PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MANUEL CUSTODIO Y CARILLO, ALIAS “SAYKE”, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Custodio

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Manuel Custodio, known by the alias Sayke, a criminal appeal from a conviction for murder. Custodio was one of three men charged with the killing of Jesus Dequiña on a street in Tondo, Manila. The trial court found all three guilty, sentencing two of them to reclusion perpetua and imposing the death penalty on Custodio. The case matters because it is a clean teaching vehicle on two things every reviewee must master: the strict proof required to establish conspiracy, and the rule that mere passive presence at the scene of a crime makes a person neither a co-principal nor an accomplice. It is also a lesson in how the Supreme Court weighs conflicting testimony and police records against the presumption of innocence.

Procedural History

At the commencement of trial, two of the accused, Angelito Paglicawan and Rosauro Roque, withdrew their earlier plea of not guilty and pleaded guilty, though without admitting the aggravating circumstances alleged in the information. The trial court deferred its decision until after trial. After hearing the evidence, the Court of First Instance of Manila found all three accused guilty of the crime charged. Paglicawan and Roque were sentenced to reclusion perpetua, while the death penalty was imposed on Manuel Custodio. Custodio appealed to the Supreme Court. In that appeal, his counsel de officio assigned as errors the trial court's conclusions on conspiracy and his participation. Notably, no brief was filed by the Solicitor General for the State.

Facts

Shortly before midnight on January 29, 1969, Jesus Dequiña was seated on a bench in front of a store on Masinop Street in Tondo, Manila, conversing with friends. Angelito Paglicawan approached from behind and held him by the neck, while Rosauro Roque stabbed him. Two stab wounds struck the back, fatally lacerating the lung and kidney, and a third caused an injury near the right eyebrow. The assailants fled but were later apprehended. A dagger and a bolo were recovered from them. Police interrogation in the early hours of January 30 produced written statements from Roque and Paglicawan, the former admitting the stabbing and the latter denying involvement. That same morning, Manuel Custodio was arrested upon information that he had stood guard during the crime.

The prosecution sought to prove a conspiracy planned in advance, with Custodio acting as guard. It relied on three witnesses. Angelina Malonso, the widow, testified that a month before the killing her husband had slapped Roque, and that the night before the incident she overheard the three accused near a store, with Roque saying that they would kill Jessie and Custodio remarking, why, does he have nine lives. She never warned her husband. Ricardo Sebastian, a seventeen-year-old student, testified that Paglicawan held the victim by the neck while Custodio stood guard about three arms' length away holding a bolo, and Roque stabbed the victim once. On cross-examination, however, he admitted that the bolo he identified was the one held by Paglicawan. Dominador Fabros testified that Roque stabbed the victim three times and that Custodio hacked him with a bolo, which he parried, injuring his left thumb, though he never filed a complaint.

Custodio denied everything. He testified that he had been drinking with Roque and Paglicawan earlier that evening, then took supper at his sister's house, and went out to buy cigarettes. Arriving at the Masinop Street store, he found people in commotion and ran home. Both Roque and Paglicawan testified and absolved him of any involvement. The trial court rejected his defense and found that the evidence indubitably showed a conspiracy, established chiefly by Malonso's testimony.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the existence of a conspiracy among the three accused to kill Jesus Dequiña.
• Whether or not the appellant Manuel Custodio may be held liable as a co-principal or, in the alternative, as an accomplice in the killing.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a statutory text in full, but it applies the settled rule on conspiracy, which it states as follows:

It is well to recall the settled rule that conspiracy presupposes the existence of a preconceived plan or agreement; in order to establish the existence of such a circumstance, it is not enough that the persons supposedly engaged or connected with the same be present when the crime was perpetrated.

This rule governs the first issue, because the State's whole theory rested on a prior agreement, and the Court measures that agreement against this standard.

On complicity, the Court adopts the rule from People versus Tamayo, quoted in the decision:

It is an essential condition to the existence of complicity, not only that there should be a relation between the acts done by the principal and those attributed to the person charged as accomplice, but it is further necessary that the latter, with knowledge of the criminal intent, should cooperate with the intention of supplying material or moral aid in the execution of the crime in an efficacious way.

This governs the second issue, because even if conspiracy fails, the appellant could still be liable as an accomplice only if knowledge and efficacious aid are shown.

Finally, on the burden of proof, the Court invokes the standard of moral certainty:

Only by proof beyond reasonable doubt, which requires moral certainty, a certainty that convinces and satisfies the reason and conscience of those who are to act upon it, may the presumption of innocence be overcome.

This is the lens through which the entire record is reviewed.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that conspiracy was not established. The trial court leaned on Malonso's testimony, but a careful review showed it did not support the conclusion. Custodio's remark, why, does he have nine lives, could not reasonably be inferred as agreement to commit the offense. Only Roque and Paglicawan had a prior misunderstanding with the deceased, both having admitted being slapped by him. There was no proof of any grudge on Custodio's part, and without motive his remark could have been mere innocent banter. The Court also found it incredible that a wife who knew of the earlier trouble would never warn her husband of a threat to his life. The Court stressed that conspiracy, given its far-reaching consequences, must be proved as clearly and convincingly as the crime itself.

On the second issue, the Court held that Custodio was neither co-principal nor accomplice. Only Paglicawan and Roque attacked the victim. The two witnesses who claimed Custodio stood guard gave conflicting versions. Sebastian said Custodio merely stood passively without moving; Fabros claimed Custodio hacked him, yet Sebastian, who was nearer and watching, did not corroborate this. The police booking sheets contradicted Fabros: Paglicawan's report stated it was Paglicawan who tried to hack Fabros, while Custodio's report said only that he stood as guard. Sebastian also contradicted himself on the bolo, first saying Custodio held it, then admitting it was Paglicawan's. The meeting between Custodio and the victim appeared purely accidental, and accompanying the others could have been out of good fellowship. Without knowledge of the criminal intent and without efficacious aid, his mere passive presence made him neither co-principal nor accomplice.

Doctrine

First, conspiracy requires a preconceived plan or agreement, proved by clear and convincing evidence, the same degree required for the crime itself; mere presence at the scene is not enough. Second, to be an accomplice, one must have knowledge of the principal's criminal intent and cooperate by supplying material or moral aid in an efficacious way. Third, mere passive presence at the scene of a crime does not make a person a co-principal or an accomplice. Fourth, the presumption of innocence is overcome only by proof beyond reasonable doubt, which requires moral certainty.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed the sentence appealed from and acquitted Manuel Custodio, ordering his release unless held for another legal cause, with costs de oficio.

Remember This

Memorize the line: mere passive presence at the scene of a crime does not make one a co-principal or an accomplice. Examiners use this case to test conspiracy and complicity, especially where the accused is alleged only to have stood guard.