Act of one act of all

In crimes committed through conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. So all the conspirators are liable as principals regardless of the extent and character of their participation. But how is conspiracy proven? Is it necessary that there is direct evidence of the acts charged? Can it be inferred from the facts and circumstances established by the evidence? Can it be inferred from acts tending to show a community of design or purpose? These are the issues raised and resolved in this case of kidnapping with homicide as defined and penalized under Section 14 of R.A. 6539 also known as the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972.

The persons involved here are Pilo, Boyet and Sonny who have known each other for quite some time. Pilo helped Sonny get a job at a condominium office in a business district while Boyet and Sonny identified Pilo as an associate. On a day in December they met at a restaurant to discuss a “car deal” to be consummated the next day after Sonny placed an ad in a newspaper wanting to buy a Silver Edition of Lancer masquerading as “Mr. Santos,” the car owner renting an office space at the condominium. Sonny held himself out as in the business of buying cars.

Responding to the ad was Marco who went to said office and offered to sell his ‘83 “Telstar” automobile. Posing again as Mr. Santos, Sonny called Marco’s house and informed Marco that he was the buyer of the car. When Marco went to the condominium office, Sonny told him to wait for Pilo. And when Pilo arrived, he asked for the papers of the car to determine whether they were in good order. After examining and finding out that the papers were authentic, Marco and Pilo went to the latter’s house where Boyet was already waiting as instructed by Pilo. Then Pilo asked Boyet to leave and take a snack somewhere while he and Marco talked.

Upon Boyet’s return to Pilo’s house and while in the comfort room, he heard a shot and found Marco sprawled on the floor with severe head wounds and bleeding profusely. Then Pilo called for Sonny and handed to the latter the car papers and keys of the car which was parked nearby, instructing him to bring the car to the buyer. After the assessment of the car in a pawnshop, Sonny gave the car keys to the alleged car buyer for P130,000, a Patrolman, who is the brother of the pawnshop owner. Since the bank was already closed, the buyer requested that payment be made the next day. Because of Pilo’s insistence that payment be made that same evening the patrolman buyer already suspected that the car was stolen. So when Pilo and Sonny returned the next day with the car, the elements of the City Police department approached Sonny and Pilo and asked them questions. Sonny shouted and insisted that he was Marco the car owner but the police still brought them to the Station for investigation. When they were being investigated, Boyet came and claimed that he was Marco the car owner. So Pilo, Boyet and Sonny were charged with carnapping with homicide as principals in conspiracy with each other.

Boyet and Sonny claimed that they were unaware of the car-napping; that they were in the regular business transaction to sell a car on commission; that they were unaware and were not in the house of Pilo when Marco was killed which was Pilo’s own doing.

After hearing both sides, the trial court found Pilo, Boyet, and Sonny guilty of the crime of carnapping with homicide and sentenced each of them to reclusion perpetua together with the payment of actual and moral damages and civil indemnity to the heirs of Marco. Only Boyet and Sonny appealed the decision and insisted that it was only Pilo who committed the crime.

The Supreme Court however did not agree with them. Boyet and Sonny posed as Marco during the negotiations. When Boyet offered to sell the car to the buyer, he introduced himself as Marco the owner. Later on when the buyer introduced Boyet to his contact a Patrolman he likewise introduced himself as Marco the owner. And when he and Sonny were arrested by the police, Sonny was the one who claimed as the car owner, while Boyet just remained silent despite the fact that he had earlier misrepresented himself as the owner. These incidents all the more reveal that the two of them were one in keeping secret the identity of the true owner of the car.

Furthermore, the facts and circumstances established by the evidence shows that Boyet and Sonny shared the same purpose with Pilo in carnapping the vehicle as they were united in its execution of selling the car at a low price and making money which they badly needed. Conspiracy need not be established by direct evidence of the acts charged. It may be proved by a number of indefinite acts, conditions and circumstances.

Boyet and Sonny’s denial that they were not at the house of Pilo when the latter shot Marco, is belied by the physical evidence that they were found positive for nitrates which means that they were within the vicinity when the gun was fired. In fact these powder burns do not appear unless a hand has been instrumental in pulling the trigger. It cannot be due their being heavy smokers because nitrates produced by cigarette smoking have different characteristic from those caused by powder burns.

Besides, conspiracy having been proven, all the conspirators are liable as principals regardless of the extent and character of their participation because in conspiracy the act of one is the act of all. In this case the owner of the motor vehicle was killed in the commission of carnapping obviously to gain possession of the car, its registration certificate and or other pertinent papers, and get him out of the way to facilitate the modus operandi of the perpetrators (People vs De la Cruz, Salvador and Beloso, G.R. 83798, March 29, 1990).

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]