G.R. No. 95843 - Abarquez vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. 95843)

Factual Background

At about 11:00 p.m. on February 9, 1985, Norberto Notar, a barangay tanod, stood outside Hair Works Beauty Salon near A. Francisco and Chromium Streets, Sta. Ana, Manila. Present in the vicinity were accused-appellant Roberto Siton, Joey Calip (Notar’s nephew), and Andres Borbon. A group of seven to eight young men, including Roylan Holgado, passed by and exchanged words with Notar. A free-for-all immediately followed between Holgado’s companions and the Notar group. The melee left Holgado with two stab wounds, one fatal, and Notar with a stab wound from which he later recovered.

Prosecution Witness Account

Prosecution witness Bernardo Ferrer testified that, as the groups converged, he saw Andres Borbon strike Holgado on the head with a piece of wood. Ferrer identified Roberto Siton as stabbing Holgado with an icepick once in the right hip, and saw Joey Calip stab Holgado once on the right side of the waistline with a kitchen knife. Holgado was thereafter taken to the Philippine General Hospital and later died.

Defense Evidence and Alibi

Defense witness Mario Pahita, a salon cashier, described the Holgado group as appearing drunk and heavy-eyed and related that Notar advised them to go home. He recounted an ensuing scuffle after which Holgado and his companions retreated. Another defense witness, Mario Baul, a member of Holgado’s group, testified that Notar struck Holgado and that a free-for-all ensued; Baul stated he did not see Roberto Siton. Roberto Siton claimed an alibi that he was in Cainta, Rizal, at his sister’s house from February 8, 1986 to February 15, 1986.

Trial Court Proceedings and Judgment

The Regional Trial Court of Manila found Roberto Siton guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide. The trial court credited the positive identification by prosecution witnesses and rejected the alibi. It sentenced Siton to an indeterminate penalty of twelve years of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal as maximum, less preventive detention, and ordered payment of P30,000 to the heirs of Roylan Holgado as indemnity.

Court of Appeals Disposition

The Sixth Division of the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court decision in toto on March 27, 1990. The appellate court sustained the finding of a conspiracy among the assailants and directed the Manila City Fiscal to file information against other persons whose identities appeared in the record but whose whereabouts were unknown. The court denied reconsideration on June 26, 1990.

Issues on Appeal

The principal issue presented to the Supreme Court was whether a conspiracy existed in the context of the free-for-all fight, and consequently whether Roberto Siton could be held for homicide or only for his individual act. Secondary issues were the weight to be accorded positive identification against the alibi and the legal character of the wound inflicted by the accused.

Parties’ Contentions

The accused-appellant argued that a free-for-all does not prove conspiracy because the participants act reflexively and without a common prearranged design; joint or simultaneous action is not per se proof of conspiracy. He further urged that, absent conspiracy, his liability should be individual and limited to his participation, and that his alibi warranted acquittal. The Solicitor-General maintained that conspiracy was present and could be inferred from the concerted actions of the malefactors, including Siton, aiming at the same objective of killing Holgado.

Supreme Court’s Findings on Identification and Alibi

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s reliance on positive identification. The Court reiterated the doctrine that when an accused is positively identified by clear, explicit, and convincing evidence, an alibi cannot prevail. The Court found that defense witness Mario Baul’s testimony lacked credibility because he admitted being somewhat drunk during the incident. Consequently, the Court affirmed Roberto Siton’s presence at the free-for-all.

Supreme Court’s Findings on Conspiracy

The Supreme Court modified the appellate court’s finding by holding that conspiracy had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Court applied Article 8, Revised Penal Code, and reiterated that conspiracy, like the substantive offense, must be established by clear and convincing evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found no evidence of a prior agreement to commit the homicide. The encounter between the two groups was casual, unarranged, and spontaneous. Witness testimony conflicted as to what precipitated the fracas. The numerical disparity between Holgado’s party and Notar’s companions made a preconcerted plan to single out Holgado unlikely. The Court concluded that the assault resulted from an instantaneous free-for-all rather than from a pre-conceived and concerted design.

Supreme Court’s Ruling on Liability and Sentence

Because conspiracy was not established, the Court held that Roberto Siton’s responsibility was individual. The record showed, by the testimony of prosecution witness Bernardo Ferrer, that Siton stabbed Holgado on the right hip. The medico-legal officer testified that the stab wound inflicted by Siton was non-fatal, whereas a separate stab wound (wound No. 1), inflicted by Joey Calip, could have caused death. In view of the non-fatal nature of Siton’s wound and the absence of conspiracy, the Court found Siton guilty of less serious physical injuries. The Court sentenced him to four months of arresto mayor with accessory penalties and costs, ordered payment of the costs, and directed his immediate release if he had been detained longer than four months unless held for other offenses.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court grounded its decision on estab

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 95843)

Parties and Posture

ROBERTO SITON Y ENSALADA, PETITIONER appealed from the conviction affirmed by the Court of Appeals and the People of the Philippines, RESPONDENT was the prosecution below.
Petitioner challenged his conviction for homicide and the appellate court's finding of conspiracy in a free-for-all melee.
Court of Appeals had affirmed the Regional Trial Court decision convicting Petitioner of homicide and finding conspiracy, and directed the City Fiscal to file information against other alleged conspirators.
The Supreme Court reviewed the case on petition for review and was tasked to determine the existence of conspiracy and the proper criminal liability.

Key Factual Allegations

The incident occurred at about 11:00 p.m. on February 9, 1985 near the Hair Works Beauty Salon at A. Francisco and Chromium Streets, Sta. Ana, Manila.
A group led by Roylan Holgado passed by and exchanged words with barangay tanod Norberto Notar, after which a free-for-all fight ensued between Holgado's companions and Notar's small group that included Petitioner.
Prosecution witness Bernardo Ferrer testified that he saw Petitioner stab Holgado once in the right hip with an icepick and that Joey Calip stabbed Holgado in the right lobe of the liver, an injury later found to be fatal.
Holgado suffered two stab wounds, one of which proved fatal, and died at the Philippine General Hospital; Notar suffered a nonfatal stab wound and was hospitalized.
Petitioner raised an alibi asserting he was in Cainta, Rizal from February 8 to 15, 1985 and offered witnesses to that effect.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court, Manila, Branch XI, convicted Petitioner of homicide on March 1, 1988 and sentenced him to an indeterminate term of prision mayor to reclusion temporal and awarded P30,000 as indemnity.
The Sixth Division of the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in a decision promulgated March 27, 1990 and denied reconsideration on June 26, 1990.
Petitioner brought the case to the Supreme Court challenging the finding of conspiracy and the homicide conviction.

Issues Presented

Whether a conspiracy existed among the assailants in the context of the alleged free-for-all fight.
Whether Petitioner's alibi should prevail over the positive identification by prosecution witness Bernardo Ferrer.
Given the absence of conspiracy, what offense, if any, Petitioner should be convicted of and what penalty should be imposed.

Contentions of the Parties

Petitioner contended that a free-for-all fight precluded the existence of a pre-arranged conspiracy and that concurrent action did not prove a common design; he further urged that his alibi exculpated him.
The Solicitor-General argued that conspiracy existed since the malefactors acted in concert toward the killing of Holgado and that conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence but could be inferred from their concerted acts.
The defense relied on witnesses who described the encounter as spontaneous and testified that Petitioner was absent or that the stabbing by others was retaliatory.

Statutory Framework

Article 8, Revised Penal Code defines conspiracy as an agreement by two or more persons concerning the commission of a felony and their decision to co