People
v. Batulan
G.R.
No. 216936
July
29, 2019
FACTS:
Around 7:30 in the evening, Letecia
accompanied her husband Ruben ply his usual jeepney route. They stopped along
Abellanosa Street, Cagayan De Oro City to pick up passengers in the area. Pagapulaan
was one of the barkers who called for passengers to board Ruben's jeepney. When
the jeepney was almost full, Pagapulaan demanded ₱10.00 from Ruben's conductor
as payment for his services. The latter's refusal to pay led to an altercation
between them. To stop the squabble, Ruben gave Pagapulaan ₱5.00. Displeased
with the meager payment, Pagapulaan cursed Ruben and boxed the body of the
jeepney, prompting the passengers to alight. Ruben grabbed a samurai stowed
under his seat to keep Pagapulaan at bay. But as soon as he alighted his
jeepney, he was surrounded and attacked by Batulan, Pagapulaan, Renato, and
Junjun. Pagapulaan got hold of the samurai and sliced Rubens face and nose.
Junjun stabbed Ruben using a knife. Renato struck Ruben's nape with a stone
causing the latter's head to crack. Batulan also hacked Ruben with a samurai.
She saw all four (4) accused take turns in stabbing Ruben with a knife and
hacking him with a samurai. When Ruben fell to the ground, she alighted the
jeepney and embraced her husband. Ruben died at the hospital. When asked to
identify her husband's assailants in court, she instantly recognized and
pointed at Pagapulaan, Renato, and Junjun. But she failed to immediately
identify Batulan because of his new haircut.SPO4 Ausejo testified that on June
21, 2003, around 7 o'clock in the evening, his team received a report that a
stabbing incident was taking place along Abellanosa Street. They immediately
responded since the location was a mere two-minute drive.21 When they reached
the location, a bystander told them that one of the assailants ran towards
Brgy. Consolacion. He and his team quickly boarded their patrol car and chased
the assailant. They caught the assailant in an abandoned warehouse. When they
frisked him, they recovered a bloodied Batangas knife. The assailant was then
brought to Police Precinct No. 5 for investigation. There, he was identified as
Batulan. Letecia confirmed with the police that Batulan was indeed one (1) of
her husband's assailants.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in
affirming appellant’s conviction
HELD:
No. In
another vein, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly found
that appellant acted in conspiracy with his co-accused. Conspiracy exists when
two (2) or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it. It arises on the very instant the plotters
agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the felony and forthwith decide to
pursue it. What is important is that all participants performed specific acts
with such closeness and coordination as to unmistakably indicate a common
purpose to bring about the death of the victim. Once this is established, each
of the conspirators is made criminally liable for the crime actually committed
by any one of them. Here, the following circumstances established conspiracy:
(1) all four accused knew each other as they were dispatchers or jeepney
barkers in the area where the crime was committed: (2) they were all present at
the time of the killing; (3) they surrounded Ruben when he alighted his
jeepney; (4) they took turns hitting, hacking and stabbing Ruben with a stone,
samurai and a knife; (5) Ruben sustained multiple injuries and wounds from the
attacks; and (6) all four accused immediately escaped. The acts of appellant
and his co-accused were coordinated. They were synchronized in their attacks
and were motivated by a single criminal impulse - to kill Ruben. Their
spontaneous agreement to commit the crime is sufficient to create joint
criminal responsibility. Conspiracy
being present, appellant is thus equally liable as his co accused regardless of
who delivered the killing blow. For where there is conspiracy, all conspirators
are liable as co-principals. The act of one is the act of all.
No comments:
Post a Comment