Pontilar, Marjone P.

LLB-I Viada Legal Writing Monday 5:00PM-6:00PM Tuesday 6:00PM-7:00PM June 28, 2011 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FERNANDO PUGAY y BALCITA, & BENJAMIN SAMSON y MAGDALENA, accused-appellants. G.R. No. L-74324 November 17, 1988 Facts: The accused are pronounced by the RTC of Cavite guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of murder of Bayani Miranda. On the evening of May 19, 1982 a town fiesta was held in the public plaza of Rosario Cavite. Miranda and the accused Pugay are friends. Miranda used to run errands for Pugay and they used to sleep together. Sometime after midnight accused Pugay and Samson with several companions arrived (they were drunk), and they started making fun of Bayani Miranda. Pugay after making fun of the Bayani, took a can of gasoline and poured its contents on the latter, Gabion (principal witness) told Pugay not to do the deed. Then Samson set Miranda on fire making a human torch out of him. They were arrested the same night and barely a few hours after the incident gave their written statements. Judgement of the lower court was affirmed with modifications. Legal Issue: Is conspiracy present in this case to ensure that murder can be the crime? If not what are the criminal responsibilities of the accused? Holdings: There is no conspiracy in the case since conspiracy is determined when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it. Reasoning: CONSPIRACY- is determined when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy must be proven with the same quantum of evidence as the felony itself, more specifically by proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is not essential that there be proof as to the existence of a previous agreement to commit a crime. It is sufficient if, at the time of commission of the crime, the accused had the same purpose and were united in its executed. Since there was no animosity between Miranda and the accused, and add to the meeting at the scene of the incident was purely coincidental, and the main intent of the accused is to make fun of Miranda. Since there is no conspiracy that was proven, the respective criminal responsibility of Pugay and Samson arising from different acts directed against Miranda is individual NOT collective and each of them is liable only for the act that was committed by him. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITIES: PUGAY: Having failed to exercise diligence necessary to avoid every undesirable consequence arising from any act committed by his companions who at the same time were making fun of the deceased. - GUILTY OF RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE RESULTING TO HOMICIDE. SAMSON: Since there are no sufficient evidence that appears in the record establishing qualifying circumstances (treachery, conspiracy). And granted the mitigating circumstance that he never INTENDED to commit so grave a wrong. - GUILTY OF HOMICIDE Policy: As stated in the Article 3(2) & Article 8(2) of the Revised Penal Code. 1. A Conspiracy exists when two or more people come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. 2. A man must use common sense, and exercise due reflection in all his acts; it is his duty to be cautious, careful and prudent, if not from instinct, then through fear of incurring punishment. Conspiracy may be implied from concerted action of the assailants in confronting the victim