THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 239913. June 30, 2021.]
JAY CALIMAG y GUMANGAN, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated June 30, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 239913 (JAY CALIMAG y GUMANGAN, petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.) — In an Information, Jay Calimag (Jay) and his brother Joel Calimag (Joel) were charged with homicide as regards the killing of Celestino Baclig, Jr. (Celestino). This Information reads:
That on or about the 17th day of August 2008, in the City of Makati, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, both armed with bladed weapons, conspiring and confederating together with one John Doe whose true name, identities and present whereabouts is still unknown and all of them mutually helping and aiding one another, with intent to kill, did and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab one CELESTINO BACLIG, JR. y OSAYAN on the different parts of his body, as a result of which the latter sustained multiple stab wound which directly caused his death.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 1
Jay and Joel were arraigned and both pleaded not guilty. 2 After the conduct of a pre-trial conference, trial then ensued. 3
The prosecution presented three witnesses: (1) Celestino's brother, Marcelino Baclig (Marcelino); (2) Celestino's son, Mark Anthony Baclig (Mark); and (3) medico-legal officer Dr. Voltaire Pascual Nulud (Dr. Nulud). 4
Marcelino recalled that on August 16, 2008, several members of the Baclig family were at the house of his sister Marilyn Baclig (Marilyn) for a farewell dinner. At around 2:30 a.m., he went outside to smoke and saw Joel approaching him. Joel tried to stab him with a long kitchen knife, but Marcelino was able to run inside Marilyn's house. He told Celestino what happened, who then told him to stay inside. However, Marcelino narrated that he went out again to check if Joel was still around, and discovered that he was no longer in sight. 5
Later, he stepped out for a third time. This time, he was joined by: (1) Celestino; (2) Celestino's son, Mark; and (3) his two other friends Gilbert Mitra (Gilbert) and Ren Araneta (Ren). They then saw Joel and Jay who were both armed with long knives, and another person armed with a gun. 6 Gilbert and Ren ran away in fear, while Marcelino recalled that he and Mark ran inside the house. Celestino was left outside, and there, was stabbed by Joel and Jay. 7
Marcelino added that he went out again upon hearing Celestino crying for help, and saw him sitting and trying to parry the attacks of Joel and Jay from about three meters away. He further claimed that both Joel and Jay were stabbing Mark as well, and that the Calimag brothers ran away as they were being chased by him and Mark. Thereafter, he, along with Mark and his other brother, Marino Baclig, brought Celestino to the Ospital ng Makati. However, Celestino was pronounced dead on arrival. Marcelino then went to the police station with Mark to report the killing. There, Marcelino identified Joel and Jay as the persons who attacked Celestino. 8
Mark recounted that, at around 4:15 a.m. on August 17, 2008, he and Celestino were outside when they saw both Jay and Joel armed with knives, and another person armed with a gun. He and Celestino then went to the garage. However, Jay and Joel followed them there. Thereafter, Celestino ordered the other persons in the garage to go to the second floor of the house, until he and Mark were the only ones left behind there. 9 CAIHTE
Suddenly, Joel stabbed Celestino. Mark further claimed that Jay went on to stab him as well. However, he was able to evade Jay, and went upstairs to grab empty bottles to defend his father. Later, he, Marcelino, and other relatives, went down as Jay and Joel were ganging up on Celestino. When the Calimag brothers saw them, they ran away. They threw bottles at the brothers and tried to go after them, but their efforts were futile. 10
Dr. Nulud testified on Celestino's injuries, 11 and noted that Celestino "sustained seven (7) stab wounds on different parts of [his] body, two (2) lacerated wounds on different parts of the body, one (1) incised wound on the left arm . . . and two (2) linear abrasions on the lower." 12 He further stated that the stab wound just below the victim's chest caused his death. Based on the position and direction of the stab wounds, he said that Celestino could have been sitting or lying down. Dr. Nulud could not say with certainty how many assailants inflicted Celestino's injuries, even saying his wounds could have been self-inflicted. 13
The defense presented four witnesses: (1) Joel; (2) Jay; (3) their neighbor, John Aldrin I. Vineles (John); and (4) Dr. Teresita Ramirez Sanchez (Dr. Sanchez). 14
Joel recalled vastly different events. He admitted to stabbing Celestino, but only to defend himself. He also asserted that it was only he, and not Jay, who stabbed Celestino.
According to Joel, at around 4:00 a.m. on August 17, 2008, he and Jay were eating at Val's Burger 15 when suddenly, Marcelino, Elmo Tamagos (Elmo), 16 and other persons — who all seemed drunk and were rowdy-arrived. He then recalled that he was left behind by Jay, who went to the comfort room. Elmo then kicked Joel's chair for no reason, while another person from Marcelino's group hit him at the left side of his head. He then retaliated by lashing at them with a chair, and later got hold of a kitchen knife from the burger stand. Upon seeing him with a knife, Marcelino's group scampered away. He then went after Marcelino's group as they were still throwing stones at him. Jay followed him to pacify him. 17
Joel further recounted that Elmo sought refuge at the garage of Marilyn's house, while Celestino (who was armed with a bladed weapon) and Mark (who wielded a glass bottle) went out of the house. Celestino attacked him, hitting him on his left arm. Mark was also going to hit him, but was stopped by Jay. Joel added that Marcelino attacked Jay, as Jay was trying to prevent Mark from hitting him. At some point, Joel stabbed Celestino. After this, Jay embraced Joel and pulled him away. They then headed home. Afterwards, their sister, Myrna Calimag, brought them to the Ospital ng Makati to have their wounds treated. 18
Jay recounted that he was with his brother Joel at Val's Burger on August 17, 2008. At one point, he went to the comfort room, and as he was returning, he noticed that Joel was chasing two men. He then followed Joel to pacify him, and caught up with him at Marilyn's house. There, Marcelino attacked him with a knife. As he was parrying the attack, he was hit on his right arm. At the end, when he was pulling Joel away, he was stabbed again at his armpit. However, he did not notice who attached him. 19
Jay maintained that he did not stab Celestino. He insisted that he only followed Joel to pacify him. He emphasized that that he was planning to file his own complaint against Marcelino, but that he was still recovering from the incident. Ultimately, he was leaving the matter of filing his own complaint to his father and to their legal counsel. 20
Joel's and Jay's neighbor, John, recounted that he was at Val's Burger at around 3:30 a.m. on August 17, 2008, and that Joel and Jay were also there, eating. 15 minutes later, a group of six to seven men, who appeared drunk, arrived. One of the men kicked Joel's chair, and as Joel stood, another person from the group hit Joel with a chair. Joel was pushed to the burger grill where there were several knives. Joel then got hold of a knife. At this, the group ran away. John recalled getting scared and leaving to go home. He emphasized that Jay was not involved in the incident at Val's Burger. 21
Dr. Sanchez testified on the injuries sustained by Joel and Jay. 22
In a July 6, 2016 Decision, 23 the Regional Trial Court found both Joel and Jay guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide. 24 In addition to finding the presence of all the elements of homicide, 25 it stated that "there was conspiracy between accused Joel and Jay, which is inferred from their concerted acts in the commission of the crime of Homicide by stabbing to death Celestino Baclig y Osayan." 26
The dispositive portion of the Regional Trial Court's Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court CONVICTS both accused Joel Calimag y Gumangan and Jay Calimag y Gumangan for the crime of Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, whose guilt have been proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution, SENTENCES accused Joel Calimag y Gumangan and Jay Calimag y Gumangan TO SUFFER IMPRISONMENT each of them, consisting of an indeterminate penalty of 10 years and 1 day to 2 months as minimum TO 11 years and 2 months to 4 months as maximum and ORDERS accused Joel Calimag y Gumangan and Jay Calimag y Gumangan TO PAY the amount of P50,000.00 each of them to the heirs of the deceased Celestino Baclig, Jr., [y] Osayan who met his death in the hands of accused Joel Calimag y Gumangan and Jay Calimag y Gumangan.
SO ORDERED. 27 (Underscoring in the original)
Only Jay pursued an appeal before the Court of Appeals. 28 He maintained that he did not stab Celestino, and that he merely followed Joel to pacify him. He emphasized that Mark's testimony indicated that only Joel stabbed Celestino. 29
Jay further noted that there were inconsistencies and improbabilities in Marcelino's and Mark's testimonies. 30 Marcelino's original claim that he and his friends were inside the house prior to the incident conflicted with his testimony during cross-examination, where he said that his friends came from outside the house. 31 Marcelino's and Mark's testimonies also contradicted each other, Marcelino narrated that only Celestino was left outside, while Mark claimed that he was left with Celestino outside. 32 He also questioned why, if indeed an attempt to stab him was also made, Marcelino never reported the matter to the barangay or the police. 33 Jay insisted that, contrary to the prosecution's claims, the incident began at a food stall where Marcelino and his friends were the original aggressors. DETACa
Unimpressed at Jay's appeal, the Court of Appeals' January 16, 2018, Decision 34 affirmed Jay's conviction with modification, as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 06 July 2016 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 58, Makati City, is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant Jay Calimag is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as MAXIMUM and (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as MINIMUM. Further, accused-appellant is ordered to pay the heirs of Celestino Baclig, Jr. the sums of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages. These monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of six (6) percent per annum reckoned from the finality of this decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 35
In its assailed May 25, 2018 Resolution, 36 the Court of Appeals denied Jay's Motion for Reconsideration. 37
Hence, Jay filed the present Petition. 38
For resolution is the sole issue of whether or not petitioner Jay Calimag y Gumangan is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide.
We reverse the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals. Petitioner must be acquitted.
The elements that must be shown beyond reasonable doubt in order to obtain a conviction for homicide are settled: 39
. . . (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed that person without any justifying circumstance; (3) that the accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed; and (4) that the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of murder, or by that of parricide or infanticide. Moreover, the offender is said to have performed all the acts of execution if the wound inflicted on the victim is mortal and could cause the death of the victim without medical intervention or attendance. 40 (Citation omitted)
The entirety of the Regional Trial Court's reasoning concerning the presence of the second and third elements reads:
Second, accused Joel and Jay without any justifying circumstance, stabbed to death Celestino Baclig, Jr., y Osayan:
On August 17, 2008, around 4:00 o'clock in the morning, Joel and his brother Jay were at Val's Burger in Zero Block which is not far from their house located at Third Street, and there were three (3) chairs inside. He and Jay order [sic] food and their chairs were located outside. They were able to get their orders at the restaurant, which were being cooked in the [sic] front of them before they were served. When Joel was eating and his companion Jay was at the comfort room, Joel was attacked by a group of allegedly inebriated men: Elmo and Marcelino in the presence of the cook or attendant at the Val's Burger.
Accused Joel was hit in the head, then he hit them with a chair. They ran away when they same [sic] Joel got the knife and he ran after them who were already far away from him but accused Joel can still see them around fifteen (15) meters. He chased them because they were stoning him. He was no longer being attacked when he ran after them carrying a knife since blood is oozing from his head.
It cannot be gainsaid that the elements of self-defense on the part of accused Joel: "Unlawful aggression; reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and lack of sufficient provocation on the party defending himself [sic]," which could exonerate them on the death of Celestino Baclig, Jr., [y] Osayan, no longer holds water in this case since there was no more unlawful aggression on the part of Elmo and Marcelino when they ran [a]way from Val's Burger. There was no more danger on the life or limb of accused Joel when Elmo and Marcelino fled from said place. "When then aggressor flees there can be no unlawful aggression" (People vs. Alconga, G.R. No. L-162, April 30, 1947, 78 Phil. 366.[)] In fact, accused Joel holding a knife became the aggressor when he chased Elmo and Marcelino, which situation negates the existence of self-defense on the part of accused Joel.
Third, accused Joel and Jay had the intention to kill, which is presumed when accused Joel and Jay stabbed Celestino Baclig Jr. y Osayan who met his death. "When death resulted, even if there is no intent to kill, the crime is homicide, not merely physical injuries, because with respect to crimes of personal violence, the penal looks particularly to the material results following the unlawful act and holds the aggressor responsible for all the consequences thereof," Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Vol. II, 1981 ed., p. 467 citing the case of U.S. versus Gloria, 3 Phil. 333. 41
We emphasize that the manner by which the Regional Trial Court's Decision is written is painfully mangled. It devotes 18 of its 21 pages to summarizing each witness' testimony in direct, cross, re-direct, and re-cross examinations. The portion intended to be a recital of facts ends with a recap of John's testimony on re-cross examination, proceeds to state that the Court admitted the defense's documentary evidence, and then abruptly transitions to the Decision's reasoning. The issue for resolution is not even identified until midway into the discussion of the trial court's reasons: aDSIHc
John Aldrin I. Vineles during his re-cross examination on August 26, 2015 testified as follows:
He used [sic] to this kind of incident because he got use [sic] to see drunk persons in their place, fighting in their place.
On October 29, 2015, the Court admitted the documentary evidence of the defense: Exhibits "1" to "6" inclusive of their submarkings.
In a criminal case, it is placed on the shoulders of the prosecution to prove with proof beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused on [sic] the crime charged. The prosecution must rely on the strength of its evidence and not on the weakness of the defense.
The elements of the crime of Homicide under Art. 249 of the Revised Penal Code are: 42
xxx xxx xxx
For the sake of judicial economy, this Court will spare Judge Eugene C. Paras the otherwise properly lengthy stricture on good legal writing, and will proceed to analyze the implications of his Decision's construction.
As framed, Judge Eugene C. Paras' Decision's independent factual findings are incorporated in its reasoning. This is pivotal, because it is the portion quoted above — discussing the second and third elements of homicide — that articulates the Regional Trial Court's actual determination of what transpired in the early morning of August 17, 2008.
What is most notable about these findings is that the Regional Trial Court has lent credence to the defense's version of events, particularly regarding how the fatal series of events started. The Regional Trial Court's language is declarative: "[o]n August 17, 2008, around 4:00 o'clock in the morning, Joel and his brother Jay were at Val's Burger[.]" 43
The Regional Trial Court's independent findings therefore determine Marcelino's group to be the original aggressors. It was in response to their intrusions that a knife-wielding Joel gave chase. He would eventually make it to Marilyn's residence and there, would admittedly stab Celestino.
However, more relevant to this present appeal, the Regional Trial Court's findings determine that petitioner was not at all involved in the original altercation. Instead, he was away, having gone to the comfort room. This is notable for petitioner's defense as it belies motive, at least at the onset, on his part. Moreover, it confirms petitioner's assertion that he only followed his brother, Joel. Further, as petitioner asserted, his intent was only to pacify Joel.
Unfortunately, the Regional Trial Court's recital of its independent findings ends with Joel giving chase. It merely jumps to the legal conclusion that "Joel and [petitioner] had the intention to kill . . . when accused Joel and [petitioner] stabbed Celestino[.]" 44
Apart from how petitioner merely followed Joel, however, another pivotal detail to the actual stabbing and killing of Celestino is revealed by the Regional Trial Court's findings: it was only Joel who left Val's Burger with a knife. Thus, barring a stopover somewhere en route to Marilyn's house, petitioner going back to Val's Burger to get a knife, a mystery accomplice handing petitioner a knife in the interim, or petitioner obtaining a knife at Marilyn's house itself, it is logical to believe that did not wield the weapon that killed Celestino. This tarnishes the veracity of Marcelino's claim that Joel and petitioner were simultaneously stabbing Celestino.
The unlikelihood of petitioner's own act of stabbing Celestino is bolstered by Mark's declaration that it was only Joel who stabbed Celestino, albeit petitioner supposedly made his own subsequent attempt to stab him. In his direct testimony, Mark stated: ETHIDa
Q: And who followed the order of your father to enter your house?
A: My friends[,] sir[,] and Tito Mar followed the instruction of my father.
Q: And who were left behind?
A: I[,] sir[,] and my father.
Q: And what transpired after that?
A: My father got an empty bottle of Emperador and I also got an empty bottle of Emperador[,] sir.
Q: And why did your father and you get empty bottle [sic] of Emperador?
A: For self[-]defense[,] sir.
Q: And what transpired after both of you got empty bottle [sic]?
A: Joel Calimag stabbed my father on his side.
Pros. Marcos:
Witness is pointing to the left side of his body.
Q: How far were you when accused Joel Calimag stab [sic] your father?
A: About three (3) meters[,] sir.
Q: And what did your father do when he was stabbed by Joel Calimag?
A: My father is trying to evade that stab sir of Joel Calimag [sic].
Q: And can you tell us what hand did accused Joel Calimag used [sic] in stabbing your father hitting the left portion of his body?
A: Right hand[,] sir.
Q: And what did you do when you saw Joel Calimag stab your father?
A: I threw to him the empty bottle that I was holding.
Q: And what Joel Calimag hit when you threw him empty [sic] bottle of Emperador?
A: Yes[,] sir.
Q: What part of his body was hit?
A: At his left forearm[,] sir.
Q: And what happened to the empty bottle?
A: The empty bottle was broken, but it is as if nothing happens [sic] to Joel [C]alimag.
Q: Now, during the time that your father was being stab [sic] by accused Joel Calimag, do you know where accused Jay Calimag was?
A: He is also there[,] sir and he approached me and stabbed me also.45 (Emphasis in the original)
Even during re-direct, Mark was hard put to categorically declare that petitioner stabbed Celestino:
Q: And during the time that your father, Celestino Baclig, was stab [sic] by Joel Calimag, can you tell us what part of his body was hit aside from the stab wound sustained by him on his [sic] left portion of his body?
A: Twice on the neck[,] sir.
Q: Now, how about Jay Calimag, will you please tell us if he also stabbed your father Celestino Baclig during the time he was stab [sic] by Joel Calimag?
Atty. Agoot:
At this juncture, I am already constrained to object, these are leading questions already Your Honor and I suggest, although it is still re-direct exanimation, the prosecution is not allowed to ask leading questions.
Court:
Alright, avoid leading questions.
Pros. Marcos:
I submit[,] Your Honor please.
Q: Now Mr. Witness, during the time that your father Celestino Baclig was stab [sic] by accused Joel Calimag, will you please tell us where accused Jay Calimag was?
A: At the back of Joel Calimag[,] sir.
Q: And what was he doing at the back of Joel Calimag, when your father was being stab [sic] by Joel.
A: He was approaching me[,] sir, and he was about to stab me also. 46 (Emphasis in the original)
Examining Mark's quoted testimony, the Court of Appeals stated that petitioner's participation in Celestino's stabbing was not belied. It reasoned that Mark's use of "also" "could be taken to mean that [petitioner] stabbed Celestino first and later on, Mark[.]" 47
Certainly the Court of Appeals' interpretation is within the realm of possibility. However, this Court finds the Court of Appeals' action far too indulgent. The crux of Mark's testimony was Celestino's stabbing and killing. If indeed Mark saw petitioner stab his father, then he could have stated it categorically when asked about it during trial. There could have been no reason for Mark to omit that significant detail, considering that he would have exerted his best effort to secure a conviction for all persons he believed were liable for his father's death. Instead, the best that could be culled from his testimony are tangential implications of petitioner's participation, for which the Court of Appeals had to supply a further agreeable interpretation. cSEDTC
The Court of Appeals' indulgence — going to the extent of offering explanations for the prosecution — veers dangerously away from the judicial temperament apropos to proof beyond reasonable doubt:
. . . [F]reedom is forfeit only if the requisite quantum of proof necessary for conviction be in existence. Their guilt must be shown beyond reasonable doubt. To such a standard, this Court has always been committed. There is need, therefore, for the most careful scrutiny of the testimony of the state, both oral and documentary, independently of whatever defense is offered by the accused. Only if the judge below and the appellate tribunal could arrive at a conclusion that the crime had been committed precisely by the person on trial under such an exacting test should the sentence be one of conviction. It is thus required that every circumstance favoring his innocence be duly taken into account. The proof against him must survive the test of reason; the strongest suspicion must not be permitted to sway judgment. The conscience must be satisfied that on the defendant could be laid the responsibility for the offense charged; that not only did he perpetrate the act but that it amounted to a crime. What is required then is moral certainty. 48 (Citation omitted)
Moreover, there are material inconsistencies in Marcelino's own claims, as well as between his and Mark's claims.
On direct examination, Marcelino claimed that he and his friends Gilbert and Ren were inside Marilyn's house when Joel and petitioner arrived. 49 However, on cross-examination he claimed that not only Gilbert and Ren, but some other persons as well were already outside:
Q: Now, I am asking you, who were your other companions who went outside on that occasion?
A: The other persons did not come from inside. They were already outside.
Q: And who were these persons who were outside already?
A: Gilbert Mitra, Ren Arancia and some others, I cannot recall.
Q: And how [many] persons, you cannot recall? More than ten (10)?
A: Not more than ten (10)[.]
Q: Some are your guests earlier in that despedida party?
A: No, Sir, some are neighbors. 50 (Citation omitted)
This is far from an innocuous inconsistency. To recall, the Regional Trial Court's findings establish that a group led by Marcelino instigated a quarrel with Joel at Val's Burger. The presence of several persons outside Marilyn's house, despite the Bacligs supposedly celebrating their own, private occasion, aligns with the defense's position on the occurrence of a prior altercation and of Marcelino's group fleeing to Marilyn's house. Thus, it enhances the weight of petitioner's version of events.
Similarly, Marcelino's claims concerning what happened as soon as Joel and petitioner arrived runs counter to those of Mark. As Marcelino recalled, he and Mark ran into the house in fear. In contrast, Mark recalled staying outside with his father, Celestino. This casts doubt on Marcelino's credibility, with his claims that Joel and petitioner were simultaneously stabbing Celestino, as against Mark's statements which were hard put to categorically pin petitioner. It also does not inspire belief in the thorough accuracy of Marcelino's claims that, by his own admission, he was vacillating between running inside in fear, on the one hand, and chasing Joel and petitioner away, on the other. At the very least, Marcelino's representation of himself suggests a person too overwhelmed by events for his subsequent narrative to inspire credulity.
Taken together, the Regional Trial Court's findings that: (1) it was only Joel who had a quarrel with Marcelino's group and chased them to the Baclig residence; (2) the unlikelihood that petitioner himself was wielding a knife; (3) Mark's inability to definitely identify petitioner as the one who, with Joel, stabbed Celestino; and (4) the inconsistencies in Marcelino's own and between his and Mark's claims on how the conflict actually transpired, all leave reasonable doubt on petitioner's guilt.
The prosecution built its case around a claim of conspiracy. The standards for establishing criminal conspiracy are clear. In Quidet v. People: 51
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The essence of conspiracy is the unity of action and purpose. Its elements, like the physical acts constituting the crime itself, must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. When there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.
Conspiracy can be inferred from and established by the acts of the accused themselves when said acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interests. However, in determining whether conspiracy exists, it is not sufficient that the attack be joint and simultaneous for simultaneousness does not of itself demonstrate the concurrence of will or unity of action and purpose which are the bases of the responsibility of the assailants. What is determinative is proof establishing that the accused were animated by one and the same purpose. 52 (Citations omitted)
Also in People v. Lago: 53
. . . The elements of conspiracy are the following: (1) two or more persons came to an agreement, (2) the agreement concerned the commission of a felony; and (3) the execution of the felony was decided upon. Proof of the conspiracy need not be based on direct evidence, because it may be inferred from the parties' conduct indicating a common understanding among themselves with respect to the commission of the crime. Neither is it necessary to show that two or more persons met together and entered into an explicit agreement setting out the details of an unlawful scheme or objective to be carried out. The conspiracy may be deduced from the mode or manner in which the crime was perpetrated; it may also be inferred from the acts of the accused evincing a joint or common purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest. 54 (Citation omitted)
Here, Joel's actions can hardly be said to be petitioner's as well. The Regional Trial Court's independent findings reveal how they proceeded with vastly different purposes. Joel went with vindictive intent, wielding a fatal weapon. Bewildered at what transpired in the time he was away, petitioner was unarmed as he trailed his brother. Prosecution witnesses themselves are tentative on petitioner's precise participation. The prosecution's general averment of conspiracy is, thus, lacking. Reasonable doubt remains on petitioner's culpability. This suffices to acquit him.
WHEREFORE, the decisions of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 58, Makati City, in Criminal Case No. 08-1747 and of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 39484 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE with respect to petitioner Jay Calimag y Gumangan. Petitioner Jay Calimag y Gumangan is ACQUITTED of the charge of homicide. He is ordered IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for any other lawful cause. SDAaTC
Let entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED." (Rosario, J., designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2833; Lazaro-Javier,J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated May 26, 2021)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 65, Regional Trial Court Decision.
2.Id.
3.Id.
4.Id. at 65-74.
5.Id. at 66-69.
6.Id. at 36, and 66-69.
7.Id. at 66-69.
8.Id.
9.Id. at 69-72.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 36.
12.Id. at 72-73.
13.Id. at 72-74.
14.Id. at 74-82.
15.Id. at 74-75.
16.Id. at 70.
17.Id. at 74-75.
18.Id. at 75-77.
19.Id. at 77-79.
20.Id.
21.Id. at 80-82.
22.Id. at 79-80.
23.Id. at 65-85. Through Judge Eugene C. Paras.
24.Id. at 85.
25.Id. at 82-84.
26.Id. at 83-84.
27.Id. at 85.
28.Id. at 49-64, Brief for the Accused-Appellant.
29.Id. at 53-56.
30.Id. at 58.
31.Id. at 58-60.
32.Id. at 59-60.
33.Id. at 60-62.
34.Id. at 34-43. The Decision in CA-G.R. CR No. 39484 was penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios and concurred in by Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Jhosep Y. Lopez (now an Associate Justice of this Court) of the Eighth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
35.Id. at 43.
36.Id. at 45-46.
37.Id. at 116-123.
38.Id. at 15-30.
39.CICL XXX v. People, G.R. No. 237334, August 14, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65641> [Per J. Caguioa, Second Division].
40.Id., citing People v. Badriago, 605 Phil. 894, 906-907 (2009) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Second Division].
41.Rollo, pp. 83-84.
42.Id. at 82.
43.Id. at 83.
44.Id. at 84.
45.Id. at 53-55 Brief for the Accused-Appellant, (pp. 7-9). Emphasis in the original.
46.Id. at 55-56. Brief for the Accused-Appellant, (pp. 9-10).
47.Id. at 39-A.
48.People v. Dramayo, 149 Phil. 107 (1971) [Per J. Fernando, En Banc].
49.Rollo, p. 58.
50.Id. at 58-59.
51. 632 Phil. 1 (2010) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division].
52.Id. at 11-12.
53. 411 Phil. 52 (2001) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].
54.Id. at 59.