JORGE TAER, PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

Taer versus Court of Appeals

The Case

This is the case of Jorge Taer versus the Court of Appeals and the People of the Philippines, a petition for review on certiorari decided by the Supreme Court in June 1990. Taer was convicted of cattle rustling for keeping two stolen carabaos in his yard, and he asked the Supreme Court to overturn that conviction. The case matters for two reasons a reviewee must hold on to: it is the classic illustration of how conspiracy must be proved by positive and conclusive evidence and never by mere conjecture, and it shows how a person who takes no part in the taking but profits from the effects of the crime is only an accessory after the fact, punished two degrees lower than the principal.

Procedural History

After preliminary investigation in the municipal circuit court at Valencia-Dimiao, Bohol, an information for theft of large cattle was filed in the then Court of First Instance of Bohol, sitting at Tagbilaran City. Four persons were charged: Emilio Namocatcat, Mario Cago, Jorge Taer, and Cirilo Saludes. After trial, the trial court acquitted Cago and Saludes for insufficiency of evidence, but convicted Namocatcat and Taer of theft of large cattle, appreciating nocturnity and applying Presidential Decree Number 533. Only Taer appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in full, finding that conspiracy existed between Namocatcat and Taer. Namocatcat did not appeal, so the affirmance did not affect him. Taer then filed this petition for review before the Supreme Court.

Facts

In the evening of December 5, 1981, Cirilo Saludes slept in the house of his compadre Jorge Taer at Datag, Garcia-Hernandez, Bohol, having been benighted there. At about two o'clock in the morning of December 6, Emilio Namocatcat and Mario Cago arrived at Taer's house with two male carabaos, which Namocatcat asked Taer to tend. The carabaos were left at Taer's place.

That same morning, Tirso Dalde and Eladio Palaca of Lantang, Valencia, Bohol discovered that their respective carabaos, tied the afternoon before at different grazing grounds, were missing. They searched, reported the matter to the police, and on December 15 were told by one Felipe Reyes that Dalde's lost carabao had been seen at Datag. Dalde and Palaca went there and found their carabaos tied to a bamboo thicket near Taer's house. Taer was then away in Napo attending a fiesta where he cooked for Saludes. According to Dalde and Palaca, Taer said the carabaos had reached his place tied together with no person in company. According to Taer, what he said was that Namocatcat had brought the carabaos and asked him to tell anyone looking for them that they had just strayed there. The two carabaos were taken from Taer's possession that day.

The Court of Appeals treated as proof of conspiracy the strange circumstances: the delivery at two o'clock in the morning after a fourteen-kilometer night journey, Taer's failure to be suspicious, his acceptance of the charge of tending the animals with an agreement to share the produce, his failure to tell the barangay captain living two kilometers away, and his keeping of the carabaos for ten days until they were recovered.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in finding that conspiracy existed between Taer and Namocatcat.
• Whether or not the extrajudicial confession of the co-accused Namocatcat may be used to prove that conspiracy against Taer.
• Whether or not Taer's acts made him a principal or conspirator rather than a mere accessory after the fact, and what penalty is imposable.

Applicable Provisions

Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code defines accessories:

Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any of the following manners: 1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.

This is the provision under which Taer's liability was reduced, because he took no part in the taking but profited from the stolen carabaos.

Section 8 of Presidential Decree Number 533, the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974, fixes the penalty for the principal:

Any person convicted of cattle rustling as herein defined shall, irrespective of the value of the large cattle involved, be punished by prison mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its medium period if the offense is committed without violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things.

This is the penalty from which the accessory's penalty is computed downward by two degrees.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Supreme Court disagreed with the Court of Appeals. The circumstances relied upon were, in the Court's words, mere suspicions and speculations, and did not establish conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt. The Court restated the rule:

Conspiracy must be established not by conjectures, but by positive and conclusive evidence. The same degree of proof necessary to establish the crime is required to support a finding of the presence of criminal conspiracy, which is, proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Mere knowledge of, acquiescence to, or approval of the act, without cooperation or agreement to cooperate, does not make one a party to a conspiracy absent intentional participation in the transaction to further the common design.

On the second issue, the only proof of conspiracy the prosecution could raise was Namocatcat's affidavit of confession. The Court held that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by the act, declaration, or omission of another. The testimony, being res inter alios acta — a transaction between others that cannot bind a stranger to it — cannot affect another, especially where the evidence is an extrajudicial confession of another because the accused had no opportunity to cross-examine the co-conspirator. Being uncorroborated, it could not convict Taer.

On the third issue, the Court held that at most the facts established Taer's knowledge of the crime. He did not participate in the taking, but he took part after the commission by profiting from its effects, employing the two carabaos in his farm. He was therefore only an accessory after the fact. Under Article 53 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty lower by two degrees than that for the consummated felony is imposed. Applying the rules on periods and the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court fixed the minimum at four months of arresto mayor medium and the maximum at two years of prision correccional minimum.

Doctrine

First, conspiracy must be proved by positive and conclusive evidence and with the same quantum required to prove the crime itself, which is proof beyond reasonable doubt; mere knowledge, acquiescence, or approval without cooperation or agreement to cooperate does not make one a conspirator. Second, the extrajudicial confession or admission of one accused is res inter alios acta and cannot prejudice a co-accused who had no chance to cross-examine the confessant. Third, one who takes no part in the taking but, with knowledge of the crime, profits from its effects is an accessory after the fact under Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code, and under Article 53 he suffers a penalty two degrees lower than that of the principal.

Disposition

The Supreme Court modified the decision, convicting Jorge Taer only as an accessory to cattle rustling and sentencing him to a minimum of four months and a maximum of two years, with costs.

Remember This

Memorize the line that conspiracy must be established not by conjectures but by positive and conclusive evidence, and that profiting from the effects of a crime without joining the taking makes one an accessory after the fact. Examiners use this case to test the quantum of proof for conspiracy, the res inter alios acta rule against a co-accused's confession, and the two-degree reduction of penalty for an accessory.