Atty. Allan S. Hilbero Vs. Florencio A. Morales, Jr.
G.R. No. 198760
January 11, 2017
FACTS:
On June 16, 2007, Demetrio and his wife, Estela S. Hilbero, had just attended the Saturday evening anticipated mass at the Calamba Catholic Church. Both spouses proceeded to Demetrio's law office, and arriving at said office around 7:45 p.m., Estela alighted first from their car and immediately went inside the office, while Demetrio went to a nearby store to buy cigarettes. When Demetrio was about to enter the gate of his office, two armed men on-board a motorcycle suddenly appeared and shot Demetrio several times. The gunmen escaped towards the adjacent Mabini Street.
Estela thought that the gunshots were mere firecrackers, but when she checked, she found Demetrio sprawled on the ground. She cried for help. Demetrio was rushed to the Calamba Medical Center where he was pronounced dead on arrival. Initial medico-legal findings revealed that Demetrio sustained three gunshot wounds on the left side of his body.
Three spent shells and one deformed slug of a .45 caliber pistol were recovered from the crime scene. A cartographic sketch of one of Demetrio’s assailants was made based on the descriptions given by eyewitnesses to the shooting incident. Demetrio's relatives also informed police investigators that Demetrio was heard having a heated argument on the telephone with an unknown caller inside his office at around 12:30 p.m. on June 16, 2007. Demetrio seemed bothered and anxious after said telephone conversation.
A revisit of the statement of the eyewitness reveals that respondent Morales and Sandy were not mere bystanders at the scene of the crime but, rather, they were active participants whose actions were indicative of a meeting of the minds towards a common criminal goal. They acted as lookouts to ensure the execution of the crime and the identification of the victim. It is highly unusual for mere bystanders to wait for the victim at the scene of the crime before its occurrence, stay there without budging from their positions while the crime is being executed and then finally leave the crime scene only after the crime was consummated and upon a signal from the gunman for them to flee.
This theory of conspiracy by petitioner was further reinforced by the action of respondent Morales and Sandy in fleeing from the crime scene together with Primo Lopez, the gunman, and Lorenzo Pamplona, riding in tandem in two motorcycles, at the same time and in the same direction. From all indications, Primo, Lorenzo, Sandy, and respondent Morales acted in a synchronized and coordinated manner in carrying out the criminal enterprise, thus evincing the existence of conspiracy among them.
ISSUES:
1. Whether Primo, Lorenzo, Sandy, and respondent Morales appear to have conspired with each other in the commission of the crime.
2. Whether respondent Morales committed a probable cause and must be held liable for the murder of Atty. Demetrio L. Hilbero.
HELD:
1. Yes. In order to hold an accused liable by reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or in furtherance of conspiracy. (People of the Philippines v. Jessie Ballesta, G.R. No. 181632 September 25, 2008.) The raison detre for the law requiring a direct overt act is that, in a majority of cases, the conduct of the accused consisting merely of acts of preparation has never ceased to be equivocal; and this is necessarily so, irrespective of his declared intent. It is that quality of being equivocal that must be lacking before the act becomes one which may be said to be a commencement of the commission of the crime, or an overt act or before any fragment of the crime itself has been committed, and this is so for the reason that so long as the equivocal quality remains, no one can say with certainty what the intent of the accused is. (Felix Rait v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 180425 July 31, 2008.) Therefore, using the revisit of the statement of the eyewitness, Primo, Lorenzo, Sandy, and respondent Morales have conspired with each other in the commission of the crime, for they have performed an overt act in pursuance or in furtherance of conspiracy.
2. A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed by the suspects. It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, not on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and definitely not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt. In determining probable cause, the average man weighs facts and circumstances without resorting to the calibrations of the rules of evidence of which he has no technical knowledge. He relies on common sense. What is determined is whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed, and that the accused is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. It does not require an inquiry as to whether there is sufficient evidence to secure a conviction.
Apropos thereto, for the public prosecutor to determine if there exists a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed, and that the suspect is probably guilty of the same, the elements of the crime charged should, in all reasonable likelihood, be present. This is based on the principle that every crime is defined by its elements, without which there should be, at the most, no criminal offense.
Acting DOJ Secretary De Vanadera, in her Resolution dated September 30, 2009, found probable cause to charge respondent for the murder of Demetrio based on eyewitness Reynaldo's credible narration of the circumstances surrounding the shooting of Demetrio and his positive identification of the culprits. Aside from respondent's general and sweeping allegations, there was no basis for concluding that Secretary De Vanadera issued her Resolution dated September 30, 2009 capriciously, whimsically, arbitrarily, or despotically, by reason of passion and hostility, as to constitute abuse of discretion; and that such abuse of discretion was so patent and gross that it was tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
The Petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated June 7, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 111191 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Resolution dated September 30, 2009 of the Department of Justice in LS. No. 1428-07 directing the inclusion of Florencio A. Morales, Jr. as an accused in the Information for the murder of Atty. Demetrio L. Hilbero is REINSTATED.
No comments:
Post a Comment