PEOPLE V PUGAY

G. R. No. L-74324 November 17, 1988

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
FERNANDO PUGAY y BALCITA, & BENJAMIN SAMSON y MAGDALENA, accused-appellants.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Citizens Legal Assistance Office for accused-appellants.

Ponente: MEDIALDEA J.:

FACTS:
 The deceased Miranda, a 25-year old retardate (mentally disabled), and the accused Pugay were
friends. In May 19, 1982, a fiesta fair was held in the plaza of Rosario, Cavite.
 Pugay, Samson, and their companions appeared to be drunk. They saw Miranda walking nearby
the ferris wheel and started to make fun of him by making him dance using a piece of wood to
tickle him. Pugay was not contented of what they were doing to Miranda and took a can of gas
under the engine of the ferris wheel. Pugay poured the gasoline onto the body of Miranda, and
Samson set his body on fire.
 The Rosario Police Force came to the scene of the incident, due to the report of the operator.
Everyone at the scene of the crime pointed at Pugay and Samson to be the actors. At the same
night, they gave their written statements after the said incident.
 The crime committed was with qualifying circumstance of treachery and the aggravating
circumstances of evident premeditation and superior strength, and the means employed was to
weaken the defense; that the wrong done in the commission of the crime was deliberately
augmented by causing another wrong, that is the burning of the body of Miranda.
 Both of the accussed pleaded not guilty. The court rendered a decision finding both of the
accused guilty of murder, but crediting in favor of Pugay the mitigating circumstance of lack of
intention to commit. Dispositive prortion: WHEREFORE, the accused Fernando Pugay y Balcita and Benjamin
Samson y Magdalena are pronounced guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals by direct participation of the crime of
murder for the death of Bayani Miranda, and appreciating the aforestated mitigating circumstance in favor of Pugay, he is
sentenced to a prison term ranging from twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion
temporal, as maximum, and Samson to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua together with the accessories of the law
for both of them. The accused are solidarily held liable to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of P13,940.00
plus moral damages of P10,000.00 and exemplary damages of P5,000.00.

 Both of the accused appealed and a re-investigation was commenced.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the conspiracy present in this case ensure that murder can be the crime?
***If not what are the criminal responsibilities of the accused?

HELD:
No. Conspiracy is not present in the crime. According to the definition of conspiracy, it is determined
when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy must be
proven with the same quantum of evidence as the felony itself, more specifically by proof beyond
reasonable doubt. It is not essential that there be proof as to the existence of a previous agreement to
commit a crime. It is sufficient if, at the time of commission of the crime, the accused had the same
purpose and were united in its executed.
No records showed that there were previous conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose and intention
between the accused before the commission of the crime. According to the accused there were no
animosity between them and the deceased Miranda. Their meeting was also purely coincidental. They
had only intended to tease and make fun of the deceased.
***As for the criminal responsibility of the accused:
Pugay poured the contents of the can on the body of the deceased knowing that the can contained
gasoline, as distinguished by the stinging smell. He also stated that his action was with the intention of
making fun and teasing of Miranda. As a result, he clearly failed to exercise all the diligence necessary
to avoid every undesirable consequence arising from any act that may be committed by his companions
who at the time were making fun of the deceased. It is agreeable that the Solicitor General propesed
that the accused is only guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence defined in Article 365 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended.

As for Samson, there was also no record or evidence that the accused intended or planned to kill
Miranda before the incident occurred. On the contrary, there is adequate evidence showing that his act
was merely a part of their fun-making that evening. For the circumstance of treachery to exist, the attack
must be deliberate and the culprit employed means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which
tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from any defense which
the offended party might make.There is no doubt that Samson knew that the liquid poured on the
deceased was a flammable substance, for he would not commit his act otherwise. Giving him the
benefit of doubt, it call be conceded that as part of their fun-making he merely intended to set the
deceased's clothes on fire. His act, however, does not relieve him of criminal responsibility. Burning the
clothes of the victim would cause at the very least some kind of physical injuries on his person, a felony
defined in the Revised Penal Code. If his act resulted into a graver offense, as what took place in the
instant case, he must be held responsible therefor. Article 4 of the aforesaid code provides, inter alia,
that criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful
act done be different from that which he intended.

DISPOSITIVE:
 Pugay must suffer is an indeterminate one ranging from four (4) months of arresto mayor, as
minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as maximum.
The proper penalty that the accused Samson must suffer is an indeterminate one ranging from
eight (8) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
The lower court held the accused solidarily liable for P13,940.00, the amount spent by Miranda's
parents for his hospitalization, wake and interment. The indemnity for death is P30,000.00. Hence, the
indemnity to the heirs of the deceased Miranda is increased to P43,940.00.
Both accused shall be jointly and severally liable for the aforesaid amount plus the P10,000.00 as
moral damages and P5,000.00 as exemplary damages as found by the court a quo.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed with the modifications above-indicated. Costs against the
accused-appellants.