People vs. Cantuba, 183 SCRA 289
People vs. Cantuba, 183 SCRA 289
People vs. Cantuba, 183 SCRA 289
VS.
PARAS. J.:
FACTS:
On the evening of December 23, 1981, Atty. Celera, together with Margie Rotor and Ave Refil,
went to Sunrise Disco Pub Ave Refil was called by somebody and Atty. Celera and Margie Rotor went
inside the Pub and ordered a bottle of White Castle and before they had consumed its contents Atty.
Celera told her that he will go home already. Margie Rotor accompanied atty. Celera to the gate of the
pub. Then Pio Cantuba walked towards where she and Atty. Celera were standing. As Cantuba slowly
approached them, Margie Rotor saw that Cantuba was holding a gun. Then she heard a gunfire and Atty.
Celera staggered. Then Ricardo Baco rushed from behind and stabbed Atty. Celera twice on the left
chest Atty. Celera fell to the ground, groaning. Rotor saw a “tricycle” speeding towards the victim but
Margie Rotor was able to pull his body out of its path.
That same evening, Romeo Gerona, went out to buy cigarettes. On the way, a tricycle with four
persons on board passed him and then stopped in front of the house of Mayor Espinosa. He recognized
two of them — Pugo Penales and Pio Cantuba.
The trial court found the accused PIO CANTUBA and PEDRITO LALAGUNA, guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder.
ISSUE:
Whether or Not the Lower Court erred in convicting accused, Pedrito Lalaguna, despite the fact
that the only evidence against him considered solely of having been seen driving a motorbike away from
the scene of the crime.
RULING:
NO, the Trial Court did not erred in convicting accused Pedrito Lalaguna. The trial court correctly
convicted appellant Lalaguna as a co-conspirator as the circumstances of his participation indubitably
showed unity of purpose and unity in the execution of the unlawful acts as can be gleaned from the fact
that, Lalaguna knew of the plot to assassinate Atty. Celera as he too had been ordered to scout for a
man who could do the job. He also knew exactly the place where the killing was to take place and also
the date and approximate time of the assault. At the very least, therefore, he had to know about the
Torrecampo plot and decided to join its execution. From the legal viewpoint, conspiracy exists if, at the
time of the commission of the offense, the accused had the same purpose and were united in its
execution.
Therefore as a co-conspirator Lalaguna would still be principally liable in the killing of Atty.
Celera under the principle that the act of a conspirator is the act of all co-conspirators. The degree of
actual participation in the commission of the crime is immaterial in a conspiracy