People vs. Jesalva (2017)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROBERTO ESPERANZA JESALVA

G.R. No. 227306, June 19, 2017 

JARDELEZA, J.:

 Facts: An Information was filed charging accused-appellant, Ryan Menieva and Junie Ilaw  alleging that accused, conspiring together, feloniously with intent to kill with evident premeditation, treachery and taking advantage of superior strength, attack, assault and employ personal violence upon the person of Amel Ortigosa, by then and there stabbing him with a sharp bladed instrument hitting him on the chest, causing his untimely death.

Accused-appellant denied any participation in Ortigosa's stabbing. He claimed that on the night of the incident, he was waiting for his sister on the corner of Dupax Street. While waiting, he saw and heard people running and shouting which caused him to leave the place.

RTC and CA held that appellant is liable for murder as he conspired with the other accused.

Issue: Whether or not appellant is guilty of murder.

Ruling: No. To determine if accused-appellant conspired with Menieva and Ilaw, the focus of the inquiry should necessarily be the overt acts of accusedappellant before, during and after the stabbing incident.

In this case, no evidence showing that appellant was purposely waiting for Ortigosa at the time and place of the incident and that Menieva and Ilaw were on standby, awaiting for accused-appellant's signal. Surely, appellant could not have anticipated that on September 16, 2007, at around 1:00 a.m., Ortigosa and his group would pass by and go to the store to buy cigarettes. Appellant's act of pointing to the victim and his group is not an overt act which shows that accused-appellant acted in concert with his coaccused to cause the death of Ortigosa. Mere knowledge, acquiescence or approval of the act, without the cooperation and the agreement to cooperate, is not enough to establish conspiracy.

Ratio Decidendi: The presentation of proof beyond reasonable doubt before any person may be convicted of any crime and deprived of his life, liberty, or even property. The hypothesis of his guilt must flow naturally from the facts proved and must be consistent with all of them.

Gist: This appeal seeks to reverse and set aside the CA’s Decision, which upheld the Decision of the RTC, which found appellant Roberto Esperanza Jesalva guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.