People v. De Vera y GarciaG.R. No. 128966. August 18, 1999.

Panganiban,
J.
Facts:
Edwin de Vera y Garcia, together with Roderick Garcia, Kenneth Florendo and
ElmerCastro, was charged with Murder before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City
inconnection with the killing of one Frederick Capulong. De Vera and Garcia pleaded no
t guilty during arraignment. The other two accused, Florendo and Castro, were at large.
During trial, theprosecution presented as witness one Bernardino Cacao who testified
that he saw De Vera in thecar, where an altercation later occurred. Thereafter, he saw
Florendo drag out of the vehicle anapparently disabled Capulong and shot
him in the head moments later.
Aside from Cacaos testimony, the prosecution also presented
De Veras extrajudicial statement which established thathe knew that Florendo intended to
kill the victim and that the three co-accused were carrying weapons and that he acted as
a lookout to watch for passersby. Thereafter, the trial court convictedDe Vera and his coaccused Garcia of the crime charged and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua and ordered to indemnify the heirs of the victim.In ruling that the
crime committed was murder, the trial court found that the killing wasattended by
treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength. One of these
wasenough to qualify the crime as murder; the two others constituted generic
aggravating circumstances.
The trial court explained that the evidence established evident premeditation, for Florendos
groupacted with deliberate forethought and tenacious persistence in the
accomplishment of the criminaldesign. Treachery was also proven, because the attack
was planned and performed in such a way asto guarantee the execution of the criminal
design without risk to the group. There was also abuse of superior strength, because the
attackers took advantage of their superiority in numbers and weapons.Furthermore, the
trial court found that it was indeed Florendo who actually shot the victim.However, it
convicted De Vera as a principal because the scientific and forensic findings on
thecriminal incident directly and substantially confirmed the existence of conspiracy
among the fouraccused. Aggrieved, de Vera appealed his conviction before the Supreme
Court.
Issue:
Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting De Vera as principal?
Held:
Yes. The testimony of the prosecution eyewitness contained nothing that could inculpate
De Vera. Aside from the fact that he was inside the car, no other act was imputed to him.
Merepresence does not amount to conspiracy. Indeed, the trial court based its finding of
conspiracy on mere presumptions, and not on solid facts indubitably indicating a
common design to commit murder. Such suppositions do not constitute proof beyond
reasonable doubt.

The fact that De Vera was at the locus criminis in order to aid and abet the commission of
the crime did not make him aconspirator; at most, he was only an accomplice.
Moreover, the prosecution evidence has notestablished that De Vera was part of the
conspiracy to kill Capulong. De Vera s participation, as culled from his own statement,
was made after the decision to kill was already a fait accompli.