REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
X x x CITY

X x x,
  Complainants
IS No! x x x
" #$%s&s '
Estafa
X x x,
  R$spon($nts!

x""""""""""""""""""""""""""""x

JOINT COUNTER-AFFIDA
COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT
VIT
OF THE RESPONDENTS X x x

THE UNDERSI)NED RESPONDENTS %$sp$*t+&ll, stat$-

.! ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS !

X x x! /omitt$(0

2. DISCUSSION

2.1. The relevant provisions of the Revised Penal Code on estafa (deceit/swindling)
(deceit/swindling) are as
follows:
 Article 31. !windling (estafa). " An# person who shall defra$d another %# an# of the
&eans &entioned herein%elow shall %e p$nished %#:
1st. The penalt# of prision correccional in its &a'i&$& period to prision &a#or in its
&ini&$& period if the a&o$nt of the fra$d is over 12 pesos %$t does not e'ceed
22 pesos and if s$ch a&o$nt e'ceeds the latter s$& the penalt# provided in this
paragraph shall %e i&posed in its &a'i&$& period adding one #ear for each additional
1 pesos* %$t the total penalt# which &a# %e i&posed shall not e'ceed twent# #ears.
+n s$ch case and in connection with the accessor
accessor#
# penalties which &a# %e i&posed and
for the p$rpose of other the provisions of this Code the penalt# shall %e ter&ed prision
&a#or or recl$sion te&poral as the case &a# %e.
2nd. The penalt# of prision correccional in its &ini&$& and &edi$& periods if the
a&o$nt of the fra$d is over , pesos %$t does not e'ceed 12 pesos*
3rd. The penalt# of arresto &a#or in its &a'i&$& period to prision correccional in its
&ini&$& period if s$ch a&o$nt is over 2 pesos %$t does not e'ceed , pesos*
and
-th. # arresto &a#or in its &edi$& and &a'i&$& periods if s$ch a&o$nt does not
e'ceed 2 pesos provided that in the fo$r cases &entioned the fra$d %e co&&itted %# 
an# of the following &eans:
1. ith $nfaithf$lness or a%$se of confidence na&el#:
(a) # altering the s$%stance 0$antit# or 0$alit# of an#thing of val$e which the
offender shall deliver %# virt$e of an o%ligation to do so even tho$gh s$ch o%ligation %e
 %ased on an i&&oral or illegal consideration.
(%) # &isappropriating or converting to the pre$dice of another &one# goods or an# 
other personal propert# received %# the offender in tr$st or on co&&ission or for
ad&inistration or $nder an# other o%ligation involving the d$t# to &ae deliver# of or
to ret$rn the sa&e even tho$gh s$ch o%ligation %e totall# or partiall# g$aranteed %# a
 %ond* or %# den#ing having received s$ch &one# goods or other propert#.
(c) # taing $nd$e advantage of the signat$re of the offended part# in %lan and %# 
 writing an# doc$&ent a%ove s$ch signat$re in %lan to the pre$dice of the offended
part# or of an# third person.
2. # &eans of an# of the following false pretenses or fra$d$lent acts e'ec$ted prior to
or si&$ltaneo$sl# with the co&&ission of the fra$d:
(a) # $sing fictitio$s na&e or falsel# pretending to possess power infl$ence
0$alifications propert# credit agenc# %$siness or i&aginar# transactions or %# &eans
of other si&ilar deceits.
(%) # altering the 0$alit# fineness or weight of an#thing pertaining to his art or
 %$siness.
(c) # pretending to have %ri%ed an# overn&ent e&plo#ee witho$t pre$dice to the
action for cal$&n# which the offended part# &a# dee& proper to %ring against the
offender. +n this case the offender shall %e p$nished %# the &a'i&$& period of the
penalt#.
(d) # post4dating a chec or iss$ing a chec in pa#&ent of an o%ligation when the
offender had no f$nds in the %an or his f$nds deposited therein were not s$fficient to
cover the a&o$nt of chec. The fail$re of the drawer of the chec to deposit the a&o$nt
necessar# to cover his chec within three (3) da#s fro& receipt of notice fro& the %an 
and/or the pa#ee or holder that said chec has %een dishonored for lac of ins$fficienc# 
of f$nds shall %e pri&a facie evidence of deceit constit$ting false pretense or fra$d$lent
act. (As a&ended %# Rep$%lic Act 5o. -66 approved 7$ne 18 19,8.)
(e) # o%taining an# food refresh&ent or acco&&odation at a hotel inn resta$rant
 %oarding ho$se lodging ho$se or apart&ent ho$se and the lie witho$t pa#ing
 therefor with intent to defra$d the proprietor or &anager thereof or %# o%taining credit
at a hotel inn resta$rant %oarding ho$se lodging ho$se or apart&ent ho$se %# the
$se of an# false pretense or %# a%andoning or s$rreptitio$sl# re&oving an# part of his
 %aggage fro& a hotel inn resta$rant %oarding ho$se lodging ho$se or apart&ent
ho$se after o%taining credit food refresh&ent or acco&&odation therein witho$t
pa#ing for his food refresh&ent or acco&&odation. (As a&ended %# Co&. Act 5o. 18.)
3. Thro$gh an# of the following fra$d$lent &eans:
(a) # ind$cing another %# &eans of deceit to sign an# doc$&ent.
(%) # resorting to so&e fra$d$lent practice to ins$re s$ccess in a ga&%ling ga&e.
(c) # re&oving concealing or destro#ing in whole or in part an# co$rt record office
files doc$&ent or an# other papers.
 ' '.

1!1! In the case of DIONISIO AW a.k.a. TONY GO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

GR No. 182276, Marc 2!, 2"1" , the elements of Estafa were discussed by the Supreme Court,
thus:

Xxx!

T2$ $l$m$nts o+ Estafa &n($% A%ti*l$ 3.4 Pa%a5%ap2 ./B0 o+ t2$ R$#is$( P$nal Co($
a%$-

/a0 t2at mon$, 5oo(s o% ot2$% p$%sonal p%op$%t, is %$*$i#$( 6, t2$ o++$n($% in t%&st
o% on *ommission o% +o% a(minist%ation o% &n($% an, ot2$% o6li5ation in#ol#in5 t2$ (&t,
to ma7$ ($li#$%, o+ o% to %$t&%n t2$ sam$!

/60 t2at t2$%$ 6$ misapp%op%iation o% *on#$%sion o+ s&*2 mon$, o% p%op$%t, 6, t2$

o++$n($% o% ($nial on 2is pa%t o+ s&*2 %$*$ipt

/*0 t2at s&*2 misapp%op%iation o% *on#$%sion o% ($nial is to t2$ p%$8&(i*$ o+ anot2$%9

an(

/(0 t2$%$ is ($man( 6, t2$ o++$n($( pa%t, to t2$ o++$n($%!

T2$ +i%st $l$m$nt o+ Estafa &n($% A%ti*l$ 3.4 Pa%a5%ap2 ./B0 is t2$ %$*$ipt 6, t2$
o++$n($% o+ t2$ mon$, 5oo(s o% ot2$% p$%sonal p%op$%t, in t%&st o% on *ommission o%
+o% a(minist%ation o% &n($% an, ot2$% o6li5ation in#ol#in5 t2$ (&t, to ma7$ ($li#$%, o+ o% 
to %$t&%n t2$ sam$!

X x x!

:$ n$xt t&%n to t2$ s$*on( $l$m$nt o+ Estafa &n($% A%ti*l$ 3.4 Pa%a5%ap2 ./B0 nam$l,
p%$8&(i*$ an( t2$ t2i%( $l$m$nt t2$%$in o+ misapp%op%iation!
 T2$ $ss$n*$ o+ Estafa &n($% A%ti*l$ 3.4 pa%a5%ap2 ./60 is t2$ app%op%iation o%
*on#$%sion o+ mon$, o% p%op$%t, %$*$i#$( to t2$ p%$8&(i*$ o+ t2$ o;n$%! T2$ ;o%(s
<*on#$%t= an( <misapp%op%iat$= *onnot$ an a*t o+ &sin5 o% (isposin5 o+ anot2$%>s
p%op$%t, as i+ it ;$%$ on$>s o;n o% o+ ($#otin5 it to a p&%pos$ o% &s$ (i++$%$nt +%om t2at
a5%$$( &pon! To misapp%op%iat$ +o% on$>s o;n &s$ in*l&($s not onl, *on#$%sion to on$>s
p$%sonal a(#anta5$ 6&t also $#$%, att$mpt to (ispos$ o+ t2$ p%op$%t, o+ anot2$% ;it2o&t
%i52t!

X x x!

2.3. In t2$ *as$ o+ ROSITA SY s. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, !.R. N". #$3$%&,
A'()* #+, 2#  (is*&ss$( t2$ ;a,s o+ *ommittin5 t2$ +$lon, o+ $sta+a t2&s-

X x x!

T2$ sol$ iss&$ +o% %$sol&tion is ;2$t2$% S, s2o&l( 6$ 2$l( lia6l$ +o%  estafa p$nali?$(
&n($% A%ti*l$ 3.4 pa%a5%ap2 1/a0 o+ t2$ R$#is$( P$nal Co($ /RPC0!

S;in(lin5 o% estafa is p&nis2a6l$ &n($% A%ti*l$ 3.4 o+ t2$ RPC! T2$%$ a%$ t2%$$ ;a,s o+
*ommittin5 estafa viz !- /.0 ;it2 &n+ait2+&ln$ss o% a6&s$ o+ *on+i($n*$9 /10 6, m$ans o+
+als$ p%$t$ns$s o% +%a&(&l$nt a*ts9 o% /30 t2%o&52 +%a&(&l$nt m$ans! T2$ t2%$$ ;a,s o+
*ommittin5 estafa ma, 6$ %$(&*$( to t;o i.e! /.0 6, m$ans o+ a6&s$ o+ *on+i($n*$9 o%
/10 6, m$ans o+ ($*$it!

T2$ $l$m$nts o+ estafa in 5$n$%al a%$ t2$ +ollo;in5- /a0 t2at an a**&s$( ($+%a&($(
anot2$% 6, a6&s$ o+ *on+i($n*$ o% 6, m$ans o+ ($*$it9 an( /60 t2at (ama5$ an(
p%$8&(i*$ *apa6l$ o+ p$*&nia%, $stimation is *a&s$( t2$ o++$n($( pa%t, o% t2i%( p$%son!

T2$ a*t *omplain$( o+ in t2$ instant *as$ is p$nali?$( &n($% A%ti*l$ 3.4 pa%a5%ap2 1/a0
o+ t2$ RPC ;2$%$in estafa is *ommitt$( 6, an, p$%son ;2o s2all ($+%a&( anot2$% 6,
+als$ p%$t$ns$s o% +%a&(&l$nt a*ts $x$*&t$( p%io% to o% sim&ltan$o&sl, ;it2 t2$
*ommission o+ t2$ +%a&(! It is *ommitt$( 6, &sin5 +i*titio&s nam$ o% 6, p%$t$n(in5 to
poss$ss po;$% in+l&$n*$ @&ali+i*ations p%op$%t, *%$(it a5$n*, 6&sin$ss o% ima5ina%,
t%ansa*tions o% 6, m$ans o+ ot2$% simila% ($*$its!

T2$ $l$m$nts o+ estafa 6, m$ans o+ ($*$it a%$ t2$ +ollo;in5 viz !- /a0 t2at t2$%$ m&st 6$
a +als$ p%$t$ns$ o% +%a&(&l$nt %$p%$s$ntation as to 2is po;$% in+l&$n*$ @&ali+i*ations
p%op$%t, *%$(it a5$n*, 6&sin$ss o% ima5ina%, t%ansa*tions9 /60 t2at s&*2 +als$ p%$t$ns$
o% +%a&(&l$nt %$p%$s$ntation ;as ma($ o% $x$*&t$( p%io% to o% sim&ltan$o&sl, ;it2 t2$
*ommission o+ t2$ +%a&(9 /*0 t2at t2$ o++$n($( pa%t, %$li$( on t2$ +als$ p%$t$ns$
+%a&(&l$nt a*t o% +%a&(&l$nt m$ans an( ;as in(&*$( to pa%t ;it2 2is mon$, o% p%op$%t,9
an( /(0 t2at as a %$s&lt t2$%$o+ t2$ o++$n($( pa%t, s&++$%$( (ama5$!
 X x x!

2.+. In t2$ *as$ o+ FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS a CARMELITA C. LLAMAS s. THE
HONORA/LE COURT OF APPEALS, /RANCH 00 OF THE RE!IONAL TRIAL
COURT OF MA1ATI CITY a THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, !R N". #+&$$,
A4st #0, 2#  it ;as 2$l( amon5 ot2$% t2in5s t2at DAMA)E is an $l$m$nt o+
$sta+a t2&s-

X x x!

 A%ti*l$ 3. /10 o+ t2$ R$#is$( P$nal Co($ stat$s-

 ART! 3.! Ot2$% +o%ms o+ s;in(lin5! ' T2$ p$nalt, o+ a%%$sto ma,o% in its minim&m an(
m$(i&m p$%io(s an( a +in$ o+ not l$ss t2an t2$ #al&$ o+ t2$ (ama5$ *a&s$( an( not
mo%$ t2an t2%$$ tim$s s&*2 #al&$ s2all 6$ impos$( &pon-

xxx

1! An, p$%son ;2o 7no;in5 t2at %$al p%op$%t, is $n*&m6$%$( s2all (ispos$ o+ t2$
sam$ alt2o&52 s&*2 $n*&m6%an*$ 6$ not %$*o%($(9

xxx

In $#$%, *%iminal p%os$*&tion t2$ Stat$ m&st p%o#$ 6$,on( %$asona6l$ (o&6t all t2$
$l$m$nts o+ t2$ *%im$ *2a%5$( an( t2$ *ompli*it, o% pa%ti*ipation o+ t2$ a**&s$(!

Fo% p$tition$%s to 6$ *on#i*t$( o+ t2$ *%im$ o+ s;in(lin5 &n($% A%ti*l$ 3. /10 o+ t2$
R$#is$( P$nal Co($ t2$ p%os$*&tion 2a( t2$ 6&%($n to p%o#$ t2$ *on+l&$n*$ o+ t2$
+ollo;in5 $ss$ntial $l$m$nts o+ t2$ *%im$-

.! t2at t2$ t2in5 (ispos$( o+ 6$ %$al p%op$%t,9

1! t2at t2$ o++$n($% 7n$; t2at t2$ %$al p%op$%t, ;as $n*&m6$%$(
;2$t2$% t2$ $n*&m6%an*$ is %$*o%($( o% not9

3! t2at t2$%$ m&st 6$ $xp%$ss %$p%$s$ntation 6, t2$ o++$n($% t2at t2$ %$al p%op$%t, is
+%$$ +%om $n*&m6%an*$9 an(

! t2at t2$ a*t o+ (isposin5 o+ t2$ %$al p%op$%t, 6$ ma($ to t2$ (ama5$ o+ anot2$%!

On$ o+ t2$ $ss$ntial $l$m$nts o+ s;in(lin5 &n($% A%ti*l$ 3. pa%a5%ap2 1 is t2at t2$ a*t
o+ (isposin5 t2$ $n*&m6$%$( %$al p%op$%t, is ma($ to t2$ (ama5$ o+ anot2$%! In t2is
*as$ n$it2$% t2$ t%ial *o&%t no% t2$ CA ma($ an, +in(in5 o+ an, (ama5$ to t2$ o++$n($(
pa%t,! No;2$%$ in t2$ D$*ision o+ t2$ RTC o% t2at o+ t2$ CA is t2$%$ an, (is*&ssion t2at
 t2$%$ ;as (ama5$ s&++$%$( 6, *omplainant A#ila o% an, +in(in5 t2at 2is %i52ts o#$% t2$
p%op$%t, ;$%$ p%$8&(i*$(!

On t2$ *ont%a%, *omplainant 2a( poss$ssion an( *ont%ol o+ t2$ lan( $#$n as t2$ *as$s
;$%$ 6$in5 2$a%(! His poss$ssion an( %i52t to $x$%*is$ (ominion o#$% t2$ p%op$%t, ;as
not (ist&%6$(! A(mitt$(l, t2$%$ ;as ($la, in t2$ ($li#$%, o+ t2$ titl$! T2is 2o;$#$% ;as
t2$ s&68$*t o+ a s$pa%at$ *as$ ;2i*2 ;as $#$nt&all, ($*i($( in p$tition$%s> +a#o%!

I+ no (ama5$ s2o&l( %$s&lt +%om t2$ sal$ no *%im$ o+ $sta+a ;o&l( 2a#$ 6$$n
*ommitt$( 6, t2$ #$n(o% as t2$ $l$m$nt o+ (ama5$ ;o&l( t2$n 6$ la*7in5! T2$
in$#ita6l$ *on*l&sion t2$%$+o%$ is t2at p$tition$%s s2o&l( 6$ a*@&itt$( o+ t2$ *%im$
*2a%5$(!

X x x! /underscoring supplied 0

1!4! T2$%$ is no p%oo+ t2at t2$ %$spon($nts int$ntionall, mali*io&sl, an( +$lonio&sl,
($*$i#$( t2$ asso*iation! R$spon($nts x x x an( x xx si5n$( t2$ @&$stion$( *2$*7 as
a&t2o%i?$( 6an7 si5nato%i$s o+ t2$ asso*iation!

/Note: R$spon($nt x x x (i( not si5n t2$ *2$*7! H$ (i( not pa%ti*ipat$ in t2$ @&$stion$(
t%ansa*tions in an, mann$%0!

1!4!.! T2$%$ is no p%oo+ t2at t2$ %$spon($nts (ama5$( t2$ asso*iation 6, &sin5 mal#$%sin5
o% *on#$%tin5 t2$ @&$stion$( amo&nt to t2$i% o;n p$%sonal &s$!

1!4!1! R$spon($nts x x x an( x x x simpl, t%ans+$%%$( t2$ amo&nt to t2$ nam$ o+ t2$ n$;
Coop$%ati#$ IN )OOD FAITH in a**o%( ;it2 t2$ +o%mal mani+$station man(at$ o%($%
;is2 an( ($si%$ o+ t2$ m$m6$%s o+ t2$ asso*iation ;2o 2a( +o%m$( a n$; Coop$%ati#$
an( ;2o 2a( man(at$( t2$ asso*iation to t%ans+$% its +&n(s ass$ts *on*$ssions an(
*ont%a*ts asso*iation to t2$ n$; Coop$%ati#$!

1!4!3! )OOD FAITH is a ($+$ns$ in  malum en se  s&*2 as $sta+a! T2is is too 6asi* an( too
$l$m$nta%, a (o*t%in$ t2at it (o$s not %$@&i%$ 8&%isp%&($ntial *itations! At an, %at$ t2$
+ollo;in5 *as$s a%$ *it$(-

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES s. CORA A/ELLA OJEDA, !.R. N"s. #+23$-$,
J5 2+ on )OOD FIATH as a ($+$ns$ in $sta+a an( mala en se!

X x x!

DECEIT AND DAMAGE AS EEMENTS !" ESTA"A

Un($% pa%a5%ap2 1 /(0 o+ A%ti*l$ 3.4 o+ t2$ RPC as am$n($( 6, RA 4 t2$ $l$m$nts
o+ $sta+a a%$- /.0 a *2$*7 is post(at$( o% iss&$( in pa,m$nt o+ an o6li5ation *ont%a*t$(
at t2$ tim$ it is iss&$(9 /10 la*7 o% ins&++i*i$n*, o+ +&n(s to *o#$% t2$ *2$*79 /30 (ama5$
to t2$ pa,$$ t2$%$o+! D565)t a a7a45 a(5 5ss5t)a* 5*575ts "f t85 "ff5s5 a
7st 95 5sta9*)s85 9: sat)sfa6t"(: '(""f t" ;a((at 6")6t)".  T2&s t2$ (%a;$%
o+ t2$ (is2ono%$( *2$*7 is 5i#$n t2%$$ (a,s +%om %$*$ipt o+ t2$ noti*$ o+ (is2ono% to
*o#$% t2$ amo&nt o+ t2$ *2$*7! Ot2$%;is$ a  prima faciep%$s&mption o+ ($*$it a%is$s!

T2$ p%os$*&tion +ail$( to p%o#$ ($*$it in t2is *as$! T2$  prima faciep%$s&mption o+
($*$it ;as s&**$ss+&ll, %$6&tt$( 6, app$llant>s $#i($n*$ o+ 5oo( +ait2 a ($+$ns$
in estafa 6, post(atin5 a *2$*7! )oo( +ait2 ma, 6$ ($monst%at$( +o% instan*$ 6, a
($6to%>s o++$% to a%%an5$ a pa,m$nt s*2$m$ ;it2 2is *%$(ito%! In t2is *as$ t2$ ($6to%
not onl, ma($ a%%an5$m$nts +o% pa,m$nt9 as *omplainant 2$%s$l+ *at$5o%i*all, stat$(
t2$ ($6to%"app$llant +&ll, pai( t2$ $nti%$ amo&nt o+ t2$ (is2ono%$( *2$*7s!

It m&st 6$ not$( t2at o&% R$#is$( P$nal Co($ ;as $na*t$( to p$nali?$ &nla;+&l a*ts
a**ompani$( 6, $#il int$nt ($nominat$( as *%im$s mala in se ! T85 '()6)'a*
6"s)5(at)" )s t85 5x)st565 "f 7a*)6)"s )t5t. T2$%$ is a *on*&%%$n*$ o+
+%$$(om int$lli5$n*$ an( int$nt ;2i*2 to5$t2$% ma7$ &p t2$ <*%iminal min(= 6$2in( t2$
<*%iminal a*t!= T2&s to *onstit&t$ a *%im$ t2$ a*t m&st 5$n$%all, an( in most *as$s 6$
a**ompani$( 6, a *%iminal int$nt! Actus non facit reum# nisi mens sit rea. N" 6()75 )s
6"77)tt5 )f t85 7) "f t85 '5(s" '5(f"(7)4 t85 a6t 6"7'*a)5 "f )s
)"65t. As ;$ 2$l( in Ta$uena vs! Sandigan$a%an# &'( SC)A **& +,--/. -

T2$ %&l$ ;as %$it$%at$( in 0eople v. 0acana  alt2o&52 t2is *as$ in#ol#$( +alsi+i*ation o+
p&6li* (o*&m$nts an( $sta+a-

<O%(ina%il, $#il int$nt m&st &nit$ ;it2 an &nla;+&l a*t +o% t2$%$ to 6$ a *%im$!  Actus non
facit reum# nisi mens sit rea ! T2$%$ *an 6$ no *%im$ ;2$n t2$ *%iminal min( is ;antin5!=

 Am$%i*an 8&%isp%&($n*$ $*2o$s t2$ sam$ p%in*ipl$! It a(2$%$s to t2$ #i$; t2at *%iminal
int$nt in $m6$??l$m$nt is not 6as$( on t$*2ni*al mista7$s as to t2$ l$5al $++$*t o+ a
t%ansa*tion 2on$stl, $nt$%$( into an( t2$%$ *an 6$ no $m6$??l$m$nt i+ t2$ min( o+ t2$
p$%son (oin5 t2$ a*t is inno*$nt o% i+ t2$%$ is no ;%on5+&l p&%pos$!

X x x! 1underscoring supplied2.

 By Analogy:
FRANCISCO M. LECAROZ and LENLIE LECAROZ, vs.SANDIGANBAYAN
and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 13087, Ma!"# $, 1%%%  re:
PR!;<PT+=5 => ==? >A+T@ .

 ' '.

The r$le is that an# &istae on a do$%tf$l or diffic$lt 0$estion of law &a# %e the %asis of 
good faith. +n Cabungcal v. Cordova, No. L-16934, 31 July, 1964, 11 SCRA 54 we
affir&ed the doctrine that an erroneo$s interpretation of the &eaning of the provisions
of an ordinance %# a cit# &a#or does not a&o$nt to %ad faith that wo$ld entitle an
aggrieved part# to da&ages against that official. e reiterated this principle in !abu"ol 
v. #a$cual which held that p$%lic officials &a# not %e lia%le for da&ages in the discharge
 of their official f$nctions a%sent an# %ad faith. Sand%r$ v. &%r'd'ano (( e'panded the
concept %# declaring that $nder the law on p$%lic officers acts done in the perfor&ance
of official d$t# are protected %# the pres$&ption of good faith.

 ' '.

1!4!! X x x!

1!4!4! X x x!

2.6. X x x.

2.. In the case of PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FELI#IANO ANA$E %

#APILLAN, G.R. No. 17!"&& , S'()'*+'r 6, 2"1" , where conspiracy was not pro!ed, the
Supreme Court held, thus:

 X x x. "hile conspiracy was alle#ed in the Informations, it was not established durin# the trial.

Conspiracy as a basis for con!iction must rest on no thin# less than a moral certainty. Considerin#
the far$reachin# conse%uences of a criminal conspiracy, the same de#ree of proof necessary in
establishin# the crime is re%uired to support the attendance thereof, i.e., it must be shown to exist
as clearly and con!incin#ly as the commission of the offense itself. "hile conspiracy need not
 be established by direct e!idence, it is nonetheless re%uired that it be pro!ed by clear and
con!incin# e!idence by showin# a series of acts done by each of the accused in concert and in
 pursuance of the common unlawful purpose.

In the present case, there is want of e!idence to show the concerted acts of appellant, Conrada
and &elicita 'albeit already dischar#ed( in pursuin# a common desi#n ) to rob *y. +he
 prosecution in fact appears to ha!e abandoned the theory of conspiracy alto#ether, no e!idence
thereof ha!in# been presented.  Absent proof of conspiracy, appellant may only be held
accountable for acts that are imputable to him with moral certainty .

X x x.

1!! I +-E CSE /& ROSIE -IDET S. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. NO. 17"28!,
APRIL 8, 2"1", I+ "S -E01, +-*S:

Conspi%a*, m&st 6$ p%o#$( as *l$a%l, an( *on#in*in5l, as t2$ *ommission o+ t2$

o++$ns$ its$l+ +o% it is a +a*il$ ($#i*$ 6, ;2i*2 an a**&s$( ma, 6$ $nsna%$( an( 7$pt
;it2in t2$ p$nal +ol(! In *as$ o+ %$asona6l$ (o&6t as to its $xist$n*$ t2$ 6alan*$ tips in
+a#o% o+ t2$ mil($% +o%m o+ *%iminal lia6ilit, as ;2at is at sta7$ is t2$ a**&s$(>s li6$%t,!
:$ appl, t2$s$ p%in*ipl$s in t2is *as$!

X x x!
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an a#reement concernin# the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it. +he essence of conspiracy is the unity of action and purpose. Its elements,
lie the physical acts constitutin# the crime itself, must be pro!ed beyond reasonable doubt. "hen there is
conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.

Conspiracy can be inferred from and established by the acts of the accused themsel!es when said acts
 point to a 3oint purpose and desi#n, concerted action and community of interests. -owe!er, in
determinin# whether conspiracy exists, it is not sufficient that the attac be 3oint and simultaneous for
simultaneousness does not of itself demonstrate the concurrence of will or unity of action and purpose
which are the bases of the responsibility of the assailants. "hat is determinati!e is proof establishin# that
the accused were animated by one and the same purpose.

X x x.

+here is no %uestion that 4a person may be con!icted for the criminal act of another where, between them,
there has been conspiracy or unity of purpose and intention in the commission of the crime char#ed.4 It is,
liewise, settled that 4to establish conspiracy, it is not necessary to pro!e pre!ious a#reement to commit a
crime, if there is proof that the malefactors ha!e acted in consort and in pursuance of the same ob3ecti!e.4
 e!ertheless, 4the e!idence to pro!e the same must be positi!e and

con!incin#. s a facile de!ice by which an accused may be ensnared and ept within the penal fold,
conspiracy re%uires conclusi!e proof if we are to maintain in full stren#th the substance of the time$
honored principle in criminal law re%uirin# proof beyond reasonable doubt before con!iction.4

X x x.

5oreo!er, althou#h the appellant and his co$accused acted with some de#ree of simultaneity in attacin#
the deceased, ne!ertheless, the same is insufficient to pro!e conspiracy. +he rule is well$settled that
4simultaneousness does not of itself demonstrate the concurrence of will nor the unity of action and
 purpose which are the basis of the responsibility of two or more indi!iduals.4 +o establish common
responsibility it is not sufficient that the attac be 3oint and simultaneous it is necessary that the assailants
 be animated by one and the same purpose. In the case at bar, the appellant 7aymundo 8istido and the
accused 9epito 5ontao, did not act pursuant to the same ob3ecti!e. +hus, the purpose of the latter was to
ill as shown by the fact that he inflicted a mortal wound below the abdomen of the deceased which
caused his death. /n the other hand, the act of the appellant in #i!in# the deceased one fist blow after the
latter was stabbed by the accused 9epito 5ontao ) an act which is certainly unnecessary and not
indispensable for the consummation of the criminal assault ) does not indicate a purpose to ill the
deceased, but merely to 4show off4 or express his sympathy or feelin# of camaraderie with the accused
9epito 5ontao. +hus, in People vs. Portugueza, this Court held that:

X x x.

;y and lar#e, the e!idence for the prosecution failed to show the existence of conspiracy which,
accordin# to the settled rule, must be shown to exist as clearly and con!incin#ly as the crime itself. In the
absence of conspiracy, the liability of the defendants is separate and indi!idual, each is liable for his own
acts, the dama#e caused thereby, and the conse%uences thereof. "hile the e!idence shows that the
 appellant boxed the deceased, it is, howe!er, silent as to the extent of the in3uries, in which case, the
appellant should be held liable only for sli#ht physical in3uries.

"e reach the same conclusion here. &or failure of the prosecution to pro!e conspiracy beyond
reasonable doubt, petitioner<s liability is separate and indi!idual. X x x.

1!! X x x!!

1!.! T2$ %$spon($nts %$s$%#$ t2$ %i52t to +il$ a SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAIT x x x!

1!..! T2$ %$spon($nts %$s$%#$ t2$ %i52t to +il$ a REJOINDER"AFFIDAIT!

PRAYER

<HEREFORE, p%$mis$s *onsi($%$( it is %$sp$*t+&ll, p%a,$( t2at t2$ instant

*%iminal *omplaint 6$ DISMISSED +o% la*7 o+ m$%it!

F(t85(  t2$ %$spon($nts %$sp$*t+&ll, p%a, +o% s&*2 an( ot2$% %$li$+s as ma, 6$
($$m$( 8&st an( $@&ita6l$ in t2$ p%$mis$s!

X x x Cit, x x x!

Xxx xxx
R5s'"5t R5s'"5t

Xxx
R5s'"5t

SUBSCRIBED an( s;o%n to 6$+o%$ m$ on x x x in x x x Cit,!

Assistant Cit% 0rosecutor