In People v. Cariño, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of multiple individuals for murder, highlighting the legal principle that in a conspiracy, the actions of one conspirator are the actions of all. This means that even if a person did not directly commit the act of killing, their participation in the plan leading to the murder makes them equally responsible under the law. This decision underscores the severe consequences of being involved in criminal conspiracies, emphasizing that all participants can be held liable for the full extent of the crime committed.

When Silence Isn’t Golden: How Fear and Conspiracy Led to a Murder Conviction

The case stems from the murder of Ruben Velecina on July 30, 1989, in Los Baños, Laguna. Velecina was suspected by then-Mayor Antonio Sanchez of being involved in the death of Leopoldo Cariño, one of Sanchez’s bodyguards. Nelson Cariño, along with Domingo Banhaon, Luis Corcolon, Rogelio “Boy” Corcolon, Joselito “Lito” Calong-Calong, and another individual known only as “Boy Pansit,” were accused of conspiring to kill Velecina.

The prosecution presented compelling testimonies from witnesses who were present at a pre-nuptial party where the murder took place. Edwin Botero and Valentin Velecina testified that the accused, acting under the direction of Mayor Sanchez, arrived at the party armed. Valentin, hiding nearby, witnessed Nelson Cariño, Luis Corcolon, Rogelio Corcolon, and Lito Calong-Calong firing their weapons at Ruben Velecina, while Domingo Banhaon and “Boy Pansit” acted as lookouts.

The defense argued alibi, with each of the accused claiming they were elsewhere at the time of the murder. However, the trial court found the prosecution’s witnesses more credible, particularly noting the positive identification of the accused and the lack of ill motive on the part of the witnesses. The Supreme Court affirmed this assessment, emphasizing the great weight given to trial court findings on witness credibility due to the judge’s direct observation of their demeanor.

At the heart of the Supreme Court’s decision was the finding of conspiracy. The Court reiterated that conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. This agreement need not be proven directly but can be inferred from the actions of the accused before, during, and after the crime.

“As gleaned from the records, the following chain of events show that there was community of design among the appellants: (1) the appellants, although in separate vehicles, arrived at the scene of the crime together at approximately 12:30 a.m. on July 30, 1989; (2) accused Nelson Cariño and appellants Corcolon Brothers and Lito Calong-Calong fired shots on the wall where Ruben Velecina was taking refuge, while appellant Domingo Banhaon and “Boy Pansit” stood guard; (3) the group of Luis Corcolon stopped firing on the wall only when accused Nelson Cariño assured them that the victim was dead, uttering “Tayo na yari na yan;” and, (4) the group left together after shooting the wall.”

Building on this principle, the Court cited People v. Delim, establishing that lookouts in a crime are criminally liable as principals, by direct participation. Because the accused acted in concert with one another to ensure the commission of the crime, even those who acted as lookouts were deemed principals by direct participation.

The Supreme Court also upheld the trial court’s finding of treachery, noting that the attack was deliberate and without warning, giving the unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. Treachery exists when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means or methods in the execution thereof which tend directly and specifically to ensure its execution, without risk to the offender. Given Velecina was unarmed and suddenly ambushed, the act qualified as murder because of treachery.

Regarding the appropriate penalty and damages, the Court affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua, given the absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances. However, it adjusted the damages awarded, maintaining the civil indemnity of P50,000 but deleting the moral damages due to insufficient evidence. The court, however, awarded exemplary damages of P25,000 because of the attendance of treachery as a qualifying circumstance. As moral damages had been deleted the court awarded temperate damages amounting to P25,000.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the accused were guilty of murder due to their participation in a conspiracy to kill Ruben Velecina, even if they did not directly commit the act of killing. The court determined that their involvement in the conspiracy made them equally liable.
What is the significance of “conspiracy” in this case?	Conspiracy is significant because it holds all participants in a criminal plan equally responsible for the actions of each member. Even if someone’s role was limited to being a lookout, they are still considered a principal in the crime.
What is “treachery,” and how did it apply in this case?	Treachery is a circumstance that qualifies a killing as murder when the offender employs means to ensure the execution of the crime without risk to themselves. In this case, the victim was ambushed, giving him no chance to defend himself.
Were the accused’s alibis accepted by the court?	No, the accused’s alibis were not accepted. The court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, who positively identified the accused, to be more credible.
What kind of evidence did the prosecution present?	The prosecution presented eyewitness testimony from individuals who were present at the scene and identified the accused as participants in the crime. They presented post-mortem documentation.
What is the penalty for murder in the Philippines?	At the time the crime was committed (1989), the penalty for murder was reclusion temporal maximum to death. Given no mitigating or aggravating circumstance, reclusion perpetua was given to the group.
What is civil indemnity, and why was it awarded?	Civil indemnity is monetary compensation awarded to the heirs of the victim to compensate for the loss suffered due to the crime. It was awarded in this case as a matter of course upon the conviction of the accused.
Why were moral damages deleted in this case?	Moral damages were deleted because there was insufficient evidence presented to support the claim for moral damages, which are intended to compensate for emotional distress and suffering.
What are temperate damages and what are exemplary damages?	Temperate damages are awarded when the court is convinced that the victim suffered losses but is unable to determine the exact amount of those losses. Exemplary damages are to be awarded because of the attendance of treachery as a qualifying circumstance.

This case serves as a stern reminder of the consequences of engaging in criminal conspiracies. The ruling affirms that all individuals involved, regardless of their specific role, can be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People of the Philippines vs. Nelson Cariño, G.R. No. 131117, June 15, 2004