ni Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta @Magtanong Kay Attorney | Enero 31, 2024
Dear Chief Acosta,
Ninakawan ang isang maliit na establisimyento na malapit sa aming tinitirhan at pinatay sa saksak ang may-ari nito. Isa sa mga pinaghihinalaan na mayroong kinalaman sa krimen ay ang kaibigan ng kapatid ko. Ngunit kahit ang kapatid ko ay makapagpapatunay na nagkataon lamang na naroon ang kaibigan niya nang mangyari ang insidente at wala talaga itong kinalaman sa krimen. Ayon sa kapatid ko, matagal na nilang plano na pumunta sa nasabing establisimyento upang bumili ng mga piyesa na kakailanganin nila sa inaayos nilang sasakyan.
Nagkataon lamang na noong araw na iyon sila nagkaroon ng perang pambili ng mga nasabing piyesa, ngunit hindi na sumama ang kapatid ko sa pamimili dahil ipinagpatuloy na lamang niya ang pagkukumpuni sa sasakyan upang matapos diumano sila agad sa oras na makabili na ng piyesa ang kaibigan niya. Hindi rin diumano nila kilala ang nagnakaw o ang pinatay na may-ari ng establisimyento.
Dahil ba naroon ang kaibigan ng kapatid ko nang mangyari ang insidente ay ibig nang sabihin na kasabwat siya sa nangyaring krimen? Sana ay malinawan ninyo ako. – Natividad
Dear Natividad,
Ang pakikipagsabwatan sa krimen ay maaaring magbunga ng kriminal na responsibilidad sa sinumang mapatunayan na mayroong naging partisipasyon. Ang legal na konsepto ng pakikipagsabwatan ay nakasaad sa ating Revised Penal Code:
“Article 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. - Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some other person or persons.”
Gayon pa man, nais naming bigyang-diin na kinakailangang mapatunayan, sa pamamagitan ng malinaw at konkretong ebidensya, na ang bawat inaakusahan ng pakikipagsabwatan ay mayroong hayagan o aktuwal na ginawa upang maisakatuparan ang krimen.
Ayon sa ating Korte Suprema, sa panulat ni Honorable Associate Justice Minerva P. Gonzaga-Reyes, mahalagang mapatunayan, nang walang makatwirang pag-aalinlangan, ang mga akto o indikasyon sa naturang sabwatan. Ang presensya lamang ng isang tao sa pinangyarihan ng krimen ay hindi agarang mangangahulugan ng pakikipagsabwatan nito sa kriminal:
“Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. There is conspiracy if at the time of the commission of the felony the defendants had the same criminal purpose and acted in unison towards the execution of their common criminal design. Once the conspiracy is proven the act of one becomes the act of all regardless of who actually rendered the fatal blow on the victim. A conspirator must however, perform an overt act in furtherance of the plan to commit a felony; mere presence at the scene of the incident, knowledge of the plan or acquiescence thereto are not sufficient grounds to hold a person liable as a conspirator. As such conspiracy must be established as any element of the crime and evidence of the conspiracy must be beyond reasonable doubt.
x x x
To our mind, the strict requirement that conspiracy must be proved by evidence beyond reasonable doubt was not satisfied by the prosecution. Nowhere in the prosecution’s evidence was it shown that the defendants acted in concert towards a common criminal purpose to kill Rolando Samonte. There is no evidence on record to show that the other four accused knew of Alina’s intent to kill the victim nor that they were present at the scene intentionally to render physical or moral support to insure Alina’s success in killing Rolando Samonte. The evidence shows that after Rolando Samonte prevailed upon Ramirez and Asuncion to surrender the wooden clubs the latter fled. They were no longer at the scene of the crime when Alina arrived nor when Alina stabbed Rolando. Ramirez’ and Asuncion’s complicity in the stabbing has no evidentiary basis.
Assuming on the other hand that defendants Salvatierra and Ignacio, who arrived at the scene with Alina in his jeep, knew of Alina’s plan to stab Rolando, there is no proof that they performed any overt act in furtherance of Alina’s evil design. They simply stayed in the jeep, without uttering a word much less, assist Alina in stabbing the victim. Mere knowledge or acquiescence to a criminal scheme is not sufficient to make them liable as conspirators. In the same vein the mere presence of Ramirez and Asuncion prior to the stabbing and that of Salvatierra and Ignacio during and after the incident at the scene of the crime by themselves cannot be taken as evidence of conspiracy absent any concrete evidence that they were intentionally present to insure the success of a common criminal design.
x x x”
Sa sitwasyon ng kaibigan ng kapatid mo, hindi agarang masasabi na kasabwat siya sa krimen dahil lamang naroon siya nang maganap ito. Upang mapanagot siya sa batas, kinakailangang lubos na mapatunayan na mayroon siyang ginawa upang tumulong sa pagsasakatuparan sa nasabing krimen.
Sana ay nabigyan namin ng linaw ang iyong katanungan. Ang payong aming ibinigay ay base lamang sa mga impormasyon na iyong inilahad at maaaring magbago kung mababawasan o madaragdagan ang mga detalye ng iyong salaysay.
Maraming salamat sa iyong patuloy na pagtitiwala.
Comments