PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF, VS. JAMES ARHIS (AS PRINCIPAL BY INDUCEMENT), JESUS SATURNINO ALIAS JESS AND HENRY DEL ROSARIO DIZON (AS PRINCIPALS BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION…

People versus Arhis

The Case

This is People versus Arhis, a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted James Arhis, Jesus Saturnino, and Henry Dizon for the killing of Baldasan Tiongan. Arhis was charged as a principal by inducement, while Saturnino and Dizon were charged as principals by direct participation. The case matters to a reviewee because it is a compact, teachable illustration of two doctrines that examiners love: how conspiracy is proved from conduct before, during, and after the crime, and the rule that once conspiracy is established, every conspirator answers for the killing unless he proves he tried to prevent it.

Procedural History

The information for murder was filed against the three accused. Co-accused Jesus Saturnino pleaded guilty to the offense charged and was sentenced accordingly. Trial then proceeded against James Arhis and Henry Dizon, with Saturnino testifying as the principal witness for the prosecution. The Court of First Instance of Baguio and Benguet, Branch Three, convicted Arhis and Dizon of murder qualified by treachery, evident premeditation, and abuse of superior strength, sentencing each to reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties, ordering them to indemnify the heirs in the amount of 12,000 pesos, to pay 21,000 pesos in actual expenses incurred from the wake up to the burial, and to pay the costs. Arhis and Dizon appealed the judgment directly to the Supreme Court.

Facts

In the morning of November 20, 1974, Jesus Saturnino was at his residence on Ferguson Road in Baguio City when James Arhis, from his house about five yards away, whistled for him to come over. They took lunch and a siesta at the house of Arhis' mother on Rimando Road. Upon waking, Arhis began discussing a planned robbery and drew a sketch showing how to reach the house of Baldasan Tiongan, the intended victim. Saturnino copied the sketch because Arhis' own drawing was hard to understand. Arhis also asked Saturnino to tell a certain Attorney Palaganas to hold the filing of an estafa case against Arhis until the following day, and Saturnino did as instructed.

The next morning Arhis again whistled for Saturnino and asked, where is your companion. Saturnino fetched Henry Dizon, who said he wanted to work but had no bus fare. Saturnino told him they had a mission, and the two went to Arhis' house. There Arhis briefed them on the plan to rob and, if necessary, to kill Baldasan Tiongan. He instructed them how to reach the house using the sketch, to hit the old man if he fought back, what to steal, and the escape route. He gave them knives and one peso and twenty-five centavos for jeepney fare. They agreed that if they took money and goods worth 10,000 pesos, 8,000 pesos would be deposited in a bank and the rest divided among themselves. Unable to raise more money, Dizon pledged his wristwatch for an additional five pesos, and the two set off for Ucab, Itogon.

At the one-storey bungalow, Dizon and Saturnino, armed with knives, approached the old man seated on a round chair in the balcony. They pretended to ask for directions and then for a drink of water, which Baldasan obligingly gave. Saturnino handed water to Dizon and to Baldasan, asked for and received an empty family-sized coke bottle, and gave it to Dizon. As Saturnino stepped out of the kitchen, he saw Dizon strike Baldasan once at the nape with the empty bottle. Stunned, the old man went down the steps and stooped to pick up stones, but Saturnino stabbed him on the breast and repeatedly stabbed him as he backed away shouting for help. The two fled but were caught by rescuers and neighbors along the escape route. The post-mortem examination showed five fatal stab wounds and a hematoma at the back of the head. Arhis admitted a prior business transaction with Baldasan, in which the latter received 8,700 pesos for old coins, but denied causing the murder. Dizon denied his extrajudicial confession and claimed it was Saturnino, not he, who hit the old man with the bottle.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in finding that a conspiracy existed among the three accused to commit the offense charged.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting Henry Dizon as a co-conspirator and principal in the crime of murder.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in failing to consider the facts and circumstances affecting the veracity and credibility of the testimony of Jesus Saturnino.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a statutory text; it applies the settled rule on the liability of conspirators, which the Court states in these words:

All those who participate in the conspiracy are liable for the killing, unless there is proof that they tried to prevent it.

This rule bears directly on Dizon's defense that the conspiracy covered only theft and that he desisted from the killing.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the finding of conspiracy should not be disturbed because it is logical and based on evidence in the record. Conspiracy is easily discernible from the conduct of the three accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime. Dizon accepted a knife from Saturnino, hid it in his socks, and never asked what their mission was, as any normal person would have done. Arhis and Dizon admitted being short of cash, and Arhis knew from his prior transaction that Baldasan kept money in his house. Saturnino and Dizon, strangers to Ucab, could not have pinpointed the house without the sketch Arhis had drawn.

On the second issue, the Court rejected Dizon's claim that the conspiracy covered only stealing and that he desisted from the killing. It laid down the governing rule:

All those who participate in the conspiracy are liable for the killing, unless there is proof that they tried to prevent it.

Dizon's testimony that he tried to prevent Saturnino from stabbing the victim was self-serving, uncorroborated, and did not merit serious consideration. The Court added that even disregarding Dizon's extrajudicial confession, it could not ignore Saturnino's testimony that Dizon struck the victim at the nape with the empty bottle.

On the third issue, the Court found Saturnino's testimony credible, confirmed as it was by the material allegations of his own extrajudicial confession, and held that the fact that he is an ex-convict is not sufficient to destroy his credibility.

Doctrine

First, conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence drawn from the acts of the accused before, during, and after the crime, and a finding of conspiracy supported by the record will not be disturbed on appeal. Second, the act of one conspirator is the act of all; every participant in the conspiracy is liable for the killing, and the only escape is proof that the accused tried to prevent it. Third, the testimony of a co-accused who pleaded guilty and testified for the prosecution may be credible despite a criminal record, especially when corroborated by the record and by his own confession. Fourth, the defense of desistance must be proved, not merely asserted; an uncorroborated and self-serving claim will not overcome the rule of collective liability.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, increasing the indemnity to the heirs of the deceased from 12,000 pesos to 30,000 pesos.

Remember This

Memorize the line: all those who participate in the conspiracy are liable for the killing, unless there is proof that they tried to prevent it. Examiners use this case to test conspiracy proved by circumstantial evidence and the failure of a bare, uncorroborated claim of desistance.