173. PEOPLE v.

RAGUNDIAZ & FLORES

G.R. No. 124977 | June 22, 2000 | 3rd Div | Appeal |
People – plaintiff-appellee
Domingo Hernandez – accused appellant
Decision by: Gonzaga-Reyes, J.
Digest by: KY Bautista

Short version: Ragundiaz and Flores were charged with murder and that they conspired in killing the victim Cujabao. Evidence
showed that only Ragundiaz had the motive to kill the victim as they had a fight before where Ragundiaz accused the victim of
stealing his watch. Witnesses saw both accused together with the victim that fateful night. The other accused, Flores, was seen
dragging the victim’s body in a taxi and that he drove said taxi. Another witness saw Flores later that night sporting a blood-stained
t-shit and bloody thumb. Only circumstantial evidence was presented, no eyewitness to the actual killing. TC convicted them both
(that they conspired to kill the victim). SC says no, Flores is only an accomplice. To be considered as a principal by indispensable
cooperation, there must be direct participation in the criminal design by another act, without which the crime could not have been
committed. Neither joint nor simultaneous action is per se sufficient indicium of conspiracy, unless proved to have been motivated
by a common design. There was no proof that he was motivated by the same criminal design entertained by his co-accused
Ragundiaz.

Facts:
 Isabelo Ragundiaz and Rolando Flores were charged with murder. The Info states that: the accused, conspiring
together, with treachery & evident premediation, and abuse of superior strength shot Billy Cajuban on the head
 Victim was found in a muddy portion of the roadside

Prosecution presented witnesses (2 polcemen found the body with fresh blood, another witness says he saw Accused
Ragundiaz force victim into the cab driven by Accused Flores. Another witness says he saw Accused Flores's shirt stained with
blood.)
 SPO1 Canary and SPO1 Lim responded to the report and found fresh blood on the body which most probably means that
the killing happened at same place
 Witness Castillo saw at 12:30am Accused Ragundiaz having an altercation with Victim Cajuban. Accused Ragundiaz
poked a gun at the victim and boarded him in an El Savador taxi (as in dragged his body inside the taxi). Taxi was driven
by Accused Flores. They had 3 unidentified companions.
 Witness Salinas said while working as a waiter at a beerhouse, at around 3:30am, he saw both accused and 3 others
enter the beerhouse. Accused Flores’s shirt was stained with blood and his left thumb was wounded. They boarded an El
Salvador taxi.
 Witness Rachelle Ragundiaz (Accused Ragundiaz’s common-law wife) said that Accused R and victim had a
misunderstanding as he accused the victim of stealing his watch.

Defense (Alibi):
 Accused Ragundiaz says: he was at hid common-law wife’s workplace
 Accused Flores says he was home asleeps.

 TC found both of them guilty as charged, acting in conspiracy

Issue: W/N there was conspiracy between the accused --- No

Ruling: Flores is found guilty but only as an accomplice to the murder of Cajuban

Ratio:
 The conviction was based purely on circumstantial evidence because there was no eyewitness to the actual killing.
 The rule established by this Court is that conspiracy must be shown to exist, by direct or circumstantial evidence, as
clearly and convincingly as the commission of the offense itself. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it or if at the time of the commission of the
offense, the offenders have the same criminal purpose and were united in its execution. Therefore, in order to hold an
accused liable as co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed an overt act in
pursuance or in furtherance of the conspiracy.
o The overt act may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself; or
o Moral assistance to his co-conspirators or by exerting moral ascendancy over the other co-conspirators by
moving them to execute or implement the conspiracy.
 The evidence adduced points only to accused Ragundiaz as the principal. Ragundiaz was seen as having a fight with the
victim and that he was in the possession of a gun. Moreover, as testified by his common-law wife, it was Ragundiaz who
had a motive to kill Cajuban.
 Evidence is insufficient to prove that accused Flores was a principal to the killing of Cajuban. The acts performed by him
are not by themselves, indispensable to the killing.
 To be considered as a principal by indispensable cooperation, there must be direct participation in the criminal
design by another act, without which the crime could not have been committed.
 The prosecution failed to establish that the Flores's acts were of such importance that the crime would not have been
committed without him or that he participated in the actual killing.
  The circumstantial evidence of a bloody thumb and t-shirt and that he was accused Ragundiaz, and two other unidentified
men does not conclusively indicate that Flores actively participated in the crime. At best, the evidence merely shows that
Flores was somehow involved in the crime but does not clarify the actual degree of his participation.
 Flores did not have any motive to kill Cajuban. Although motive is immaterial, not being an element of the crime, it
becomes important when the evidence on the commission of the crime is purely circumstantial or inconclusive.
 HERE, there was no adequate proof presented that Flores conspired with the other accused to commit murder. The
evidence merely points out that he helped in dragging the victim to a taxicab and that he was the driver. But it is now well-
settled that neither joint nor simultaneous action is per se sufficient indicium of conspiracy, unless proved to
have been motivated by a common design. There was no proof that he was motivated by the same criminal design
entertained by his co-accused Ragundiaz.

Voting: Melo, Panganiban and Purisima, JJ., concur.

Vitug, J., abroad on official business.