FACTS:

The case involves the robbery and killing of a businesswoman. Joselito del Rosario, together with two other individuals, allegedly grabbed the victim's bag and engaged in a struggle. One of the men shot and killed the woman, while Del Rosario held the bag inside a tricycle. Del Rosario claimed that he was threatened by his co-accused and forced to participate in the crime. However, during the trial, it was revealed that it was actually a different co-accused, Jun Marquez, who chased the victim's helper and fired the fatal shot. The witness testified that Boy Santos, another co-accused, pointed a gun at him and threatened him, but clarified that the gun Santos used was not the one used in shooting the woman. Santos allegedly chased after the victim's helper towards the public market.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not del Rosario can be held liable for conspiracy in the robbery and killing of the victim.

2. Whether or not del Rosario's fear of bodily harm exempts him from criminal liability.

3. Whether or not there is sufficient evidence to prove the existence of an implied conspiracy.

4. Whether or not the accused's silence and failure to disclose information to the authorities affect his credibility.

5. Whether or not the accused's rights to remain silent, have competent and independent counsel, and be informed of these rights were violated during custodial investigation.

6. Whether the accused's rights during custodial investigation were violated

7. Whether the arrest of the accused was lawful

8. Whether the accused's conviction is proper despite the prosecutor's motion to withdraw the Information.

RULING:

1. No, del Rosario cannot be held liable for conspiracy. The Court reasoned that there was no sufficient evidence to prove that del Rosario was a conspirator in the robbery and killing of the victim. The testimony of witness Alonzo, in conjunction with del Rosario's own testimony, indicated that "Boy" Santos never left the tricycle during the commission of the crime. If "Boy" Santos had indeed been a conspirator, he could have easily alighted from the tricycle and participated in the crime directly. Additionally, del Rosario claimed that he was threatened with violence by "Boy" Santos, preventing him from fleeing and leaving him as a mere instrument acting involuntarily. Thus, del Rosario cannot be held liable for conspiracy.

2. Yes, del Rosario's fear of bodily harm exempts him from criminal liability. The Court acknowledged that the fear that del Rosario experienced, due to the gun directly pointed at him by "Boy" Santos, was real and imminent. This fear rendered del Rosario immobile and subject to the will of "Boy" Santos, making him an automaton without a will of his own. Consequently, del Rosario's actions in transporting his co-accused away from the crime scene were compelled against his will. Therefore, del Rosario is exempt from criminal liability based on the grounds of fear of bodily harm.

3. The court ruled that there is no sufficient evidence to prove the existence of an implied conspiracy. Mere companionship and presence at the scene of the crime are not enough to establish conspiracy. The accused's explanation for his presence has not been successfully refuted by the prosecution.

4. The court held that the accused's silence and failure to disclose information to the authorities do not affect his credibility. It is natural for most people to hesitate and not get involved in a criminal case. The accused was threatened with physical harm if he were to speak up.

5. The court found that there was a violation of the accused's rights during custodial investigation. The accused was taken into custody and interrogated without being informed of his rights to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel. The statements he made during custodial investigation were not voluntarily given.

6. The accused's rights during custodial investigation were violated. The accused was already under effective custodial investigation when he was "invited" for questioning but was not informed of his rights as required by law. Since the prosecution failed to establish that the accused had waived his right to remain silent, his verbal admissions were inadmissible against him.

7. The arrest of the accused was not lawful. The arrest came a day after the commission of the crime, and the arresting officers did not have personal knowledge of facts indicating that the accused had committed the offense. However, the illegality of the arrest does not affect the jurisdiction of the court, and any objection to the arrest is waived when the person arrested submits to arraignment without objection.

8. The accused's conviction is not proper despite the prosecutor's motion to withdraw the Information.

PRINCIPLES:

• Conspiracy requires the concurrence of wills or unity of action and purpose, and the intent to commit a felony. It is proven by showing the existence of an agreement between two or more persons to commit a felony.

• Conspiracy can be inferred from the proof of facts and circumstances showing united and concerted action towards a common and joint purpose and design.

• Direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy, as it is often planned in utmost secrecy. It can be inferred from circumstantial evidence.

• Fear of bodily harm can exempt a person from criminal liability if it renders them immobile and devoid of a will of their own, forcing them to act involuntarily against their will.

• The presence of an implied conspiracy can be inferred from proof of facts and circumstances which indicate a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment.

• Mere companionship does not establish conspiracy; intentional participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose is required.

• Conspiracy must be established by positive and conclusive evidence, similar to the degree of proof necessary to establish the crime.

• The natural hesitance of most people to get involved in a criminal case is of judicial notice.

• Custodial investigation encompasses any question initiated by law enforcers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.

• Custodial investigation includes the practice of issuing an 'invitation' to a person in custody.

• The rights of a person during custodial investigation must be upheld, including the right to remain silent and the right to have competent and independent counsel present.

• An arrest without a warrant is lawful only under specific circumstances, such as when the person to be arrested has committed or is attempting to commit an offense, or when the person making the arrest has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested had committed the offense.

• A warrantless arrest is not a jurisdictional defect and any objection thereto is waived when the person arrested submits to arraignment without objection.

• The withdrawal of an Information by the prosecutor is discretionary and should be allowed if it will serve the public interest and justice.

• Once there is an acquittal or a dismissal of the case, the accused should be immediately released from confinement unless held for some other lawful cause.