People v.

Dadao
G.R. No. 201860 – January 22, 2014
Justice Leonardo-De Castro

Topic: Article 8 of the RPC (Conspiracy)

Petitioner: People of the Philippines
Respondent: Marcelino Dadao, Antonio Sulindao, Eddie Malogsi, and Alfemio Malogsi

Summary of the Case: the abovementioned respondents were convicted on the crime of
Murder (Article 248) for killing a certain Pionio Yacapin by using bolos and firearms where he
died consequently. The respondents raised the case to the Supreme Court but dismissed their
contentions due to lack of merits.
Doctrine:
 Art. 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony – Conspiracy and proposal to commit
felony are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty
therefor (A conspiracy exists when two or more come to an agreement concerning the
commission of the felony and decide to commit it; whereas, Proposal when the person
who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some other person or
persons.

FACTS:
Evidence of the Prosecution:
 Pionio Yacapin (The Victim)
 The prosecution presented 6 witnesses, namely:
o Ronie Dacion (14-year-old stepson of the victim) - Testified that on July 11,
1993, at about 7pm, he saw the four accused helping each other and with the
use of firearms and bolos, shot the victim in their house at Brgy. Salucot, Takalag,
Bukidnon;
o Edgar Dacion (12-year-old stepson of the victim) - Corroborates the testimony
of his older brother Ronie Dacion;
o Nenita Yacapin (The widow of the victim) - Also corroborates the testimony of
the prosecution’s first and second witness. The said witness also attested that
she suffered civil and moral damages due to the death of her husband;
o Bernandino Signawan - Testified the brothers Dacion reached to his house and
related to him that their stepfather was killed by the four acussed; he further
testified that on the following morning, the other people including the Brgy.
Captain returned to the house of the victim and saw him dead surrounded by
empty shells of firearms;
o SP02 Nestor Aznar - Testified that he was the one who prepared the sketch of
the hut where the incident happened and further testified that the four
respondents were in the custody of government and in the following morning,
he was at the scene and found 8 garand empty shells caliber 30m; and
 o Modesto Libyocan - he saw in the house of the victim lights caused by flashlights
and heard several gunshots from the house and that the family left their house
on that evening and went to Ticalaan where he learned that the victim was
killed.
Evidence of the Defense:
 The defense of the prosecution presented 7 witnesses, namely:
o Police Inspector Eddie Malogsi – Testified that on July 30, 1993, at 11am, he
conducted an examination for paraffin test on all 4 accused with the findings
that they yielded negative results;
o Eddie Malogsi – Testified that on the day of the crime, he was at the farm of a
certain Boyle together with his brother, being a worker of that farm;
o Alfemio Malogsi – Also corroborates the testimony of his brother and co-
accused, that on the said date and time aboved-metioned, he also attested he
never owned a garand rifle;
o Antonio Sulindao – Testified that on the same date, time, and place above-
mentioned, he was at Salucot together with his family and at 7:30pm, he heard
some gunshots; and he has no grudge with the victim prior to the incident;
o Fernandez Saplina – Establish the defense of denial and alibi that on the day of
the crime, accused Dadao was all the time at his house in San Fernandez, Salucot
and there was no occasion that said accused went outside or left his house.
Moreover, he also visited the accused at Municipal jail in Takalag, where he was
detained for having been the suspect in the killing;
o Camilo Dumalig – who corroborates with the testimony of Dadao and Saplina,
he was 7km from the place of the incident;
o Venancio Payonda (Father-in-law of the accused) – testified that the latter was
in the house on the day of the crime;
o Marcelino Dadao – Testified that 3 months prior on the day of the crime, he had
been staying at the house of Saplina at Salucot, which is 7km from the house of
the victim and he did not leave until the following morning.
Ruling of the RTC:
 The court finds them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and hereby
sentenced to suffer of reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay the heirs, the amount of
75k as moral damages and 20k as exemplary. Their bailbonds were ordered canceled
and detained. Pursuant to Supreme Court Admin Circular No. 2-92
Ruling of the CA:
 The appeal is dismissed and the Decision appealed from is Affirmed with the
modification the 75k as civil and 25k as temperate shall be awarded in addition to the
moral and exemplary already awarded by the lower court.
ISSUE RATIO:
 WON THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY AMONG THE RESPONDENTS IN KILLING THE VICTIM
– YES
o In the case of People v. Nelmida:
  There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and then decide to commit it. it
arises on the very instant the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to
commit the felony and forthwith decide to pursue it.
 Once established, each and every one of the conspirators is made
criminally liable for the crime actually committed by any one of them. In
the absence of any direct proof, the agreement to commit a crime may
be deduced from the mode and manner of the commission of the offense
or inferred from acts that point to joint purpose and design, concerted
action, and community of interest.
 As such, it does not matter who inflicted the mortal wound, as each of
the actors incurs criminal liability, because the act of one is the act of all.
o In the case at Bar:
 The evidence on record has established that all four accused shared a
community of criminal design. By their concerted action, it is evident that
they conspired with one another to murder the victim and should each
suffer the same criminal liability attached to the aforementioned criminal
act regardless who fired the weapon which delivered fatal wounds and
killed the victim
Dispositive:
 Wherefore, premises considered, the Decision dated May 16, 2011 of the CA is hereby
affirmed with the modifications that: (1) The amount of exemplary to be paid by
appellants Dadao, Sulindao, and Malogsi is increased from 20k to 30k; (2) The amount of
moral to be paid by the respondents abovementioned is decreased from 75k to 50k; (3)
abovementioned respondents are ordered to pay the private offended party interest on
all damages at legal rate of 6% per annum from the death of finality of this judgement;
and (4) With respect to Eddie Malogsi – where he died during his service – hereby
dismissed.