People v. De Vera y GarciaG.R. No. 128966. August 18, 1999.Panganiban, J.
acts! Edwin de Vera y Garcia, together with Roderick Garcia, Kenneth Florendo and ElmerCastro, ElmerCastro, was charged with Murder before the Regional Trial Court of ue!on City inconnection inconnection with the killing of one Frederick Ca"ulong# $e Vera and Garcia "leaded no t guilty during arraignment# The other two accused, Florendo and Castro, were at large# $uring trial, the"rosecution "resented as witness one %ernardino Cacao who testified that he saw $e Vera in thecar, where an altercation later occurred# Thereafter, he saw Florendo drag out of the &ehicle ana""arently ana""arently disabled Ca"ulong and shot him in the head moments later. Aside from Cacao’s testimony, the "rosecution also "resented established thathe knew that Florendo Florendo intended to De Vera’s extrajudicial statement which established
kill the &ictim and that the three three co'accused were were carrying wea"ons and that he acted as a lookout to watch for "assersby# Thereafter, the trial court con&icted$e Vera and his co' accused Garcia of the crime charged and sentenced them to suffer the "enalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered to indemnify the heirs of the &ictim#(n ruling that the crime committed was murder, the trial court found that the killing wasattended by treachery, e&ident "remeditation "remeditation and abuse of su"erior strength# )ne of these wasenough to *ualify *ualify the crime crime as murder+ the two two others constituted constituted generic generic aggra&ating circumstances# circumstances# The trial court explained that the evidence established evident premeditation, for Florendo’s grou"acted with deliberate forethought and tenacious "ersistence in the accom"lishment of the criminaldesign# Treachery was also "ro&en, because the attack was "lanned "lanned and "erformed in such a way asto asto guarantee the eecution eecution of the criminal criminal design without risk to the grou"# There was also abuse of su"erior strength, strength, because the attackers took ad&antage of their su"eriority in numbers and wea"ons#Furthermore, the trial court found that it was indeed Florendo who actually shot the &ictim#-owe&er, it con&icted $e Vera as a "rinci"al because the scientific and forensic findings on thecriminal incident directly and substantially confirmed the eistence of cons"iracy among the fouraccused# .ggrie&ed, de Vera a""ealed his con&iction before the /u"reme Court# "ssue! 0hether or not not the trial court court erred in con&icting con&icting $e Vera as "rinci"al1 "rinci"al1 #el$! 2es# The testimony testimony of the "rosecution "rosecution eyewitness eyewitness contained nothing nothing that could could incul"ate $e Vera# .side from the fact that he was inside the car, no other act was im"uted to him# Mere"resence does not amount to cons"iracy# (ndeed, the trial court based its finding of cons"iracy on mere "resum"tions, and not on solid facts indubitably indicating a common design to commit murder# /uch su""ositions do not constitute "roof beyond reasonable reasonable doubt#
The fact that $e Vera was at the locus criminis in order to aid and abet the commission of the crime did not make him acons"irator+ at most, he was only an accom"lice# Moreo&er, the "rosecution e&idence has notestablished that $e Vera was "art of the cons"iracy to kill Ca"ulong# $e Vera ’s participation, as culled from his own statement, was made after the decision to kill was already a fait accompli#
