Taer vs. Court of Appeals

Conspiracy must be established by positive and conclusive evidence, not mere suspicion or conjecture; mere knowledge of the commission of a crime and subsequent profiting from its effects, without prior agreement to commit the crime, constitutes only the liability of an accessory after the fact, not that of a principal by conspiracy; and the extrajudicial confession of a co-accused implicating another is inadmissible as res inter alios acta where the accused had no opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.

The case arose from the theft of two male carabaos in Valencia, Bohol. The animals were delivered to the house of accused Jorge Taer at 2:00 a.m. by co-accused Emilio Namocatcat. Taer kept the carabaos for ten days, used them in his farm, and failed to report their presence to local authorities despite suspicious circumstances surrounding their delivery. The trial court and Court of Appeals found Taer guilty as a principal by conspiracy in the crime of cattle rustling under Presidential Decree No. 533, imposing a penalty of six years and one day to fourteen years, ten months and twenty-one days.

• In the evening of December 5, 1981, accused Cirilo Saludes slept at Taer's house in Datag, Garcia-Hernandez, Bohol.
• At about 2:00 o'clock dawn of December 6, 1981, accused Emilio Namocatcat and Mario Cago arrived at Taer's house with two male carabaos belonging to Tirso Dalde and Eladio Palaca.
• Namocatcat asked Taer to tend the carabaos and instructed him to tell anyone looking for them that they merely strayed into his place.
• The owners discovered their carabaos missing on the morning of December 6, 1981, and reported the matter to the police after searching in vain.
• On December 15, 1981, the owners found their carabaos tied to a bamboo thicket near Taer's house; Taer was absent, having gone to Napo, Garcia-Hernandez, to attend a fiesta where he cooked for Saludes.
• Upon query by the owners, Taer initially claimed the carabaos arrived without any person accompanying them, but later admitted that Namocatcat brought them and asked him to tend them.
• Taer admitted he had not met Namocatcat since 1975 and had never previously tended any carabao belonging to him, yet he accepted the animals at the unholy hour under suspicious circumstances.
• Taer employed the carabaos in his farm and retained possession of them for ten days without apprising the barangay captain, who lived only two kilometers away, about the matter.

• Taer's participation in the crime did not exceed that of co-accused Mario Cago and Cirilo Saludes, who were acquitted by the trial court; therefore, he should likewise be acquitted for insufficiency of evidence.
• The only evidence proving the alleged conspiracy between Taer and Namocatcat was the extrajudicial confession of co-accused Namocatcat, which is inadmissible as hearsay under the rule of res inter alios acta because Taer had no opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.

• Conspiracy between Taer and Namocatcat was established beyond doubt by the following circumstances: the delivery of the carabaos at 2:00 a.m. after traveling fourteen kilometers in the dead of night; Taer's unreserved acceptance of the animals to be tended despite not having known Namocatcat since 1975; the agreement as to sharing the produce from the carabaos' use; Taer's instruction to claim the animals merely strayed; his failure to report to the barangay captain for ten days; and his continued possession and use of the stolen carabaos, demonstrating a unity of purpose and unlawful agreement.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether conspiracy between Taer and Namocatcat was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
  • Whether the extrajudicial confession of co-accused Namocatcat is admissible against Taer to prove conspiracy.
  • Whether Taer is liable as a principal by conspiracy or merely as an accessory after the fact.
  • What is the proper penalty imposable upon Taer as an accessory.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  • Conspiracy was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances cited by the lower courts merely establish suspicion and speculation, not the essential elements of conspiracy which require an agreement regarding the commission of the offense and a decision to commit it.
  • Mere knowledge, acquiescence, or approval of the act, without cooperation or agreement to cooperate, is insufficient to constitute one a party to a conspiracy absent intentional participation to further the common design. The facts establish only Taer's knowledge of the crime and subsequent profiting from it, not his participation in the taking of the carabaos.
  • The extrajudicial confession of co-accused Namocatcat is inadmissible against Taer as it violates the rule of res inter alios acta under Section 25, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court; the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by the act, declaration, or omission of another.
  • Taer is guilty only as an accessory after the fact under Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code, as he had knowledge of the commission of the theft, did not participate therein as principal or accomplice, but took part subsequent to its commission by profiting from the effects of the crime (employing the carabaos in his farm).
  • Under Article 53 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for an accessory is two degrees lower than that prescribed for the consummated felony. The penalty for cattle rustling under PD No. 533 is prision mayor maximum to reclusion temporal medium; two degrees lower is arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional medium.
  • Applying Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code, with no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the medium period is imposed: prision correccional minimum (six months and one day to two years and four months).
  • Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term is fixed at four months (arresto mayor medium) and the maximum at two years (prision correccional minimum).

• Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code (Conspiracy) — Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement regarding the commission of an offense and decide to commit it. It must be established not by conjectures but by positive and conclusive evidence, with the same degree of proof necessary to establish the crime itself (proof beyond reasonable doubt). Mere knowledge, acquiescence, or approval of the act, without cooperation or agreement to cooperate, is insufficient to constitute conspiracy.
• Res Inter Alios Acta (Section 25, Rule 130, Rules of Court) — The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another. An extrajudicial confession or declaration of a co-accused is inadmissible against another accused because the latter has no opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.
• Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code (Accessories) — Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without having participated therein either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission by profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime. A person who receives stolen property from another and uses it, knowing that the property had been stolen, is guilty as an accessory.

• "Conspiracy must be established not by conjectures, but by positive and conclusive evidence. The same degree of proof necessary to establish the crime is required to support a finding of the presence of criminal conspiracy, which is, proof beyond reasonable doubt."
• "Thus mere knowledge, acquiescence to, or approval of the act, without cooperation or agreement to cooperate, is not enough to constitute one a party to a conspiracy absent the intentional participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose."
• "The rights of a party can not be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another."
• "[A] person who received any property from another, and used it, knowing that the same property had been stolen is guilty as an accessory because he is profiting by the effects of the crime."

• Antonio v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 57937, October 21, 1989 — Cited for the definition of conspiracy as requiring an agreement regarding the commission of the offense and a decision to commit it.
• Orodio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 57519, September 13, 1989 — Cited for the rule that conspiracy must be proven by the same degree of proof as the crime itself (proof beyond reasonable doubt).
• People v. Tanchoco, 76 Phil. 467 — Cited for the principle that profiting from the effects of the crime makes one an accessory after the fact.
• Belvis III v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. L-38907-09, November 14, 1988 — Cited for the application of the res inter alios acta rule under Section 25, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
• People v. Bazar, No. L-41829, June 27, 1988 — Cited for the rule that the testimony of a co-accused being res inter alios acta cannot affect another accused who had no opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.
• People v. Macatanda, No. 51368, November 6, 1981 — Cited as precedent regarding Presidential Decree No. 533 (Anti-Cattle Rustling Law).

• Article 8, Revised Penal Code — Defines conspiracy as a felony requiring an agreement to commit a felony and a decision to carry it out; establishes that proposal and conspiracy are punishable only in specific instances under the Code.
• Article 19, Revised Penal Code — Defines accessories and their modes of liability, specifically paragraph 1 regarding profiting from the effects of the crime.
• Article 53, Revised Penal Code — Provides that the penalty for accessories is two degrees lower than that prescribed for the consummated felony.
• Article 64, Revised Penal Code — Rules for the application of penalties containing three periods; provides that when there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, the medium period shall be imposed.
• Articles 308, 309, and 310, Revised Penal Code — Provisions on theft as amended by Presidential Decree No. 533 (Anti-Cattle Rustling Law).
• Section 8, Presidential Decree No. 533 (1974) — Prescribes the penalty for cattle rustling (prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its medium period when committed without violence against or intimidation of persons).
• Section 25, Rule 130, Rules of Court — Res inter alios acta rule; provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another.
• Act No. 4103 (Indeterminate Sentence Law), as amended — Provides for the determination of indeterminate penalties where the maximum is that which could be properly imposed under the Revised Penal Code and the minimum is within the range next lower.

• Melencio-Herrera, Paras, Padilla, and Regalado, JJ. — All concurred in the decision penned by Sarmiento, J., without writing separate opinions.