People vs.

Gaffud
December 22, 2012 by Lagangang Butas

People vs. Gaffud G.R. No. 168050. September 19, 2008 Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines Accused-appellant: Bernardino Gaffud Ponente: C.J. Puno FACTS: Accused-appellant Bernardino Gaffud, Jr. was found guilty of two (2) counts of murder for killing Manuel Salvador and Analyn Salvador by means of fire. Evidence for the prosecution presented the following: 1) That on the night of May 10, 1994, Orly Salvador, while on his way to the house of his uncle Manuel Salvador, heard two gunshots and thereafter saw the house of his uncle burning. He saw three persons within the vicinity of the burning house, one of whom he identified as appellant Gaffud, Jr. 2) That Dan Dangpal, neighbor of the deceased, at about 8:00 PM that evening, heard successive gunshots and saw the deceaseds house burning. 3) That prior the incident, Barangay Captain Potado Ballang saw the appellant a few meters away from the house of the deceased. 4) That earlier that day, Dominga Salvador, common-law wife of Manuel Salvador and mother of Analyn Salvador, went to the house of the appellant to inquire about her husbands share in the construction of the barangay hall. Dominga also related that had earlier filed a complaint against the appellant and his brother for slaughtering her pig. In his appeal, the appellant argued that the court failed to rule and resolve whether or not conspiracy existed, despite the fact that there was no proof as to what overt acts he committed which would constitute the crime of murder. ISSUE: 1) Whether or not there was conspiracy. 2) Whether or not accused-appellant should be held liable for two (2) separate counts of murder or for the complex crime of double murder. HELD: 1) Conspiracy, in this case, is not essential. The rule is that in the absence of evidence showing the direct participation of the accused in the commission of the crime, conspiracy must be established by clear and convincing evidence in order to convict the accused. In the case at bar, however, direct participation of accused-appellant in the killing of the victims was established beyond doubt by the evidence of the prosecution. Thus, a finding of conspiracy is no longer essential for the conviction of accused-appellant.

2) No. The Court ruled that in a complex crime, although two or more crimes are actually committed, they constitute only one crime in the eyes of the law as well as in the conscience of the offender. The burning the house of Manuel Salvador, with the main objective of killing the latter and his daughter, resulting in their deaths resulted in the complex crime of double murder. Hence, there is only one penalty imposed for the commission of a complex crime.