Actions and intentions

Is the joint or simultaneous action of the malefactors per se sufficient proof of conspiracy? When is motive important to prove the guilt or innocence of an accused? These are two of the questions raised in this case of Cris.

Cris was a member of the Philippine National Police stationed at a Police Station and a jailer therein. On the night of February 13, 1989, a person by the name of Ato 26 years old was brought to the police station for investigation for allegedly hitting Dado on the head that placed him in serious condition. After investigation he was brought to the detention cell. The Station had four cells separated by hollow blocks and doors with iron grills. Ato was detained alone at cell number three. Occupying cell number two were six inmates by the name of Mario, Doming, Efren, Erik, Randy and Lando. Any of the detainees could go to any cell inside the prison because the doors separating each cell were always open although the key was held by Cris. There was a common door leading to the cells which no one could enter except with the jail guard’s permission because it is padlocked. The comfort room was located in cell number 4 and inmates could go there without asking for the key since the cell doors separating each cell remained open. The Jailer’s office was located at the left side and was about 15 meters away from cell no. 4. The jailer could not have a full view of cell 4 because of the partition and poor lighting.

The next day, Ato was visited by his brother Lino. At that time Ato was in good health and condition and was not complaining of anything. He even asked Lino to bring him a blanket, toothbrush, clothes and food. Lino left about 5:20 p.m. and asked another brother Cito to bring back the clothes etc. Cito brought the needs of Ato and left the jail at about 6 p.m. He saw nothing wrong with Ato.

But at around 9 p.m. of the same day, the family of Ato was informed by a barangay councilman that they should go to the municipal building at the request of the policemen. When they arrived at the municipal building at around 9:10 p.m. they saw Ato already dead lying on the cement floor. According to Mario, one of the detainees, Ato was found hanging with a thin blanket at cell no. 4. At the time of his death, the jail guard on duty was Cris. Nobody else entered the jail on that day and the only companions of the victim were the six other detainees. These detainees were later on released without any investigation being conducted by the police.

Subsequently however all the six were charged with murder together with Cris. They were accused of conspiracy in the killing of Ato. The extent of Ato’s injuries indicated that he did not commit suicide but that he was killed with deliberate intent. He sustained external and internal injuries the most significant of which are the ruptured liver, torn mesentery and torn stomach. They were so severe that it could not have been sustained prior to his detention.

Only Cris and Mario stood trial as the other accused were at large. The Sandiganbayan found sufficient circumstantial evidence to convict both accused. Cris was convicted because of circumstances showing that he joined the other malefactors in killing Ato particularly the following: (1) he was the jail guard on duty at the time of Ato’s killing; (2) he was in such position that he could have seen or heard the killing of Ato; (3) the discrepancies between the list of detainees prepared by Cris and police blotter to the conspiracy to murder. Also pointed out by the Sandiganbayan was the alleged motive to kill Ato which was to avenge the attack on Dado who was hit on the head and was in serious condition. Was the Sandiganbayan correct?

No. Even if all the malefactors joined in the killing, such circumstance alone does not satisfy the requirement of conspiracy because the rule is that neither the joint nor simultaneous action is per se sufficient proof of conspiracy. Conspiracy must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the offense itself. The malefactors who inflicted the fatal injuries may have intended by their own separate acts to bring about the death of the victim. It was the prosecution’s burden to limit the possibilities to only one: that Cris conspired with the inmates to kill Ato. The prosecution failed to do so. It should have presented evidence that Cris indeed saw and heard Ato’s killing and Cris consented to the killing as part of the plan to kill Ato. But based on the description of the jail cells, it was not impossible for Cris not to have actually seen and heard the killing of Ato. Since Ato was found in cell 4, which is 15 meters far from Cris office, Cris could not have had a full view of cell 4 especially because of the hollow block partitions between cells. The absence of such evidence does not preclude the possibility that Ato was covertly killed and the sounds were muffled to conceal the crime from Cris. Or Cris as jail guard was simply negligent in securing the safety of the inmates under his custody. If Cris were negligent, this would be incompatible with conspiracy because negligence denotes absence of intent while conspiracy involves a meeting of the minds to commit a crime.

Motive is generally held to be immaterial because it is not an element of a crime. However motive becomes important when the evidence on the commission of a crime is purely circumstantial or inconclusive. Motive is thus vital in this case. Hence, the alleged motive for Ato’s killing was to avenge the attack on Dado who was then in serious condition because Ato hit him on the head with a wood. But no evidence was presented to link Cris to Dado or to show what compelling motive made Cris, a jail guard, abandon his duty and instead facilitate the killing of an inmate under his custody (Crisostomo vs. Sandiganbayan , G.R. 152398, April 14, 2005. 456 SCRA 45).

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]