PEOPLE v. JESALVA

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROBERTO ESPERANZA JESALVA alias "ROBERT SANTOS"

G.R. No. 227306

June 19, 2017

FACTS:

On September 16, 2007, at around 1:00 a.m., Ortigosa, his cousin Renato B. Flores (Flores) and Manny Boy Ditche were drinking in Dupax Street, Old Balara, Quezon City. Later, they decided to go to a store to buy cigarettes. On their way to the store, Flores noticed accused-appellant standing in a comer near the store and staring at them. Then, accused-appellant walked away and disappeared. Later, accused-appellant reappeared, accompanied by Menieva and Ilaw, and followed Ortigosa and his group to the store. When accused-appellant and his companions were already in front of Ortigosa, Menieva uttered, "Ne!, ano ba yan?" and proceeded to stab Ortigosa twice with an icepick. Menieva stabbed Ortigosa first on the right portion of his chest, then on his left armpit. As Menieva stabbed Ortigosa, Ilaw pointed a sumpak at Ortigosa while accused-appellant pointed at Ortigosa' s group and left.

After the stabbing, Ortigosa and his group tried to run back to where they were drinking. Before they reached the place, Ortigosa fell on the ground. His companions rushed him to East Avenue Medical Center where he died.

A case was filed before the RTC and the accused-appellant denied any participation in Ortigosa's stabbing. He claimed that on the night of the incident, he was waiting for his sister on the corner of Dupax Street. While waiting, he saw and heard people running and shouting which caused him to leave the place.

The RTC found the accused appellant guilty of murder. The CA affirmed with modification the trial court's Decision and held that conspiracy was evident from the coordinated movements of the three accused.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there was a conspiracy between the accused-appellant and the other accused

HELD:

No. The prosecution failed to prove that accused-appellant conspired with Menieva and Ilaw in committing the crime of murder.

Conspiracy is said to exist where 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.

Accused-appellant's act of pointing to the victim and his group is not an overt act which shows that accused-appellant acted in concert with his co-accused to cause the death of Ortigosa. It is stressed that mere knowledge, acquiescence or approval of the act, without the cooperation and the agreement to cooperate, is not enough to establish conspiracy. Even if the accused were present and agreed to cooperate with the main perpetrators of the crime, their mere presence does not make them parties to it, absent any active participation in the furtherance of the common design or purpose. Likewise, where the only act attributable to the other accused is an apparent readiness to provide assistance, but with no certainty as to its ripening into an overt act, there is no conspiracy. In this case, while accused-appellant's presence and act of pointing at the victim and his group may mean he approved of the crime or that he was ready to assist his co-accused, absent any other overt act on his part, there is no conspiracy.