People vs.

Factao
December 23, 2012 by Lagangang Butas

People vs. Factao G.R. No. 125966. January 13, 2004 Appellee: People of the Philippines Appellants: Juan Factao alias Boyet, Francis Labroda alias Abet, and Tirso Servidad Ponente: J. Tinga FACTS: Appellants Juan Factao, Albert Labroda, and Tirso Servidad were found guilty of muder for killing Fernando Sardoma by inflicting gunshot wound on the vital part of the his body. Evidence for the prosecution presented the following: 1) In the evening of August 23, 1991, Vicente Manolos, who was then in a kamalig near the seashore with Eduardo Sardoma, Rolando Nierves, Noel Serrano, and Fernando Sardoma, felt the urge to defecate. As he relieved himself outside beside the boat, he saw Factao, armed with a garand rifle, and Labroda approach the hut. Factao then aimed his gun at a hole in the huts bamboo wall and fired. 2) That same night, Jose Manuel Sermona saw Factao, Labroda, and Servidad walking towards the kamalig of the victim and witnessed the shooting. 3) Eduardo Sardoma, upon hearing the explosion immediately went outside, met Servidad and espied Factao and Labroda running from the scene. Factao and Labrado claimed that at the time of the incident they were celebrating the latters birthday and learned about the tragedy only the following day. On the other hand, Servidad claimed that he was with Barangay Captain Faustino Nierves that evening, who then instructed him to investigate when they heard an explosion from the direction of the seashore. ISSUE: Whether or not there was conspiracy. HELD: Yes. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. There was no direct evidence to show that Factao and Labroda agreed to commit the crime. Nonetheless, their acts immediately before and after the shooting evince a commonality in design sufficient to make them co-principals to the killing. The testimonies of the witnesses adequately established conspiracy between Factao and Labroda. However, the Servidads participation in the crime was not established. The mere presence of a person at the scene of the crime does not make him a co-conspirator. The prosecution failed to offer evidence that Servidad performed any act from which his conspiracy to the crime may be deduced. Thus, he was acquitted.