View full case

PEOPLE v. CRESENCIANO CANAGURAN

FACTS:

The accused, Cresenciano Canaguran, Graciano Bolivar, Joel Soberano, Renato Balbon, and Diosdado Barrion, were charged with the complex crime of murder with frustrated murder. The information alleged that on February 14, 1987, in Barotac Viejo, Iloilo, the accused, armed with unlicensed homemade firearms, conspired and attacked Hugo Callao and Damaso Suelan, Jr. They shot and fired at both victims, causing multiple pellet wounds that resulted in the immediate death of Hugo Callao and multiple pellet wounds on Damaso Suelan, Jr.'s right arm and shoulder. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges.

According to the lower court's summary of the facts, Damaso Suelan, Jr. and a friend, Rolly Brendia, went home after alighting from a tricycle. They passed by Rodney Balaito's store, where Hugo Callao invited them to drink beer. Joel Soberano invited Rolly Brendia to a small hut at the store's back, where other accused, Renato Balbon, Graciano Bolivar, and Cresencio Canaguran, were already drinking. Quirino arrived and handed a pistolized firearm to Cresenciano Canaguran. Rolly asked Damaso to fetch Hugo Callao, who joined the group in the hut. Later, the accused asked permission to go home, leaving Hugo, Damaso, and Rolly behind. At around 11:30 PM, a shot was fired, hitting Damaso Suelan, Jr. and causing Hugo Callao's death. Damaso saw the accused, Joel Soberano, Renato Balbon, Cresenciano Canaguran, and Graciano Bolivar running away. The lower court identified Diosdado Barrion as the mastermind behind the killing, with the prosecution revealing a motive stemming from Barrion's niece being impregnated by Henry Callao, the deceased's son who refused to marry her according to Barrion's terms.

The case involves a complex crime of murder with frustrated murder. The prosecution presented witnesses who testified about the incidents leading up to the crime. One of the witnesses, Nelly Callao, stated that there was a dispute between her family and the accused, Diosdado Barrion, because Barrion wanted his niece to marry Callao's son. However, the matter was not settled by the Barangay Captain and was further compounded by the death of Nelly's husband. Another witness, Rodolfo Panaga, testified that he overheard a conversation between Barrion and another person named "Tig-ik" where Barrion allegedly instructed "Tig-ik" to kill Hugo Callao. Based on the testimony presented, the trial court found Barrion and the other accused guilty of the crime and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether there was sufficient evidence to prove conspiracy among the accused.

  2. Whether accused Diosdado Barrion was the mastermind of the crime.

  3. Whether the defenses of denial and alibi were valid.

  4. Whether or not the testimony of PANAGA is sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that BARRION was a principal by inducement of the crime

  5. Whether or not the evidence presented by the prosecution proves the presence of a conspiracy among the accused

  6. Whether there is sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a conspiracy among the accused-appellants.

RULING:

  1. The Court finds that there was insufficient evidence to prove conspiracy among the accused. The circumstances presented, such as being present at the same store, obtaining a firearm, and leaving together, do not necessarily establish a conspiracy to commit murder. There was no positive identification of the other accused as the assailants and their mere presence at the store does not prove their participation in the crime.

  2. The conviction of Diosdado Barrion as the mastermind of the crime is based solely on the testimony of one witness. The witness' testimony only establishes Barrion's intention to help his niece with her problem and his solicitation of assistance from one of the accused. However, this testimony is not sufficient to prove that Barrion was the mastermind behind the killing. The motive presented by the witness is not logical and the claim that Barrion openly discussed the plan in a public place is improbable.

  3. The defenses of denial and alibi raised by the accused are weak defenses. However, in the absence of sufficient evidence to prove their participation in the crime, these defenses must be given weight. The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

  4. The testimony of PANAGA is not conclusive in proving beyond reasonable doubt that BARRION was a principal by inducement of the crime. The conversation between BARRION and CANAGURAN is inconclusive and does not provide sufficient evidence of BARRION's involvement. Moreover, there is no evidence of force, fear, price, promise, or reward offered by BARRION to CANAGURAN that would impel him to kill the victim. Therefore, the evidence is insufficient to convict BARRION as a principal by inducement.

  5. The convictions of SOBERANO and BOLIVAR are based on the lower court's finding of conspiracy among the accused. The lower court relied on several facts such as the accused being seen together drinking, the handing of a gun to CANAGURAN, the shooting of the victim, and the accused running away together. These circumstances led the court to conclude that there was a conspiracy to kill the victim, with CANAGURAN as the hitman and the other accused as abettors. The court rationalized that the accused being related or connected by a common link suggests that they have knowledge of each other. Therefore, the court found the presence of a conspiracy among the accused.

  6. No, there is not sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a conspiracy among the accused-appellants. A conspiracy must be established by positive and conclusive evidence, and it cannot be based on mere conjectures. It must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the offense itself. The evidence presented does not reasonably lead to proof beyond reasonable doubt that a conspiracy existed. The conclusion reached by the trial court regarding the existence of a conspiracy based on the relationship or connection between the accused is not established by the evidence. The accused-appellants' denial of their presence at the crime scene does not lead to the conclusion that the denial was made to cover up the conspiracy. In the absence of any other convincing and competent evidence to prove the conspiracy, the decision of the lower court is reversed, and the accused-appellants are acquitted based on reasonable doubt.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Conspiracy requires proof of a common purpose or design among two or more persons to commit a crime.

  • Mere presence at the scene of a crime is not sufficient to establish conspiracy.

  • A conviction based solely on the testimony of one witness should be received with caution and subjected to strict scrutiny.

  • Denial and alibi, although weak defenses, must be given weight in the absence of sufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

  • The testimony of a witness must be conclusive and prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused.

  • In order to prove the crime of principal by inducement, there must be evidence of force, fear, price, promise, or reward exerted over the material executor by the inducer.

  • A conspiracy can be proven through circumstantial evidence, such as the actions and relationships of the accused.