G.R. No. 258710 – Criminal Law – Elements of a Crime – Overt Act – Making a statement agreeing to commit a crime is not an overt act
In 2009, the Ampatuan family agreed to murder the Mangudadatu family. They had a meeting on 20 July 2009 and this was attended by Datu Akmad Ampatuan and Datu Zaldy Ampatuan. They were likewise present during the meetings held on November 17 and 22, 2009. In all those meetings, they planned on how to carry out the murder plot. Datu Akmad said in the meetings “pakinggan natin si Ama. Okay kami lahat na patayin sila” and “mabuti nga sa mga Mangudadatu na mahilig mag ambisyon na patayin sila lahat.” Datu Zaldy, on his part, stated “Todo suporta aka diyan, kahit lahat ng baril ko gagamitin ko. Kahit lahat ng baril ko gagamitin ninyo. Kailangan malinis ang pagkakatrabaho kasi kapag nagkataon makukulong tayong lahat.”
On 23 November 2009, while Datu Akmad was attending a medical mission, the murder plot was carried out which resulted in the death of 58 individuals (Maguindanao Massacre). The guns used in the massacre were lent by Datu Zaldy.
After trial, Datu Akmad was acquitted on the ground that his utterances did not prove conspiracy. Datu Zaldy was convicted.
ISSUE: Whether or not Datu Akmad’s acquittal is correct.
HELD: Yes. While Datu Akmad attended the meetings where the murder was planned and even expressed his support for it, his absence during its execution showed that he did not cling to the agreed plot to kill.
In order to be a conspirator, Datu Akmad should have committed overt acts in furtherance of the crime.
An overt act is “an outward, physical manifestation of the will performed by a conspirator” and “an outward act, possibly innocent in itself, done in furtherance of a conspiracy, treason, or criminal attempt.”
Furtherance is “the act or process of facilitating the progress of something or of making it more likely to occur.”
Though Datu Akmad’s statements may be deemed as debauched or depraved, they are mere expressions of approval of or acquiescence to the plot and cannot be said to be in furtherance of the crime. 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.
The conviction of Datu Zaldy is correct. Aside from his utterances, the lending of his guns shows his unity of design and purpose with his co-conspirators and is certainly in furtherance of the plot as these would constitute the very tools needed to perpetrate the killing.
