10. PEOPLE v MARCO 8. Case 1: subject of this case.

TC: for such act of Rafael, he was guilty of slight

G.R. Nos. L-28324-5 May 19, 1978 physical injuries, since “it is safe to assume that at that moment there was
no intent to kill any one”
PETITIONER: The People Of The Philippines 9. Case 2: Rafael GUILTY as Simeon and Beltran of killing Bienvenido, the
RESPONDENT: Rafael Marco, Simeon Marco And Dulcisimo Beltran, Defendants. theory beign that there was obvious conspiracy among there
Rafael Marco 10. Trouble of evidence is that it is vague and incomplete.
PONENTE: Barredo a. Case 1: relative positions and distances from each other of Marcoses
TOPIC: Wrongful act different from that intended (Art. 4) were NOT RELEAVED. We are not safe to conclude that there was
DOCTRINE: concerted action between the 3. TC CORRECT IN ACQUITTING
 RPC Art.4 par 1: "criminal liability shall be incurred by any person SIMEON and holding RAFAEL GUILTY only of slight physical
committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different injuries instead of frustrated murder
from that which he intended." b. Case 2: Court is at loss as to what Bienvenido was actually doing and
 One who commits an intentional felony is responsible for all the what participation he had at the early stages of the incident, when
consequences which may naturally and logically result thereto whether form Vicente shouted him to run away.
or intended or not.
ISSUE:
FACTS: 1. W/N act of Rafael in stabbing Bienvenido is a separate one from the stabbing of
Accused Rafael Marco filed an Appeal from the judgment of CFI finding herein victim by the other 2 accused who did not appeal. (SEPARATE)
respondents GUILTY of Murder, qualified by abuse of superior strength. 2. W/N Rafael is guilty of Murder. (No, Only Slight Physical Injuries)

Nov 5 1964:zDuring a rainy Fiesta in the market place of Barrio Subang in

Zamboanga del Sur HELD:
1. NO CONSPIRACY, separate acts.
CRIM CASE 1:
1. Constancio Sabelbero was approached by Simeon asking him if Constancio Acts of the 3 accused was in fast succession, as if propelled by a common and
boxed Simeon’s brother a year before (Constancio Denied this). Simeon then concerted design, BUT this circumstance alone does not prove criminal
pulled out a foot long hunting knife. Constancio was chased by Simeon away. conspiracy. To hold that there was CONSPIRACY, mere simultaneity may justify
2. Constancio passed by where Rafael (appellant, father of Constancio) was. Rafael conclusion of conspiracy when inference is ineludible.
struck Constancio with a cane on the ear and shoulder.
a. Information was filed; Rafael convicted of Slight Physical Injuries, Vicente denied any misunderstandings between the families (there were
Simeon was acquitted actually patched up). Commonality of intent on the part of the 3 accused is
CASE 2: NOT NECESSARILY EXISTENT
3. Vicente (Father of Constancio) was standing in the crowd and heard “Fight!
Fight!” – he then saw Simeon about to stab Constancio. He grabbed hand of Simeon and Beltran did not appeal = credited mitigating circumstance of voluntary
Simeon that was holding the knife surrender. Also no doubt as to the homicidal character of their assault on
4. Rafael approached Vicente armed with a cane and knife. Vicente told Bienvenido.
Constancio and Bienvenido (other son) to run since Rafael was armed.
5. Bienvenido was stabbed by Rafael but was able to run away, however he fell
Case of Rafael: It is true that he somehow started the aggression by trying to stab
and was stabbed again by Dulcisimo Beltran (near anus while 2 hands on the
Bienvenido, and did cause him injury on the left hand, THERE IS NO CLEAR
floor and feet in forward position)
EVIDENCE CONNECTING HIS ACT with those of Simeon and Beltran
6. Beltran was then followed by Simeon who stabbed Bienvenido on the left breast
and arm. Causing the Marcos to run away.
7. Vicente came to know about Bienvenido (who was lying on the ground) and Beltran cameout nowhere and it is NOT SHOWN that Rafael saw him before the
asked what happened – he said he was ganged up and then died. latter stabbed Bienvenido near the anus.
Most we can gather is that Simeon was held by Vicente when Rafael tried to chase RULE: a person may be convicted for the criminal act of another where, between
Bienvenido. If Rafael had any intention to kill Bienvenido, he did not have to them there has been conspiracy or unity of purpose and intention in the commission
wait for Simeon and Beltran to do it. When Bienvenido fell to the ground, Rafael of the crime charged
actually had the chance to finish him.
1. Accused must be shown to have had guilty participation in the criminal design
This is where prosecution’s evidence is incomplete: Distance and position of Rafael entertained by the slayer, this presupposes knowledge on his part of such
from where Bienvenido fell were not indicated. What appears is that Beltran and criminal design
Simeon were the ones who stabbed him fatally. What Rafael did or where he was 2. Necessary that, with knowledge of the former's criminal intent, should cooperate
after Bienvenido fell and while Beltran and Simeon were assaulting has not with moral or material aid in the consummation of the crime ...
been shown.
TC erred that Rafael is also guilty because of presence of conspiracy
Rafael’s counsel de oficio’s ratiocination to be well taken:
3. Rafael cannot be held liable for death of victim under death in RPC
2. Evidence on record does not show that appellant acted in conspiracy with the
2 other accused in the actual killing of the decedent. RPC Art.4 par 1: "criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a
felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he
Conspiracy, implied or indirect, must be positively and convincingly proved and intended."
established (conclusive proof to uphold principle of requiring proof beyond
reasonable doubt before conviction). One who commits an intentional felony is responsible for all the consequences
which may naturally and logically result thereto whether form or intended or
People vs. Tividad: even if accused attacked victim simultaneously, is would not, in not.
itself, indicate conspiracy absent the requisite of concurrence of wills.
Stabbing of the victim by Rafael causing slight wound was intentionally made,
In this case, stabbing of the decedent by the 3 accused was not simultaneous—it was hence, is a felony. HOWEVER, the ensuing death of the victim was NOT the
successive. Manner in which the incident occurred indicates that there was no pre- DIRECT, NATURAL, and LOGICAL consequence of the would inflicted by
conceived plan among the 3 accused to kill. It strongly suggests that Beltran and Rafael
Simeon Marco participated suddenly, unexpectedly and without any previous
agreement. There was an active intervening cause, which was no other than the sudden and
appearance and participation of Simeon and Beltran. And there is authority that if
There is absolutely no showing that appellant knew of the criminal intentions of the consequences produced have resulted from a distinct act or fact absolutely
Beltran or Simeon as to the decedent. There is no proof that Rafael chased the victim from the criminal case the offender is not responsible for such consequence. 
in the direction of Simeon or Beltran, in fact Rafael did not previously know the
whereabouts of the other 2 accused. Hence, Rafael could not SC not convinced beyond reasonable doubt that Rafael was in conspiracy with
have intentionally chased the victim in the direction of Simeon Marco (wala nga Simeon and Beltran to kill Bienvenido. Absence of clear and convincing evidence,
evidence na hinabol eh. Kul8) court can only speculate as to why appellant did not join his son, Simeon, and
Beltran in attacking Bienvenido after falling to the ground.
No proof that while Simeon and Beltran were stabbing the victim, Rafael gave them
any inciting or encouraging words, or that he even joined them. In line with PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, SC constrained to hold that he had
NO HOMICIDAL INTENTRafael can be held responsible ONLY for the wound on
Prosecution failed to established the guilty knowledge and assent of Rafael the back of the left hand of the deceased. GUILTY ONLY OF SLIGHT
concerning the criminal design of Beltran and Simeon PHYSICAL INJURIES

DECISION Modified. APPELLANT GUILTY ONLY of Slight Physical Injuries