People of the Philippines vs. Pio Cantuba & Pedrito Lalaguna

A conspirator is liable for the acts of his co-conspirators, and the degree of actual participation in the commission of the crime is immaterial in a conspiracy. Thus, an accused may be held principally liable for murder even if he did not personally fire the fatal shot, provided conspiracy and unity of purpose and execution are established.

Atty. Adolfo Celera was a practicing lawyer in Masbate who had run for public office. He had represented the complainant in a rape case against Mayor Moises Espinosa, formerly governor of Masbate, and at the time of his death Mayor Espinosa had filed a civil case for moral damages against him. Patrolman Rodolfo Torrecampo, although under suspension, served as Mayor Espinosa's bodyguard; Pio Cantuba was described as the mayor's "sidekick" in his cockpit, and Romeo "Totong" Labuyo as the "encargo" of the mayor's ranch. The case concerns the prosecution of Cantuba, Pedrito Lalaguna, and several co-accused for Murder under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code.

Atty. Adolfo Celera was a practicing lawyer and had run for public office. He had been the lawyer for the complainant in a rape case brought against Mayor Moises Espinosa, formerly Governor of Masbate, and at the time of Atty. Celera's death, Mayor Espinosa had filed a case against him for moral damages. After the trial of the damage suit began, Atty. Celera confided to his wife that Mayor Espinosa had warned him that should he lose the suit a "miracle" would happen. Subsequently, Atty. Jolly Fernandez, who collaborated with Atty. Celera in the rape case against Mayor Espinosa, was "bombed" as he left the court on December 2, 1981. Patrolman Rodolfo Torrecampo, then under suspension but working as the bodyguard of Mayor Espinosa, went on December 21, 1981 to Dagusungan, Milagros, Masbate to fetch Romeo "Totong" Labuyo, the "encargo" of Mayor Espinosa's ranch, and to Pulang-Bato, Masbate, Masbate to fetch Pio Cantuba, the mayor's "sidekick" in his cockpit.

On December 23, 1981, all three went to the provincial jail to secure the release of Ricardo Baco, a detention prisoner. Together with Baco, they proceeded to the house of Saturnino Gerbuela, a provincial guard, but the latter was not at home. They left Baco behind to wait for Gerbuela with instructions that they both should proceed to Sunrise Disco Pub at 6:00 p.m. Torrecampo, Labuyo, and Cantuba went to the Bel-Air Theater to kill time, staying there for about two hours before proceeding to the Sunrise Disco Pub. Baco was already at the Sunrise Disco Pub when they arrived. Torrecampo told the group to wait outside while he checked inside the pub to see if Atty. Celera was inside. As the pub was dark, he could not confirm Atty. Celera's presence. Coming out of the pub, Torrecampo explained to Cantuba, Labuyo, and Baco how they would kill Atty. Celera. He handed to Labuyo a .45 cal. pistol and to Baco a knife (machete). Torrecampo described the features of the victim to Baco and instructed Cantuba, who knew Atty. Celera, to signal Baco and Labuyo as soon as he saw their victim approaching.

On the evening of December 23, 1981, Atty. Celera, together with Margie Rotor and Ave Refil, attended the Christmas party of the Bureau of Land Transportation (BLT). They left the place after staying for one hour and took a tricycle to Pil-Tel, a local long distance telephone company. Atty. Celera went inside Pil-Tel while his companions waited outside. Margie Rotor noticed that there were also three other people standing outside Pil-Tel, one of whom she recognized as Pio Cantuba, a long-time acquaintance. After 5 minutes, Atty. Celera came out of Pil-Tel and then headed for the Sunrise Disco Pub just across the street. Ave Refil was called by somebody and Atty. Celera and Margie Rotor went inside the Pub and ordered a bottle of White Castle. Before they had consumed its contents, Atty. Celera told her that he would go home already. Margie Rotor accompanied Atty. Celera to the gate of the pub where they stood facing the street waiting for a tricycle, with Margie Rotor standing at the right side of Atty. Celera. The gate was lighted by a long fluorescent lamp. Near them, by the side of Carandang Optical, Margie Rotor noticed a man standing by a blue Yamaha Motorbike with a butterfly sticker. She also noticed that Pio Cantuba and his two companions were still standing near the wall of Pil-Tel. Then the three dispersed. Pio Cantuba walked towards UCPB which was to her left and then Cantuba returned and headed towards where she and Atty. Celera were standing. One of Cantuba's companions who was wearing a white t-shirt and maong pants, whom Margie Rotor recognized in the courtroom and turned out to be Ricardo Baco, circled behind them. As Cantuba slowly approached them, Margie Rotor saw that Cantuba was holding a gun. Then she heard a gunfire and Atty. Celera staggered. Ricardo Baco rushed from behind and stabbed Atty. Celera twice on the left chest. Atty. Celera fell to the ground, groaning. As Cantuba and Baco were fleeing, Margie Rotor saw a "tricycle" speeding towards the fallen victim, but she was able to pull his body out of its path. The glaring lights of the vehicle made it difficult for her to make out and identify the rider. However, 17-year-old Romulo Tama, a bystander who had also seen the blue Yamaha motorbike with a butterfly sticker near Carandang Optical, saw the rider, whom he recognized as Pedrito Lalaguna, start the engine and speed away right after Atty. Celera fell to the ground mortally wounded.

Margie Rotor, Patrolman Igloso, and Nino, a waiter at Sunrise Disco Pub, took Atty. Celera to the Masbate Provincial Hospital in a tricycle. Atty. Celera sustained a gunshot in the left lumbar area, or at the left back just above the waistline, with no exit wound, and two stab wounds on the left side of his body, one over the "epig. area" and the other between the 6th and 7th ribs between sternal and mid-clavicular lines or just below the nipple. Adolfo Juancho Celera, Jr., eldest son of the deceased, also rushed to the hospital and saw the doctor remove a .45 cal. slug from his father's right torso. Atty. Celera died in the hospital. Technical Sgt. Randolf Arizala, together with Col. Cesar Veloso, immediately investigated the reported shooting of Atty. Celera. Arizala saw the slug that was extracted from the deceased. As a result of an on-the-spot investigation, Sgt. Arizala traced the blue Yamaha motorcycle to Ernesto Lampago and found the vehicle at the latter's address in Masbate, Masbate. While the rear tire was deflated, Sgt. Arizala observed that the engine was still warm. Sgt. Arizala impounded the vehicle. That same evening, at around nine o'clock in the evening, Romeo Gerona went out of his sister's house to buy cigarettes. On the way, a tricycle with four persons on board passed him and then stopped in front of the house of Mayor Espinosa. He recognized two of them — Pugo Penales and Pio Cantuba.

The defense claimed that on the night and time of the incident, both appellants were not at the vicinity of the Sunrise Disco Pub, as they were then in the house of Asst. Provincial Treasurer Manlapaz playing "pusoy." The distance between the house of Asst. Provincial Treasurer Manlapaz and the Sunrise Disco Pub was only 300 meters. The trial court gave credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses Margie Rotor, Romulo Tama, and Pat. Rodolfo Torrecampo. It found Cantuba as the person who fired the gun and Lalaguna as the rider of the speeding motorbike or "tricycle" who was bent on running over the fallen body of Atty. Celera.

• Fatal Shot: Appellants contended that the lower court erred in finding that Pio Cantuba fired the fatal shot that killed Atty. Celera despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary; Cantuba argued that even if he approached the victim with a gun in his hand, it was never established that the fatal shot came from his gun.
• Lalaguna's Participation: Appellants contended that the lower court erred in convicting Pedrito Lalaguna because the only evidence against him was that he was seen driving a motorbike away from the scene of the crime; Lalaguna argued that his participation was tenuous, that driving a motorbike was an equivocal act, that Margie Rotor did not testify against him, and that Pat. Torrecampo did not mention him as among his companions when the killing was directed.
• Presumption of Innocence / Alibi: Appellants contended that the lower court disregarded their constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt; they relied on alibi, claiming they were at the house of Asst. Provincial Treasurer Manlapaz playing "pusoy" at the time of the incident.

• Fatal Shot / Conspiracy Liability: Whether the trial court erred in finding that Pio Cantuba fired the fatal shot that killed Atty. Adolfo Celera despite evidence allegedly to the contrary, and whether Cantuba may be held liable as a co-conspirator even assuming he did not fire the fatal shot.
• Lalaguna's Conviction / Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the trial court erred in convicting Pedrito Lalaguna when the evidence against him consisted solely of having been seen driving a motorbike away from the scene of the crime.
• Presumption of Innocence / Alibi: Whether the trial court disregarded the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

• Fatal Shot / Conspiracy Liability: No. The finding that Cantuba fired the fatal shot was supported; even assuming he did not fire, he remained principally liable as a co-conspirator because the act of one conspirator is the act of all and the degree of actual participation is immaterial.
• Lalaguna's Conviction / Sufficiency of Evidence: No. His conviction was proper; the testimonies of Margie Rotor and Romulo Tama showed he rode the speeding motorbike toward the fallen victim, and his participation established unity of purpose and execution in the conspiracy.
• Presumption of Innocence / Alibi: No. The prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt; the alibi was weak and failed to show physical impossibility, given the 300-meter distance from the scene.

• Fatal Shot / Conspiracy Liability: The contention that the fatal shot was not established to have come from Cantuba's gun was untenable. The factual points marshalled by appellants did not engender reasonable doubt as to Cantuba's culpability. Even assuming Cantuba never fired his gun, he would still be principally liable as a co-conspirator under the principle that the act of a conspirator is the act of all co-conspirators; the degree of actual participation in the commission of the crime is immaterial in a conspiracy. On the alleged conflict between Margie Rotor and Pat. Torrecampo as to who fired, Rotor's testimony was more credible: she heard the gunfire after seeing Cantuba holding a gun while walking toward them, and she stood right beside the victim, whereas Torrecampo was across the street. Minor inconsistencies did not destroy credibility; they indicated the witnesses were not rehearsed. Ricardo Baco's sworn statement that Totong Labuyo shot Celera was hearsay and inadmissible because Baco was never presented for cross-examination; it was also physically impossible for Baco to see the gunwielder because he went the opposite direction and encircled Rotor and the victim from behind, with his eyes fixed on the victim. The trial court's credibility findings should not be disturbed absent overlooked facts.
• Lalaguna's Conviction / Sufficiency of Evidence: Lalaguna's claim that his participation was tenuous was contradicted by the records. Both Margie Rotor and Romulo Tama testified to one motorbike or "tricycle" speeding at precisely the same time, immediately after Atty. Celera fell from gunshot and stab wounds. Rotor testified against the rider as a participant because he was bent on running over the fallen Celera; the only missing element in her testimony was the rider's identity due to the glare of the vehicle's lights, which Romulo Tama supplied by recognizing Lalaguna, whom he had known even before the incident. Their testimonies corroborated each other on the motorbike aspect, the noticeable speed, and the timing after Celera fell. Their relative vantage points explained why each recalled details the other did not, indicating credible and unadulterated testimony; slight variations strengthened credibility under People vs. Villamil. Torrecampo's failure to mention Lalaguna among his companions when directing the killing was not exculpatory and did not contradict the testimonies placing Lalaguna at the scene and trying to run down the victim. Lalaguna's identity and participation were sufficiently established, making motive inconsequential under People vs. Soriano. The trial court correctly convicted him as a co-conspirator because the circumstances showed unity of purpose and unity in execution: he knew of the plot to assassinate Celera, had been ordered to scout for a man who could do the job, knew the place, date, and approximate time of the assault, and at least knew of the Torrecampo plot and decided to join its execution. Conspiracy exists if, at the time of the commission of the offense, the accused had the same purpose and were united in its execution (People vs. Caday; People vs. Sy). Driving a motorbike would be equivocal only if Romulo Tama's testimony were considered in isolation from the testimonies of Rotor, Torrecampo, and Sgt. Arizala, which indicated Lalaguna drove the vehicle to run down the victim and shared the criminal intent to do away with Celera.
• Presumption of Innocence / Alibi: The State satisfactorily discharged its burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The decision was not premised on the weakness of the defense; it rebutted the alibi of Cantuba and Lalaguna. The defense of alibi was jurisprudentially weak under People vs. Onquillano and People vs. Acelajado because appellants did not demonstrate by convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for them to be at the scene at the time of the crime. The distance between the house of Asst. Provincial Treasurer Manlapaz, where they claimed to be, and the Sunrise Disco Pub, where the crime was perpetrated, was only 300 meters, so there was no physical impossibility for both accused to be at the scene. Both were positively identified by prosecution witnesses Margie Rotor, Rodolfo Torrecampo, and Romulo Tama: Cantuba as the person who fired the gun and Lalaguna as the rider of the speeding motorbike or "tricycle" bent on running over the fallen body of Atty. Celera.

• Conspiracy; act of one is act of all — Conspiracy exists if, at the time of the commission of the offense, the accused had the same purpose and were united in its execution. The act of a conspirator is the act of all co-conspirators, and the degree of actual participation in the commission of the crime is immaterial. Applied: Cantuba was liable even assuming he did not fire the fatal shot; Lalaguna was liable as a co-conspirator for driving the motorbike to run down the victim.
• Alibi — Alibi is a weak defense and is generally accepted with caution. It must be supported by convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed. Applied: the 300-meter distance between the claimed location and the crime scene did not establish physical impossibility, and both appellants were positively identified.
• Hearsay — A sworn statement of a person who is not presented in court for cross-examination is hearsay and inadmissible. Applied: Ricardo Baco's sworn statement claiming Totong Labuyo shot Atty. Celera was hearsay because Baco was never presented for cross-examination; it was also physically impossible for Baco to have seen the gunwielder.
• Credibility of witnesses — Findings of the trial court on witness credibility should not be disturbed on appeal absent some fact or circumstance overlooked that may affect the result, because the trial court has superior advantage in observing the conduct and demeanor of witnesses. Minor inconsistencies in testimony do not destroy credibility; they may show the witnesses were not rehearsed. Applied: Margie Rotor's testimony was preferred over Pat. Torrecampo's on who fired, and the corroborating testimonies of Rotor and Romulo Tama were credited despite slight variations.
• Positive identification — Positive identification by witnesses present at the scene prevails over alibi. Applied: Cantuba and Lalaguna were positively identified by prosecution witnesses as the gunman and the motorbike rider, respectively.

• "The degree of actual participation in the commission of the crime is immaterial in a conspiracy." — States the ratio on conspiracy liability, explaining why Cantuba remained liable even assuming he did not fire the fatal shot.
• "From the legal viewpoint, conspiracy exists if, at the time of the commission of the offense, the accused had the same purpose and were united in its execution." — Canonical formulation of conspiracy applied to both Cantuba and Lalaguna.
• "The only competent persons to identify the person who fired the gun are the witnesses present at the scene of the crime." — Supports the preference for Margie Rotor's testimony over Pat. Torrecampo's on the identity of the gunman.
• "As they were not able to demonstrate by convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for them to have been at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed." — States the standard for alibi and why appellants' defense failed.

• People vs. Villamil, 135 SCRA 610 — Cited to support the rule that slight variations in the testimony of two witnesses strengthen their credibility.
• People vs. Soriano, 134 SCRA 542 — Cited for the proposition that once the accused's identity and participation are sufficiently established, motive becomes inconsequential.
• People vs. Caday, 28 SCRA 388 — Cited in defining conspiracy as existing when the accused had the same purpose and were united in its execution.
• People vs. Sy, 113 SCRA 207 — Cited together with Caday for the definition of conspiracy.
• People vs. Onquillano, 149 SCRA 442 — Cited to support the rule that the defense of alibi is jurisprudentially weak.
• People vs. Acelajado, 148 SCRA 142 — Cited together with Onquillano on the weakness of alibi.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Murder. The amended information charged the accused with Murder under this article, and the trial court convicted Cantuba and Lalaguna of Murder under it; the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.

Melencio-Herrera, Padilla, Sarmiento, and Regalado, JJ., concur.