REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 10, MANILA
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,
CRIM. CASE NO. 11-288514
For: Unjust Vexation
- versus MYRNA F. HERMOSA,
Accused.
x----------------------------------------------x
DECISION
Conspiracy must be proved as clearly and convincingly as the
commission of the offense itself for it is a facile device by which an
accused may be ensnared and kept within the penal fold. In case of
reasonable doubt as to its existence, the balance must tilt in favor of
the accused as what is at stake is his liberty.
This resolves the appeal of accused-appellant Myrna F. Hermosa
before this Court assailing the Decision dated October 3, 2011 issued
by the Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 25, Manila in Criminal Case No.
453639 CR acquitting the accused-appellant of grave coercion but
finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of unjust vexation and
sentencing her to suffer imprisonment for twenty (20) days.
I. Antecedents
Accused-appellant was charged with grave coercion under an
Information dated December 15, 2011, the accusatory portion of which
reads as follows:
That on or about February 11, 2008, in the City of Manila,
Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating
with a police officer and a woman, whose true names,
identities and present whereabouts are still unknown and
helping one another, without authority of law and without
any justifiable motive, by means of force and intimidation,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously coerce
one Peter L. Uy in the following manner, to wit: by then and
there forcing him to go to Gandara Police Station, Manila
Police District, on the pretext of a trump-up charge of Illegal
Detention, against his will.
CONTRARY TO LAW.

DECISION
CRIM. CASE NO. 11-288514
Page Two (2)

On January 29, 2010, accused-appellant was duly arraigned and

with the assistance of his counsel, Atty. John Allen Farias, pleaded not
guilty to the offense charged.
Pre-trial was conducted on March 3, 2010. Thereafter, trial on the
merits ensued.
The evidence for the prosecution disclosed that private
complainant Peter Lim Uy (private complainant) is the General
Manager of Sincerity Caf and Restaurant (Sincerity Caf) operating
under the name and style of Uy Mo Kuan, Inc. located at 497
Yuchengco Street, Binondo, Manila whereas accused-appellant was
working as supervisor, in charge of quality control, supervision and
management of the restaurant.
Private complainant testified that at or about 5:00 oclock on
February 11, 2008 his wife, Melinda Tan Uy (Melinda), called his
attention while he was at the second floor of Sincerity Caf, where he
is holding office, to inform him that accused-appellant, then
accompanied by an unidentified woman, was at the restaurant and
wished to have a conversation with him. He instructed his wife in reply
to tell accused-appellant to enter his office whereat he and accusedappellant then had a discussion relative to the latters Sickness Benefit
Reimbursement Application and Sickness Notification with the Social
Security System (SSS) for her two-week absence starting on December
29, 2007, which was on top of the one-week sick leave which she was
already granted for an unspecified physical debility which she allegedly
contracted while working under his employ. Private complainant
previously advised accused-appellant that he would approve the
aforesaid second leave application only if she secures a medical
certificate. Instead of complying, however, accused-appellant merely
tendered to him a filled-out pro forma sheet from SSS without any
medical certificate annexed thereto (Rollo, p. 120-121; Exhibit 3-A).
Thus, he thumbed down her application.
After their conversation, which lasted for about thirty (30)
minutes, accused-appellant descended the stairs and left the building
while private complainant and his friend, Virgilio Meliza (Virgilio), who
was then working as clerk at Ramada Commercial, which is likewise
located at the second floor of Sincerity Caf, dined at Jolibee located at
Quintin Paredes Street, Binondo, Manila. While they were eating his
wife phoned him at around 5:45 oclock in the afternoon to tell him that
a policeman, who was later ascertained as P02 Jose Rosendo Alagadan,
Jr. (P02 Alagadan) and the unidentified woman alluded to above are
inside Sincerity Caf and are looking for him. His wife informed him
that someone complained that accused-appellant was being detained
inside his office. He and Meliza then scurried to the caf and on his way
chanced upon accused-appellant standing beside a fire truck
positioned at the corner of Gandara and Nueva Streets, which are a
few meters away from Sincerity Caf, and looking towards the direction
of the caf in a furtive, surreptitious and clandestine manner, as if she
was trying to hide something or was otherwise afraid of being seen. He
approached her and invited her to come with them to the caf as
someone was looking for her, to which accused-appellant acceded.

Upon their arrival at the caf, SP02 Alagadan who is a member

of
the
Manila Police District and is assigned at the Gandara Police
DECISION
Community
Precinct,
Police Station II, Gandara, Binondo, Manila
CRIM.
CASE NO.
11-288514
informed
him
that
the
unidentified woman whom he accompanied
Page Three (3)
complained that accused-appellant was being detained at his office
and demanded for her immediate release. Private complainant clarified
that accused-appellant was not being detained inside Sincerity Caf.
As a matter of fact, he and Meliza saw accused-appellant on their way
to the caf and even invited her to come with them in order to clarify
the matter. Unconvinced, SP02 Alagadan invited accused-appellant to
go with him and the unidentified woman to the Gandara Police Station
for investigation. Despite the failure of the police officer to produce any
written complaint or warrant for his arrest private complainant
acquiesced and went with him to the police station. Upon their arrival
at the police station accused-appellant asked anew if there was any
formal charge against her but the police officer retorted in the
negative. No record of the alleged untoward incident was likewise
reflected in the police blotter. The police officer then told the
unidentified woman to prepare a complaint-affidavit if she was bent on
pressing raps against accused-appellant but she refused. Thus,
accused-appellant was forthwith released. As a result of the skirmish,
private complaint felt harassed, annoyed and vexed by accusedappellant (Exhibit A; Rollo, pp. 120-126). Thus, he filed a complaintaffidavit for grave coercion and unjust vexation against accusedappellant before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila on April 16,
2008.
Private complainants wife, Melinda, corroborated the foregoing
narration (Exhibit C; Rollo, pp. 134-136).
The prosecution formally offered its evidence consisting of
documentary exhibits on November 26, 2010, which were admitted by
the court a quo over the objection thereto of the defense filed on
December 8, 2010 in an Order dated December 16, 2010.
The defense then adduced its evidence. Accused-appellant
denied the accusations against her. She maintained that at around
5:00 oclock in the afternoon on February 11, 2008 she went to see
private complainant at his office in Sincerity Caf to follow up her
application for sick leave with the SSS. After that she dropped by at
Red Ribbon to buy load for her cellular phone and then walked towards
SSS branch located at Gandara Street, Binondo, Manila to verify certain
documents but was unable to do so as she arrived at said office at
around 5:40 oclock in the afternoon.
While traversing Gandara Street on her way home she came
across private complainant who accosted her back to Sincerity Caf
where a police officer was waiting. The police officer told her to come
with him, private complainant and Virgilio to the precinct. This was
apropos a complaint allegedly initiated by accused-appellant against
private complainant. When they went to the police station, however, it
was found that there was indeed no complaint lodged by her against
private complainant. Thenceforth, they all went home (Rollo, pp. 152155, 159-160).

Accused-appellant contended that the instant case was brought

by private complainant to get even as she has previously filed a
complaint against him for underpayment of wages, non-payment of
DECISION
overtime pay, holiday pay, service incentive leave, night shift
CRIM.
CASE pay
NO.and
11-288514
differential
other basic labor standards benefits mandated by
Page
Four (4)
law before
the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), as well
as for inordinate deduction of her salary for her SSS premiums before
the SSS (Exhibits 1 and 2).
She averred that she has been working at Sincerity Caf initially
as food handler and cook until eventually she became an assistant
supervisor (Exhibit 2) for an aggregate period of about eleven and a
half years (11 ), starting from August 21, 1996 until an occupationalrelated ailment requiring comparatively protracted medication forced
her to be separated from employment on December 29, 2007 (Rollo, p.
159). For her labor she was receiving only a measly amount of
P3,000.00 per month in 1996 until she was given a higher pay of
P6,000.00 per month sometime thereafter. From 2004 up to 2007, her
salary was increased to P8,000.00 per month. She and her nineteen
(19) other co-workers at Sincerity Caf were made to work for thirty
(30) days in a month without any day-off and on a twelve-hour shift per
day starting from 9:00 oclock in the morning until 9:00 oclock in the
evening. Their serfdom, however, does not end there as they are still
obliged to clean the restaurant before they leave, which is usually at
around 10:00 oclock in the evening (Exhibits 3 and 4). Even as
they work beyond eight (8) hours they are not given overtime pay.
They are also forced to report for work even during official holidays
without holiday pay and premium pay. Moreover, they are not accorded
service incentive leave of at least five (5) days per year. Aside from
these, in lieu of payroll slips which should be given to them every pay
day, they are only given vouchers which are reclaimed from them by
the management right after they have signed them (Exhibit 3).
Despite these flagrant violations no one from Sincerity Caf pursued a
case against the proprietors thereof for fear of losing their job until
February 19, 2008 when accused-appellant herself wrote then DOLE
Secretary Arturo D. Brion, requesting him to instruct any duly
authorized personnel from the Bureau of Labor Standards to conduct
an ocular inspection at Sincerity Caf and, thereafter, to be furnished
with a copy of the ocular inspection report which he and her coemployees intend to utilize as evidence in a labor case they would file
against private complainant and his spouse should they not be paid
the wage differentials due them and other benefits provided by law
(Exhibit 4). Acting on the request, an inspection was conducted by
Labor Inspector Myrna Floirendo from the DOLE National Capital Region
(NCR) on March 14, 2008. Since no employment records could be
shown at the time of the inspection the management was enjoined to
present said records to the inspection team on the first week of April of
the same year (Exhibit 5). The record is, however, bereft of any
indication as to whether this requirement was complied with.
Accused-appellants servile 12-hour workday schedule without
day-off at Sincerity Caf eventually took a toll on her health as on
December 29, 2007 her right arm got swollen and inert. She consulted
a doctor and was correspondingly issued a medical certificate. Because
of her condition she was not able to report to work for a number of

days. She therefore went to see private complainant at Sincerity Caf

on various dates to have her Sickness Benefit Reimbursement
Application and Sickness Notification with the SSS signed but was
repeatedly rebuffed even with a medical certificate already attached to
her application (Exhibits 3 and 3-A; Rollo, p. 167). She likewise
wrote private complainant to entreat him to sign the foregoing
documents and to yield her the benefits which she is rightfully entitled
under the law but to no avail. Private complainant budged to sign only
DECISION
after it came to his knowledge that accused-appellant would be filing a
CRIM. CASE NO. 11-288514
complaint against him before the SSS, but the signing was too late.
Page Five (5)
SSS refused to receive accused-appellants application because the
period prescribed for its filing has already lapsed (Exhibit 3-A).
Anent her SSS contributions, she claimed that she has been a
member of the SSS since January 1, 1998. Until 2007, private
complainant has been deducting from her monthly salary the amount
of P333.30 which was excessive as upon inquiry with the SSS she
found out that the monthly premium contribution that should have
been deducted is only P266.70 (Exhibit 2).
Meanwhile, P02 Alagadan (now P03) testified that at the time of
the incident in question on February 11, 2008 he was on patrol duty
when suddenly a desk officer at Gandara Police Community Precinct,
Station 11, Binondo, Manila called him up through radio to render
police assistance to a certain complainant. He then immediately
proceeded to the community precinct and upon arrival thereat saw the
complainant who told her that her friend, accused-appellant, was being
detained inside Sincerity Caf. They then proceeded to the said
restaurant. Upon arrival thereat, he approached Melinda, who was at
the cashier, and conveyed to her that someone verbally complained
that private complainant was detaining accused-appellant. Melinda in
turn told P02 Alagadan that accused-appellant was not in Sincerity
Caf and asked him to wait for private complainant. A few moments
after, private complainant and accused-appellant arrived. P02
Alagadan then approached private complainant and likewise told him
that someone complained that he was holding accused-appellant
against her will. Private complainant denied the allegation; he related
that on his way back to Sincerity Caf he saw accused-appellant and
invited her to come with him. Unperturbed, P02 Alagadan invited
private complainant, Virgilio, accused-appellant and the complainant to
the precinct. Upon reaching the precinct P02 Alagadan indorsed them
to the desk officer for proper disposition and left to resume his patrol
duty after securing the permission of the desk officer (Rollo, pp. 142147).
The defense formally offered its evidence on May 1, 2011 which
were admitted by the lower court in an Order dated July 15, 2011
despite the comment or opposition thereto of the prosecution filed on
May 23, 2011.
On October 3, 2011, the court a quo found accused-appellant
guilty beyond reasonable doubt, not of grave coercion, but of unjust
vexation and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for twenty (20)
days. Judgment was promulgated on November 15, 2011 in the
presence of accused-appellant and his counsel.

On November 23, 2011, the lower court received a notice of

appeal filed by accused-appellant through counsel. The case was then
raffled to this Court.
On January 5, 2012, this Court ordered the parties to
simultaneously file their respective memoranda within fifteen (15) days
from receipt of a copy of the Order, after which the case shall be
submitted for decision. A copy of said Order was received by the
prosecution through Assistant City Prosecutor Lea D. Llavore and Linda
Uy, and by the defense through Atty. Rizalino Floresca on February 2,
2012, February 16, 2012, and January 31, 2012, respectively.
DECISION
Accordingly, accused-appellant filed a memorandum on appeal
CRIM. CASE NO. 11-288514
on February 2, 2012. Private complainant-appellee, on the other hand,
Page Six (6)
filed his on March 5, 2012.
II. THE ISSUES
The issues to be resolved by this Court are whether or not the
court a quo committed a reversible error when it adjudged accusedappellant guilty of the crime of unjust vexation, and granting that
accused-appellant is guilty thereof, whether or not the penalty of
twenty (20) days meted against him is excessive.
III. COURTS RULING
The appeal is impressed with merit.
Unjust vexation penalized under the second paragraph of Article
287 of the Revised Penal Code is a form of light coercion which is broad
enough to include any human conduct which, although not productive
of some physical or material harm, would unjustly annoy or irritate an
innocent person. Compulsion or restraint need not be alleged in the
Information, for the crime of unjust vexation may exist without
compulsion or restraint. The paramount question to be considered is
whether the offenders act caused annoyance, irritation, torment,
distress or disturbance to the mind of the person to whom it is
directed. The main purpose of the law penalizing coercion and unjust
vexation is precisely to enforce the principle that no person may take
the law into his hands and that our government is one of law, not of
men. It is unlawful for any person to take into his own hands the
administration of justice. (Baleros, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 138033,
February 22, 2006; Maderazo v. People, G.R. No. 165065, September
26, 2006; People v. Sumingwa, G.R. No. 183619, October 13, 2009)
In this case, the lower court found that the act of the accused
and her unidentified companion in reporting to the police the alleged
detention of accused inside private complainants office on February
11, 2008, which compelled the private complainant to go to the police
station upon the invitation made by P02 Alagadan against his will to
answer an unfounded complaint, caused great annoyance, irritation
and vexation on the private complainant. This is allegedly clearly
shown from his testimony, to wit:

Q: What was your reaction, Mr. Witness[,] when P02 Alagadan

invited you to go with him to the police station despite the
non-production of any documents?
A: Kahit ayaw at wala akong magawa, I simply went with him
kahit na naiinis ako (Rollo, p. 117; emphasis supplied).

The lower court deduced that a conspiracy existed between

accused-appellant and the unidentified woman in filing a trump up
charge against private complainant. It ratiocinated that:
True, it was the unidentified companion, who made a
complaint before the police station. However, apparent
conspiracy exists between this unidentified companion and
the accused. There is no dispute that the accused had a
DECISIONcompanion when she went to the restaurant on the day of
the NO.
incident.
She waited for the accused outside the
CRIM. CASE
11-288514
restaurant
when
the latter and private complainant were
Page Seven (7)
discussing at the second floor of the restaurant. This
unidentified companion reported to the police that accused
was allegedly not allowed by the private complainant to
leave the restaurant. This information of alleged detention
would not have been known by the unidentified companion if
not through the accused who was in constant communication
with her. In fact, P02 Alagadan invited private complainant to
go to the police station. The accused and her unidentified
companion went to the police station together with private
complainant and P02 Alagadan. These circumstances
would clearly show that the accused conspired with
her unidentified companion in the commission of the
crime. Conspiracy exists when to or more persons come to
an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
decide to commit it (id.; emphasis added).
xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

The lower courts postulations exemplify sophistry par

excellence. In order to sustain a finding of guilt of an accused in
unjust vexation, it is not enough to prove that the person against
whom it was committed suffered annoyance or irritation as a
result of the act perpetrated by the offender. As any other felony
by dolo penalized under the Revised Penal Code, the prosecution
must also show that act complained of was performed with
malice. Suffice to say that malice cannot be lightly inferred. If the
act in question was done in good faith, or what amounts to do
same thing, in the absence of cogent proof that accused was
animated by a malevolent will, the charge would have no leg to
stand on (Maderazo v. People, supra.; People v. Sumingwa,
supra.).1 In this case, a closer scrutiny of the records negates the
existence of bad faith on the part of herein accused:
Testimony of Private Complainant
xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

In Maderazo v. People (supra.), the Supreme Court ruled that in unjust vexation,
being a felony by dolo, malice is an inherent element of the crime. Good faith is a
good defense to a charge for unjust vexation because good faith negates malice.
1

The Witness: My wife told me that someone is complaining

that Myrna Hermosa was held in my office. When I arrived at
the restaurant, the police officer told me that there was a
complainant stating that Myrna Hermosa was detained at the
second floor of the restaurant.
Atty. Go: Mr. Witness, after you received the phone call from
your wife and before you immediately rushed to the
restaurant to address to address the concern of the police
officer, what if any[,] did you encounter?
The Witness: When me and my friend Virgilio were on our
way to the restaurant, I saw Myrna Hermosa standing at the
corner of Gandara and Nueva Sts. beside a fire truck looking
at the restaurant as if she was hiding something.

DECISION
CRIM. CASE
NO. 11-288514
Q: Which restaurant was she looking at?
Page Eight (8)
A: Sincerity Caf and Restaurant.

Q: When you saw Myrna Hermosa standing in that position,

what did you do[,] if any?
A: I greeted her and asked her[,] Myrna, anong ginagawa mo
rito? May naghahanap sa iyo, hindi ka raw umuuwi. And I
asked her to go with me at the restaurant so that we could
talk and clear the matter.
Q: How did Myrna Hermosa react in your request?
A: She just simply go [sic] with me.
Q: When the three (3) of you arrived at the restaurant, you,
Mr. Meliza and Ms. Myrna Hermosa, what happened next.
A: When we arrived at the restaurant, I was surprised that
there was a policeman with an unidentified woman in the
premises.
Q: What did you do next?
A: I talk[ed] to the police officer.
Q: And what did you talk about? (Rollo, p. 124)
The Witness: I asked him, sir, ano bang problema.
Atty. Go: By the way, Mr. Witness, who is this police officer
that you are referring to?
The Witness: SP02 [sic] Alagadan.
Q: What was the response of this SP02 Alagadan, Mr. Witness
to your question as to what is the problem?
A: SP02 [sic] Alagadan explained to me that there a
complainant complaining that I am detaining a certain Myrna
Hermosa at the second floor of the restaurant.

Q: And what was your response to this allegation of SP02

[sic] Alagadan?
A: I asked the police officer if he knew Myrna Hermosa and he
said no and I told and pointed to him Myrna Hermosa. She
was with me when I entered the restaurant.
Q: What was the reaction of this SP02 [sic] Alagadan to this
manifestation of yours that Ms. Myrna Hermosa was actually
with you when you entered the premises of the restaurant?
A: He invited me to the police station.
Q: What document if any, Mr. Witness did SP02 [sic] Alagadan
showed to you?

DECISION
A: None.
CRIM. CASE NO. 11-288514
Page NineQ:(9)
What was your reaction, Mr. Witness when SP02 [sic]
Alagadan invited you to go with him to the police station
despite the non-production of any documents?
A: Kahit ayaw ko at wala akong magawa, I simply went with
him kahit naiinis na ako.
Q: So you still went with SP02 Alagadan even against your
will?
A: Yes, Maam. (Rollo, p. 125)
xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

Atty. Go: What happened, Mr. Witness[,] after you went with
him to the police station?
The Witness: When we arrived at the police station, I asked if
there was a formal complaint if any filed against me.
Q: And what was the response to this query of yours?
A: None, maam.
Q: And what happened next if any?
A: I asked them if there is warrant of arrest issued against
me.
Q: And what was the response to this query of yours?
A: None, maam.
Q: And I asked him what I am going to do here.
A: And what was his answer?
Q: The police officer told the unidentified lady to prepare a
complaint but she refused.
Q: And what was his answer?

A: The police officer told the unidentified lady to prepare a

complaint but she refused.
Q: After that what happened next?
A: Then the police officer told her that if she does not want to
prepare a complaint, the police officer will release me.
Q: And then what happened?
A: I was able to went [sic] home. (Rollo, p. 126)
xxx
Atty. Farinas: Mr. Witness, you are complaining in this case
because you were coerced to go to the precinct, is that
correct?

DECISION
CRIM. CASE
NO. 11-288514
The Witness: Yes, sir.
Page Ten (10)

Q: And the person who coerced you is SP02 Alagadan?

A: Yes, sir.
Q: And the accused did nothing?
A: Yes, she did nothing.
xxx (Rollo, p. 129)
xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

Atty. Go: Mr. Witness, you mentioned that Ms. Myrna Hermosa
did nothing. At the time that SP02 [P02] Alagadan, Myrna
Hermosa and Virgilio Meliza and you were at the
establishment of Sincerity Caf and Restaurant trying to
clarify the matter while SP02 [P02] Alagadan was informing
you of the complaint of this unidentified lady against you,
what was the reaction of Ms. Myrna Hermosa while all of
these were going on?
The Witness: Myrna Hermosa said that she does not
know what the unidentified woman was doing, it was
her own complaint. But they kept on texting.
Q: What if any did Myrna Hermosa say to the unidentified
lady to clarify the matter?
A: They were staring at each other.
xxx
xxx
emphasis added)

xxx

x x x (Rollo, pp. 129-130;

Testimony of Melinda Tan

xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

Q: Why was she in the restaurant at that day? [referring to

accused]
A: To present some documents, maam.

Q: After you told her that Mr. Peter Uy was at the second
floor, what happened next?
The Witness: I requested her to go up and asked her
companion to wait outside, maam.
Atty. Go: What happened next?
The Witness: Then after half hour, they both came down and
go [sic] out of the restaurant, maam.
Q: Now who is this both that you are referring to?
A: Peter and Myrna Hermosa, maam.
Q: Sometime 6:00 in the evening on that day, February 11,
2008, what other incident happened?

DECISION
CRIM. CASE
NO. 11-288514
A: Certain SP02 Alagadan and her companion came inside
Page Eleven
(11)
the restaurant
and telling [sic] me that the companion is

complaining that her companion is detained at the second

floor of the office.
xxx

xxx

xxx

x x x (Rollo, p. 136)

If the testimonial evidence of the prosecution shall be given full

credence, it was the unidentified woman who orally complained in the
police precinct that accused was then being held inside private
complainants office. It was she who allegedly concocted the trumpedup charge against private complainant and caused him to be nabbed
by the police officer for questioning, resulting in private complainants
humiliation and vexation. It is, hence, difficult to discern why accused
was charged and eventually convicted in lieu of the unidentified
woman when not a scintilla of evidence directly or indirectly
demonstrated that accused was the author of the crime to the
exclusion of everyone. In a brazen attempt to fill this void, the court a
quo, as aforequoted, rationalized that accused acted in conspiracy with
the unidentified woman in the commission of the crime.
This Court is not persuaded.
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to
commit it (Art. 8, Revised Penal Code). The essence of conspiracy is
the unity of action and purpose. Its elements, like the physical acts
constituting the crime itself, must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
When there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all (Quidet v.
People, G.R. No. 170289, April 8, 2010).
Direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy. Since by its
nature, conspiracy is planned in utmost secrecy it can rarely be proved
by direct evidence. Consequently, the presence of the concurrence of
minds which is involved in conspiracy, may be inferred from proof of
facts and circumstances which, taken together apparently indicate that
they are merely parts of some complete whole. If it is prove that two or
more persons aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment of the

same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their acts, though
apparently independent, were in fact connected and cooperative,
indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of
sentiment, a conspiracy may be inferred though no actual meeting
among them to concert means is proved. That would be termed an
implied conspiracy (Orodio v. CA, G. R. No. L-57519, September 13,
1988; People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 158754, August 10, 2007).
Nevertheless, mere knowledge, acquiescence, or approval of the
act, without cooperation or agreement to cooperate, is not enough to
constitute one a party to a conspiracy, but that there must be
intentional participation in the transaction with a view to the
furtherance of the common design and purpose. It is not sufficient that
the attack be joint and simultaneous for simultaneousness does not of
itself demonstrate the concurrence of will or unity of action and
purpose which are the bases of the responsibility of the assailants. It is
necessary, moreover, that a conspirator should have performed some
overt act as a direct or indirect contribution to the execution of the
crime committed. The overt act may consist of active participation in
the actual commission of the crime itself, or it may consist of moral
assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the commission of
DECISION
the crime or by exerting moral ascendancy over the other coCRIM.
CASE NO.
11-288514
conspirators.
Hence,
the mere presence of an accused at the
Page
Twelve
(12)
discussion of a conspiracy, even approval of it, without any active
participation in the same, is not enough for purposes of conviction;
conspiracy must be established, not by conjectures, but by positive
and conclusive evidence. In fact, the same degree of proof necessary
to establish the crime is required to support a finding of the presence
of a criminal conspiracy, which is, proof beyond reasonable doubt
(Bahilidad v. People, G.R. No. 185195, March 17, 2010; Quidet v.
People, G.R. No. 170289, April 8, 2010).
In the case at bar, evidence is absolutely wanting that accused
acted in concert with the unidentified woman in purportedly reporting
a false accusation against private complainant. The mere fact that the
unidentified woman was seen waiting outside the restaurant while
accused was negotiating to get private complainants signature on her
leave reimbursement application and the further fact that she and
accused were together when they were summoned to the precinct,
taken jointly, do not indicate that accused acted as the unidentified
womans co-conspirator as what the court a quo would want this
Court to believe for, even if the testimony of the prosecution
witnesses be accepted as gospel truth, it does not rule out the
possibility that the unidentified woman may have acted on her own
volition out of concern for her friends safety.
Verily, factual findings of the trial court, which is in a better
position to evaluate the testimonial evidence, are accorded respect by
the appellate court. But where the trial court overlooked,
misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight
and substance which can affect the result of the case, as in this case,
this Court is duty-bound to correct this palpable error for the right to
liberty, which stands second only to life in the hierarchy of
constitutional rights, cannot be lightly taken away. In the instant case,

this Court finds that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable
doubt that accused conspired with the unidentified woman.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated October
3, 2011 of the Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 25, Manila is REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant is hereby ACQUITTED
of the offense charged. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Manila, Philippines, ______________.

VIRGILIO
M.
ALAMEDA
Presiding Judge