People vs. Pugay G.R. No.

74324 November 18, 1988

Facts of the Case:

The accused are pronounced by the RTC of Cavite guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of murder
of Bayani Miranda and sentencing them to a prison term ranging from 12 years (prision mayor as
minimum to 20 years (prision temporal) as maximum and for Samson to be sentenced to reclusion
perpetua.

Miranda and the accused Pugay are friends. Miranda used to run errands for Pugay and they used to
sleep together. On the evening of May 19, 1982 a town fiesta was held in the public plaza of Rosario,
Cavite. Sometime after midnight accused Pugay and Samson with several companions arrived drunk and
started making fun of Miranda. Pugay after making fun of Miranda, took a can of gasoline and poured its
contents on the latter, despite Gabion telling Pugay not to do the deed. Still, Samson set Miranda on fire
making a human torch out of him.


Issue:


Is conspiracy present in this case to ensure that murder can be the crime?
Is Pugay criminally liable?


Ruling:

Is conspiracy present in this case to ensure that the crime of murder is also present?

There is NO conspiracy in this case. Conspiracy is determined when two or more persons agree to commit
a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy must be proven with the same quantum of evidence as the
felony itself, more specifically by proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is not essential that there must be
proof as to the existence of a previous agreement to commit a crime. However, it is sufficient if at the time
of the commission of the crime, the accused has the same purpose and were united and executed.

In the case at bar, there was no animosity between Miranda and the accused; to add that at the
commission of the crime, the accuseds intent was purely coincidental since he is under the influence of
liquor at the commission of the crime.

Since there was NO conspiracy to speak of, the respective criminal responsibility of Pugay and Samson
arising from different acts directed against Miranda is individual and not collective and each of them is
liable only on the act that was committed by him.

Is Pugay criminally liable?

Having failed to exercise the diligence necessary to avoid every undesirable consequence arising from
every act committed by his companions who at the same time were making fun of the deceased, Pugay is
guilty of reckless imprudence resulting to homicide.