crime.
Final Ruling and Disposition
The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decisions of the RTC and Court of Appeals convicting PO1 Carlo B. Delos Santos of murder. D
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 231765)
Background and Nature of the Case
- The case arose from a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court contesting decisions by the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming with modification a Regional Trial Court (RTC) conviction of PO1 Carlo B. Delos Santos for murder.
- The RTC Branch 224 in Quezon City found PO1 Delos Santos and co-accused Salvador C. Galos guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the murder of Pio V. Ontog, Jr. on March 7, 2007, in San Fernando, Masbate.
- The charge involved the qualifying circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength, and public position, and alleged conspiracy among the accused.
- PO1 Delos Santos denied guilt; the case transferred venue from RTC San Jacinto, Masbate to Quezon City.
Facts as Found by the Court of Appeals
- On the evening of March 7, 2007, Pio Ontog, PO1 Ronald Medalla, and a barangay tanod Joseph Oliva approached Barangay Captain Erlinda Arevalo’s house to discuss a political dispute involving Kagawad Barroga and Danilo Arevalo.
- Accused Salvador Galos and Ronaldo "Bahotog" Almoete were present drinking with the Arevalos when an altercation broke out.
- Galos attacked PO1 Medalla with a gun resulting in a shooting in which Pio Ontog was hit multiple times and later died.
- Witness Oliva attempted to report the shooting but was initially prevented from doing so by PO1 Delos Santos and Rodolfo Pelones, both armed and in civilian clothes.
- Eventually, Oliva was allowed to leave and reported the incident, which was politically motivated, involving supporters of rival mayoral candidates.
- The prosecution identified PO1 Delos Santos as a security escort of the incumbent mayor who was hostile to the victim's political group.
Defense Version of Events
- The defense claimed Galos was collecting payment for fish sales and a conflict arose initiated by PO1 Medalla who threatened and physically confronted the accused.
- The shooting was described as accidental during a struggle over a firearm between Galos and PO1 Medalla.
- PO1 Delos Santos admitted being present at the scene with a firearm but denied preventing Oliva from reporting the incident.
- He testified that police were already on duty during the incident and that he followed police orders to secure transportation for the victim and secure the crime scene.
- The defense argued there was no conspiracy or prem