Rimando vs. People

Mere presence at the scene of the crime, accompaniment of a co-accused, and passive acceptance of marked money placed in one's bag are insufficient to establish conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt, where there is no proof of actual cooperation, agreement to cooperate, or intentional participation in furtherance of a common criminal design.

Edwina Rimando and her husband Romeo Rimando were charged with violation of Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code for illegal possession and use of false treasury or bank notes, specifically 100 pieces of counterfeit USD100 notes. The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), through its Investigation Division, conducted surveillance and a test-buy operation against a group of suspected counterfeiters led by a certain Pastor Danny and Romeo Rimando, also known as "Datu Romy," pursuant to BSP Circular 599, Series of 2008. The BSP agents' authority to investigate, arrest, and conduct searches and seizures in cases affecting the integrity of currencies formed the statutory backdrop for the entrapment operation that led to the Rimandos' arrest.

Sometime in July 2012, the BSP Investigation Division received information from a confidential informant that a certain Pastor Danny and Datu Romy (Romeo Rimando) and their cohorts were involved in the distribution, manufacture, and printing of counterfeit US dollar notes. The team validated the information through surveillance on the suspects, including Romeo. On September 5, 2012, the confidential informant introduced BSP Bank Officer I Alex Muñez to the group of counterfeiters at Farmer's Market, Araneta Center, Cubao, Quezon City. A test-buy was conducted at around 3:00 in the afternoon, during which Muñez purchased three pieces of counterfeit USD100 notes for ₱500 per piece. Senior Currency Specialist Reynaldo Paday assisted Muñez and later issued a temporary certification that the notes were fake.

On the morning of September 14, 2012, Romeo called Muñez and offered to sell 100 pieces of counterfeit USD100 notes at ₱500 per piece. Muñez's office formed an entrapment team and agreed to meet Romeo at Savory Restaurant along Makati Avenue. Before proceeding, they coordinated with the PNP Tactical Operation Center. By 2:00 in the afternoon, the team was positioned at the restaurant. When Romeo arrived, he was accompanied by Edwina. Romeo talked to Muñez, handed over the counterfeit notes, and received the marked money in return. After receiving the marked money, Romeo walked over to Edwina and placed the money inside her bag. The two began to walk away, whereupon Muñez gave the prearranged signal — placing his eyeglasses on top of his head — and the team closed in and arrested both Romeo and Edwina. Paday verified the 100 pieces of notes and concluded they were counterfeit. Sylvia Tamayo, Assistant Manager of the BSP Currency Analysis and Redemption Division, issued a Certification dated September 17, 2012 confirming that the 100 pieces of USD100 notes were counterfeit. Glenn Peterson, Special Agent of the US Secret Service in Guam, testified that the counterfeit bills were printed using an inkjet printer, unlike genuine US dollar notes printed using Intaglio and Typographic Printing Method.

Edwina and Romeo presented a different version of events. Edwina testified that she was a freelance real estate agent who had been invited by a certain Pong to meet a certain Emily at the Makati Tower Hotel on Kalayaan Street, Makati City, regarding an old coins transaction. She and Romeo met Emily at the hotel, and Emily invited them to eat at a nearby Pizza Hut. When no table was available, Emily suggested they look for another restaurant. While waiting at a stoplight along Kalayaan and Burgos, they were suddenly apprehended by a group of agents. Edwina claimed that Agent Armida Superales took her bag, declared "Boss, negative," and then placed a plastic-wrapped bundle inside the bag. At the BSP premises, the bag was opened and US dollar bills and marked money were allegedly found inside. Romeo corroborated this account, testifying that they were arrested by a group of 10 agents in three vehicles while walking to find another restaurant. He claimed that Agent Superales placed a plastic-wrapped bundle of US dollar bills and marked money worth ₱50,000.00 into Edwina's bag, and that Alex Muñez intimidated him during interrogation by placing a pistol on the table and threatening him with a plastic bag.

The RTC credited the prosecution's version, found both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and sentenced each to an indeterminate penalty of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor (medium) as minimum to 10 years, 8 months, and 1 day of prision mayor (maximum) as maximum, plus a fine of ₱5,000.00 and costs. The CA affirmed the RTC Decision in toto. Romeo initially signified his intention to appeal but withdrew his appeal through a letter dated March 16, 2017. Edwina alone filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Petitioner argued that the RTC gravely erred in finding that all the elements of the crime charged were established beyond reasonable doubt.
• Admissibility of Exhibits "E" to "E-99": Petitioner contended that the counterfeit US dollar notes should not have been admitted in evidence because there were doubts as to whether a valid entrapment operation took place and whether the notes presented in court were the same ones allegedly confiscated from the accused-appellants.
• Admissibility of Exhibits "F" to "F-2": Petitioner argued that these counterfeit US dollar notes should not have been admitted against the accused-appellants because there was no proof that they owned or possessed the said notes, as the same were recovered from Pastor Danny and not from the accused-appellants.
• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Petitioner maintained that the RTC erred in giving full faith and credence to the testimonies of agents Alex Muñez and Reynaldo Paday despite their contradictory statements.

• Conspiracy: Whether the CA erred in affirming the conviction of petitioner Edwina Rimando, specifically whether conspiracy with her husband Romeo was established beyond reasonable doubt.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the prosecution proved all the elements of illegal possession and use of false treasury or bank notes under Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code as against petitioner.

• Conspiracy: No. Conspiracy was not established beyond reasonable doubt because petitioner's mere presence at the scene, accompaniment of her husband, and passive acceptance of marked money placed in her bag did not constitute the overt act required to hold her liable as a co-principal by conspiracy.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: No. None of the elements of the crime under Article 168 were proven as against petitioner — the prosecution failed to prove that she was even aware of the counterfeit US dollar notes, that she possessed them with intent to use, or that she had active participation in the illegal transaction.

• Conspiracy: The Court reaffirmed that conspiracy requires the same degree of proof as the crime itself — proof beyond reasonable doubt. Conspiracy is not presumed; it must be established by evidence strong enough to show a community of criminal design, requiring a conscious design to commit the offense and intentionality on the part of the cohorts. While conspiracy may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime, mere presence at the scene, mere knowledge, acquiescence, or approval of the act, without cooperation or agreement to cooperate, is insufficient. An overt act — some physical activity or deed indicating the intention to commit a particular crime — is required. The CA had upheld conspiracy based on five circumstances: Romeo offered to sell the notes, Edwina accompanied him from Quezon City to Makati, she distanced herself but did not leave, she accepted the marked money Romeo placed in her bag, and they left together. The Court found these circumstances inadequate. Petitioner was not present during the test-buy operation, was not spotted during surveillance, and performed no overt act in furtherance of the crime. The fact that she accompanied her husband and allowed him to place money in her bag did not justify the conclusion that conspiracy existed. Because the inculpatory facts were capable of two explanations — one consistent with innocence and one with guilt — the evidence did not fulfill the test of moral certainty and could not support a conviction.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: The elements of the crime under Article 168 are: (1) that any treasury or bank note or instrument of credit is forged or falsified by another person; (2) that the offender knows that the instrument is forged or falsified; and (3) that the offender either used or possessed with intent to use any such forged or falsified instrument. None of these elements were present as to petitioner. The prosecution did not prove that she was aware of the counterfeit notes, that she possessed them with intent to use, or that she had any hand or active participation in the consummation of the illegal transaction. She was not present during the test-buy operation nor spotted during surveillance. In the absence of conspiracy, the evidence against Romeo could not be imputed to Edwina. Accordingly, her acquittal was required as a matter of right.

• Conspiracy; requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt — Conspiracy is not presumed. Like the physical acts constituting the crime itself, the elements of conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. While conspiracy need not be established by direct evidence and may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime, the evidence must be strong enough to show a community of criminal design. A conscious design to commit an offense is essential; conspiracy is the product of intentionality on the part of the cohorts. In this case, the Court found no overt act attributable to petitioner sufficient to hold her equally guilty.

• Overt act in conspiracy — A conspirator must have performed some overt act as a direct or indirect contribution to the execution of the crime. The overt act may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime or moral assistance to co-conspirators by being present or exerting moral ascendancy. Mere presence at the discussion of a conspiracy, even approval of it, without active participation, is not enough for conviction. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that petitioner's accompaniment of her husband and passive receipt of marked money did not amount to an overt act.

• Equipoise rule — Where the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one consistent with innocence and the other with guilt, the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is insufficient to support a conviction. The Court invoked this rule to grant petitioner's acquittal, the evidence being susceptible of an interpretation consistent with her innocence.

• Elements of illegal possession and use of false treasury or bank notes (Article 168, RPC) — The three elements are: (1) any treasury or bank note or instrument of credit is forged or falsified by another person; (2) the offender knows the instrument is forged or falsified; and (3) the offender either used or possessed with intent to use any such forged or falsified instrument. None were proven as against petitioner.

• "There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy is not presumed. Like the physical acts constituting the crime itself, the elements of conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt." — This passage, quoted from Bahilidad vs. People, articulates the controlling standard for proving conspiracy and was central to the Court's reversal of petitioner's conviction.

• "Mere presence at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission is not, by itself, sufficient to establish conspiracy." — This formulation distills the ratio decidendi as applied to petitioner's circumstances and directly undercuts the lower courts' finding of conspiracy.

• "Hence, in the absence of conspiracy, if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction." — This passage applies the equipoise rule as the basis for the Court's disposition of acquittal.

• Bahilidad vs. People, G.R. No. 185195, March 17, 2010, 615 SCRA 597 — Instructive ruling on the nature and quantum of proof required for conspiracy; followed and applied to hold that petitioner's participation was not adequately proved with moral certainty.
• People vs. De Chavez, G.R. No. 188105, April 23, 2010, 619 SCRA 464 — Cited for the proposition that mere presence at the scene of the crime without proof of cooperation or agreement is insufficient to constitute conspiracy.
• Tecson vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 113218, November 22, 2001, 370 SCRA 181 — Cited for the enumeration of the elements of the crime under Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code.
• People vs. Lizada, G.R. Nos. 143468-71, January 24, 2003, 396 SCRA 62 — Cited for the definition of an overt act as a physical activity or deed indicating intention to commit a particular crime, more than mere planning or preparation.
• People vs. Balagat, G.R. No. 177163, April 24, 2009, 586 SCRA 640 — Cited for the rule that an appeal in a criminal case throws the whole case open for review and the appellate court has the duty to correct, cite, and appreciate errors whether assigned or unassigned.

• Article 168, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes illegal possession and use of false treasury or bank notes and other instruments of credit. The Court enumerated the three elements and found none present as against petitioner.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Governs petitions for review on certiorari, generally limited to questions of law. The Court noted that while it is not a trier of facts, it may review factual findings where the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied facts of weight and substance affecting the result, particularly where the right to liberty is at stake.
• BSP Circular 599, Series of 2008 — Authorizes BSP investigators to conduct investigations, make arrests, and conduct searches and seizures in cases adversely affecting the integrity of currencies. The Court sustained the validity of the entrapment operation conducted pursuant to this authority.

Lucas P. Bersamin, Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, Samuel R. Martires (on leave), and Alexander G. Gesmundo concurred. No separate concurring opinions were noted.