EDWINA RIMANDO Y FERNANDO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Edwina Rimando versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is Edwina Rimando versus People of the Philippines, a criminal case that began with a charge of illegal possession and use of false treasury or bank notes under Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code. Edwina Rimando and her husband Romeo Rimando were accused of conspiring to possess one hundred pieces of counterfeit one hundred United States dollar notes with intent to use them. The case matters because the Supreme Court acquitted Edwina on the ground that her participation in the alleged conspiracy was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, even as it sustained the conviction of her husband. It is a clean teaching case on the strict proof required for conspiracy, and on the difference between mere presence and actual cooperation.

Procedural History

An Information was filed against Romeo Rimando and Edwina Rimando before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 137 of Makati City. After trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered its Decision on February 6, 2014, finding both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense defined in Article 168 and penalized in Article 166, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. Each was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of eight years and one day of prision mayor in its medium period as minimum, to ten years, eight months and one day of prision mayor in its maximum period as maximum, to pay a fine of five thousand pesos, and to pay the costs. The trial court also directed the burning of the counterfeit notes.

Both accused appealed to the Court of Appeals, assigning errors on the sufficiency of the evidence, the validity of the entrapment operation, the identity of the counterfeit notes, and the credibility of the prosecution agents. The Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated September 6, 2016, denied the appeal and affirmed the trial court in all respects. Romeo initially signified his intention to appeal to the Supreme Court but later withdrew his appeal through a letter dated March 16, 2017. Edwina filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court on October 7, 2016, and the case reached the Supreme Court by that petition.

Facts

Sometime in July 2012, the office of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas received information from a confidential informant that a certain Pastor Danny, a certain Datu Romy, and their cohorts were involved in the distribution, manufacture, and printing of counterfeit United States dollar notes. The information was validated through surveillance. On September 5, 2012, a test-buy was conducted at the Farmer's Market in Cubao, Quezon City, where Alex Muñez, a bank officer of the Bangko Sentral, bought three pieces of one hundred dollar counterfeit notes at five hundred pesos per piece.

On the morning of September 14, 2012, Romeo Rimando called Alex Muñez and offered to sell one hundred pieces of one hundred dollar counterfeit notes at five hundred pesos per piece. An entrapment team was formed, and a meeting was set at a restaurant along Makati Avenue. Romeo arrived accompanied by his wife, Edwina. Romeo handed the counterfeit notes to Alex Muñez, who gave Romeo the marked money. Romeo then went over to Edwina and placed the money inside her bag. The prearranged signal was given, and both were arrested. The notes were later examined by the Currency Analysis and Redemption Division of the Bangko Sentral and certified to be counterfeit, and a special agent of the United States Secret Service confirmed that they had been printed with an inkjet printer rather than by the genuine printing methods.

Edwina testified for the defense that she had gone to Makati upon the invitation of a certain Pong to meet a certain Emily about an old coins transaction, and that she and her husband were suddenly apprehended by the agents. She claimed that an agent took her bag and placed inside it something wrapped in plastic, and that she was interrogated and threatened. The trial court and the Court of Appeals gave credence to the prosecution witnesses and convicted both accused.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of Edwina Rimando for violation of Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Whether or not Edwina Rimando conspired with her husband Romeo Rimando in the illegal possession and use of the counterfeit notes.
• Whether or not the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Edwina Rimando performed an overt act in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy.

Applicable Provisions

Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code, under which Edwina was charged, provides:

Article 168. Illegal possession and use of false treasury or bank notes and other instruments of credit. Unless the act be one of those coming under the provisions of any of the preceding articles, any person who shall knowingly use or have in his possession, with intent to use any of the false or falsified instruments referred to in this section, shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed in said articles.

This provision defines the crime charged and supplies its elements, which the Court uses to test whether Edwina's guilt was proved.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court sustained the findings of the Court of Appeals on the validity of the entrapment operation and on the existence of all the elements of the crime as to Romeo. It noted that while it is not a trier of facts and will not generally entertain questions of fact in a petition under Rule 45, an appeal in a criminal case throws the whole case open for review, and the Court is duty-bound to correct palpable errors affecting the right to liberty.

On the second issue, however, the Court disagreed with the finding of conspiracy as to Edwina. It held that conspiracy requires the same degree of proof required to establish the crime beyond reasonable doubt, and that mere presence at the scene of the crime without proof of cooperation or agreement to cooperate is not enough. The Court quoted its earlier ruling in Bahilidad versus People:

There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy is not presumed. Like the physical acts constituting the crime itself, the elements of conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court held that none of the elements of the crime were present in Edwina's case. The prosecution did not prove that she was even aware of the counterfeit notes, and there was no showing that she had a hand or active participation in the illegal transaction. She was not present during the test-buy and was not spotted during the surveillance. The Court stressed that to establish conspiracy, evidence of actual cooperation rather than mere cognizance or approval of an illegal act is required, and that mere knowledge, acquiescence, or approval of the act, without the cooperation or agreement to cooperate, is not enough.

On the third issue, the Court held that the fact that Edwina accompanied her husband at the restaurant and allowed him to place the money inside her bag was not sufficient to justify a conclusion of conspiracy. To hold an accused liable as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, she must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance of the conspiracy. The Court defined an overt act as some physical activity or deed indicating the intention to commit a particular crime, more than mere planning or preparation, which if carried out to its complete termination will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense. The record was bereft of any hint that Edwina cooperated in the commission of the crime. Where the inculpatory facts are capable of two or more explanations, one consistent with innocence and the other with guilt, the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and cannot support a conviction. Exoneration must then be granted as a matter of right.

Doctrine

Conspiracy is not presumed. Like the physical acts constituting the crime itself, the elements of conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Mere presence at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission, without proof of cooperation or agreement to cooperate, is not enough to constitute one a party to a conspiracy. To hold an accused liable as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, the accused must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or in furtherance of the conspiracy. Mere knowledge, acquiescence, or approval of the act, without cooperation or agreement to cooperate, is not enough; there must be intentional participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose. Under Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code, the elements are that the note is forged or falsified by another person, that the offender knows it is forged or falsified, and that the offender used it or possessed it with intent to use it.

Disposition

The Court reversed and set aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated September 6, 2016, and acquitted Edwina Rimando on the ground that her guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Remember This

Memorize this line: conspiracy requires the same degree of proof as the crime itself, and mere presence without an overt act of cooperation does not make one a conspirator. Examiners like to use this case to test whether a bar candidate will convict on suspicion when the evidence admits an explanation consistent with innocence.