G.R. No. 84730 . October 28, 1991.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CONRADO GABATIN AND RICHARD GABATIN — AT LARGE, defendants, CONRADO GABATIN, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution established that on the evening of March 17, 1984, at a dance in Caniugan, Sta. Teresita, Cagayan, the victim Danilo Oreña was soliciting bids for social boxes. Without any warning or known motive, appellant Conrado Gabatin threw a beer bottle at Oreña, hitting him on the face and causing him to fall. While Oreña was on the floor, Gabatin shouted to his son Richard and his brother-in-law Pepe Sebastian, “Take out his life.” Richard Gabatin and Pepe Sebastian then immediately proceeded to stab the defenseless victim multiple times, causing his death. The assailants fled thereafter.
The defense interposed by appellant Conrado Gabatin was alibi. He claimed he stayed in his house the entire night and did not attend the dance. He asserted that only his son Richard was present and suggested the prosecution witnesses, being relatives of the victim, testified against him out of bias. A defense witness testified he was at the dance but did not see Conrado Gabatin, though he admitted leaving immediately when the commotion started and did not see the participants.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in finding the existence of an implied conspiracy among Conrado Gabatin, Richard Gabatin, and Pepe Sebastian, thereby holding appellant liable for the murder committed by his co-accused.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s finding of implied conspiracy and upheld the conviction for murder. The legal logic is that conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. It may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime, which conclusively indicates a common purpose and community of interest. Here, the acts of Conrado Gabatin—initiating the assault by throwing the bottle, which rendered the victim vulnerable, and then expressly ordering the killing—demonstrated a unity of purpose and concerted action with Richard and Pepe, who immediately executed the fatal stabbings. This sequence of events, occurring in rapid succession without any intervening act from the victim, clearly established a joint criminal purpose. Consequently, as a conspirator, appellant is liable for the acts of his co-conspirators as though he himself performed them. His defense of alibi was correctly rejected, as it cannot prevail over the positive identification by credible prosecution witnesses, and he failed to prove it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed, with the civil indemnity increased to P50,000.00.