People v Salvador, GR 201443; 10 April 2013

(co-conspirator; accomplice)

Facts: In April 2020, Albert (new of owner of New Cainta Coliseum) after leaving the coliseum was
met on the road with the accused-appellants, at the point of a gun, accosted and ordered the former and
another victim, Pinky to board their vehicle. While in the moving vehicle of the accused-appellants,
the victims were handcuffed and asked to wear dark sunglasses. Albert would observe passing by
familiar places, including the Ateneo gym, Balara and SM Fairview. Albert recognized the accused-
appellants on separate circumstances at the coliseum and while they are being kept in a house. After a
couple days, Albert and Pinky were rescued and identified some of the accused-appellants when
presented a police lineup. Albert’s wife narrated and testified that she received several calls demanding
for a sum of money and instructed her to go to a restaurant in EDSA Guadalupe. Albert’s wife was
then assisted by police operatives who were able to follow the accused-appellants vehicle leading to
their eventual arrest.

In their defense, the accused-appellants posed separate alibis, including not knowing the victims and
the other accused, until they have met at the police lineup in Camp Crame. The trial court ruled on the
conviction of the accused-appellants of conspiring the kidnapping of, and demanding of ransom from
Albert. The Court of Appeals denied the appeal with a modification that the accused-appellants are not
entitled to parole.

Issue: Whether or not the accused-appellants should be held as co-conspirators and accomplices Betty
and Monico are to be held as co-conspirators because they knowingly provided the venue for Albert’s
detention

Ruling: The appeal is DENIED with modifications on the civil damages.

The court stressed that conspiracy transcends companionship. Mere presence at the locus criminis
cannot by itself be a valid basis for conviction, and mere knowledge, acquiescence to or agreement to
cooperate, is not enough to constitute one as a party to a conspiracy, absent any active participation in
the commission of the crime.

Direct Proof of previous agreement to commit an offense is not necessary to prove conspiracy. It may
be deduced from the mode, method and manner in which the offense is perpetrated, or inferred from
the acts of the accused when such acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and
community of interest. In a conspiracy to commit the crime of kidnapping for ransom, the place where
the victim is to be detained is logically a primary consideration.

In the case at bar, Monico’s assistance extended to Albert when the latter descended the basement stairs
and Betty’s visit to the safehouse to bring food could not automatically be interpreted as the acts of
principals and conspirators in the crime of kidnapping for ransom. Betty and Monico were
indispensable in the kidnapping of Albert because they knowingly and purposely provided the venue to
detain Albert.