Case Digest 1

People vs.
Ebet
G.R. No. 181635, November 15, 2010
Lourie Mae I. Calope
FACTS:
Three men entered the house of Spouses Gabriel and Evelyn Parcasio. Of the 3 men, Evelyn recognized
one of them to be Ebet having been a constant visitor of her husband. The men asked Evelyn where her
husband was hiding and compelled her to lead them to the house’s underground while she was poked
with a gun. When the two unidentified men reached the underground, Evelyn heard her husband shout
for her and her daughters to run, then a gunshot was heard, as well as a commotion underground. The
daughter after hearing the gunshot went back to the house. It was then that the men accosted her and
asked for her money. With no money to give, the men took other valuable things. When the men left,
Evelyn saw her husband bleeding to death due to multiple stab wounds.
An information was filed charging the accused Ebet with the crime of Robbery with Homicide. He
pleaded not guilty and interposed alibi as defense and that the prosecution’s witnesses failed to
positively identify him. Moreover, he reasons out that, if it were indeed him who was seen standing near
or in front of the Parcasio family’s door, that fact alone cannot be the basis to consider him as one of the
perpetrators of the crime.
ISSUE: Whether Ebet is liable for the crime of Robbery and Homicide when his participation in the crime
charged is standing near the door?
RULING: YES.
When a homicide takes place by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part
shall be guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide whether they actually
participated in the killing, unless there is proof that there was an endeavor to prevent the killing.
The records are bereft of any evidence to prove, or even remotely suggest, that Ebet attempted to
prevent the killing. Therefore, the basic principle in conspiracy that the “act of one is the act of all,”
applies in this case.
To be a conspirator, one need not participate in every detail of the execution; he need not even take
part in every act or need not even know the exact part to be performed by the others in the execution of
the conspiracy. Each conspirator may be assigned separate and different tasks which may appear
unrelated to one another but, in fact, constitute a whole collective effort to achieve their common
criminal objective. Once conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act of all the conspirators. The precise
extent or modality of participation of each of them becomes secondary, since all the conspirators are
principals. To exempt himself from criminal liability, a conspirator must have performed an overt act to
dissociate or detach himself from the conspiracy to commit the felony and prevent the commission
thereof.
Uyboco vs. People, 744 SCRA 688, G.R. No. 211703 December 10, 2014
FACTS:
Uyboco, the president of Gaikoku was charged with the violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
together with his co-accused Valencia, a public officer. The transaction involves the procurement of
overpriced dump trucks and that the said transaction failed to comply with the requirements of Section
369 of the Local Government Code on negotiated purchases. The Sandiganbayan found that Uyboco and
accused Valencia acted in conspiracy to commit the crime charged.
Uyboco then asserts that the Sandiganbayan erred in declaring the existence of conspiracy and
convicting him in the absence of proof of reasonable doubt of such conspiracy.
ISSUE: Whether or not a private individual may be charged with violation of Anti Graft and Corrupt
Practices?
RULING: YES, when the private individual acted in conspiracy with the public officer.
For accused to be found liable under Section 3(e) of Republic Act (RA) 3019, the following elements
must concur: 1) The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official
functions; 2) He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
negligence; and 3) That his action caused undue injury to any party, including the government, or giving
any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions.
Based on the records of the case, the elements of the crime charged exist in the present case. On the
first element, accused Valencia was a public officer at the time the acts in question were committed.
Thus, while petitioner was a private individual, he was found to have been in conspiracy with the
accused. This is in accord with the rule that private persons may be charged with public officers, as held
in the case of People vs. Go.
It bears to reiterate that settled rule that private persons, when acting in conspiracy with public officers,
may be indicted and, if found guilty, held liable for the pertinent offenses under Section 3 of RA 3019, in
consonance with the avowed policy of the anti-graft law to repress certain acts of public officers and
private persons alike constituting graft or corrupt practices act or which may lead thereto.
The Sandiganbayan correctly ruled, and respondents aptly pointed out, that accused Valencia failed to
comply with the requirements of Section 369 of the Local Government Code on negotiated purchase,
which required that there must have been at least two failed public biddings before a contract for a
negotiated purchase may be entered into. The defense failed to present any substantial evidence of the
two failed biddings. In fact, it was proved by presented evidence that the alleged failed biddings were
merely simulated.

Case Digest 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs.

You might also like