SAN JUAN V.

PEOPLE
MAY 30, 2011

Facts:

Petitioner, together with Pineda and Coderes (accused), was charged with the crime of
Transporting Illegal Drugs in an Information dated December 16, 2003, which reads:

That on or about the 15th day of December 2003, in Pasay City, Metro Manila,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another,
without authority of law, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously transport a
total of 978.7 grams of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) a dangerous drug[s].

Contrary to law.

When arraigned on February 17, 2004, the three accused entered separate pleas of not
guilty to the offense charged. During the pre-trial, the three accused did not enter into
any stipulation or admission of facts with the prosecution. Thereafter, trial on the merits
ensued. In the course of the trial, two varying versions arose.

Issue/s:

Whether or not mere presence constitute conspiracy

Ruling:

NO. In this case, the prosecution, other than its bare assertions that petitioner and
accused conspired in transporting the shabu, failed to establish that there was indeed a
conscious criminal design existing between and among petitioner and accused to
commit the said offense. True, petitioner was in the driver’s seat of the parked car on
that fateful day of December 15, 2003, but it could not be deduced that he was even
aware that Pineda had with him two plastic containers containing shabu, nor did he
accord any form of assistance to Pineda. According to PO2 Jovenir, these plastic
containers were placed inside a bag and Pineda tried to conceal these under his
seat.39 These facts, standing alone, cannot give rise to a presumption of conspiracy.
Certainly, conspiracy must be proven through clear and convincing evidence. Indeed, it
is possible that petitioner was telling the truth when he said that he merely met with
accused in order to offer the car for sale, as that was his part-time business.40

It bears stressing that conspiracy requires the same degree of proof required to
establish the crime — proof beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, mere presence at the
scene of the crime at the time of its commission without proof of cooperation or
agreement to cooperate is not enough to constitute one a party to a conspiracy.41 In
fine, the prosecution failed to discharge its burden to prove and establish conspiracy.
Necessarily, petitioner should be held accountable only for his alleged respective
participation in the commission of the offense.