Lozano v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Francisco Ocampo, Jr. and his wife Juliana owned a sari-sari store. Petitioner Alexander Lozano, a construction worker, was a customer who bought on credit. On May 9, 1986, at around 10 PM, Lozano and companions knocked on the Ocampo residence. Juliana opened the door, and Lozano entered. One of Lozano's companions held Juliana's hand. When Francisco went to aid his wife, Lozano attempted to stab him with an icepick but missed. Francisco and Lozano grappled for about a minute. After they separated, Francisco was shot by an unidentified companion of Lozano who was outside the house. Francisco was wounded in the abdomen and taken to the hospital. Juliana was found outside the house with stab wounds and died. Felipe del Rosario, Juliana's father, heard the commotion and found his daughter dead. Procedural History: Patrolman Levy Frias investigated the incident. Francisco Ocampo, Jr., despite being in an oxygen tent, identified "Alex" as his assailant in a statement. "Alex" was identified as petitioner Alexander Lozano. Lozano and two co-workers were arrested. Francisco identified Lozano from photographs and a police lineup. Lozano and his two John Doe companions were charged with murder and frustrated murder. The complaint was amended to robbery with homicide and frustrated homicide, then later to homicide and serious physical injuries. Lozano pleaded not guilty. His defense was an alibi. The Petition: The trial court found Lozano guilty of homicide and frustrated homicide. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction for homicide but found him guilty of serious physical injuries instead of frustrated homicide. The Court of Appeals denied his motion for reconsideration. Lozano petitioned the Supreme Court, contending that he should not be convicted of homicide and serious physical injuries as the acts were allegedly committed by his unidentified companions, and that the damages awarded were erroneous.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner can be convicted of homicide and serious physical injuries despite the alleged participation of unidentified companions in the commission of the crimes. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in awarding compensatory and moral damages to the heirs of Juliana del Rosario and actual and moral damages to Francisco Ocampo, Jr.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed, with the modification that the indemnity due the heirs of Juliana del Rosario for her death is increased to P50,000.00. SO ORDERED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the conviction for homicide and serious physical injuries: The Court held that the petitioner could be convicted of homicide and serious physical injuries based on conspiracy. The Court found that conspiracy existed between the petitioner and his unidentified companions. Evidence of conspiracy included the petitioner barging into the house after Juliana opened the door, a companion holding Juliana's hand, the petitioner attempting to stab Francisco when he tried to help his wife, and Francisco being shot by one of the petitioner's companions as the petitioner was leaving the house. The Court reiterated that conspiracy need not be proven by direct evidence but can be inferred from the acts of the accused done in pursuance of a common unlawful purpose. Once conspiracy is established, all conspirators are liable as principals, regardless of the extent of their individual participation. The petitioner's active participation in the events, including the attempt to stab Francisco and his presence during the commission of the crimes, established his liability as a co-conspirator. On the award of damages: The Court affirmed the award of damages. The Court increased the indemnity for the death of Juliana del Rosario from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00 in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence at the time of the decision.
Main Doctrine
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it, whether they act through the physical volition of one or all, proceeding severally or collectively. Conspiracy need not be established by direct evidence; it may and generally must be proved by a number of indefinite acts, conditions, and circumstances which vary according to the purpose to be accomplished. The very existence of a conspiracy is generally a matter of inference deduced from certain acts of the persons accused, done in pursuance of an apparent criminal or unlawful purpose in common between them. All participants in a conspiracy are liable as principals.