Scribd
Upload
467 views1 page

People Vs Gambao GR No. 172707 Ponente: Justice Jose Portugal Perez

This document summarizes a court case regarding the kidnapping of Lucia Tan. The court found that although some of the defendants like Dukilman claimed they were not directly involved, the testimonies and evidence established a conspiracy between the defendants. Specifically: 1) Two defendants repeatedly visited the victim's house before the kidnapping. 2) The defendants changed shifts guarding the victim during the kidnapping. 3) The defendants were present during the ransom exchange and rescue operation. The court ruled this was sufficient to prove conspiracy between all the defendants, making them all principals in the kidnapping crime.

Uploaded by

Joyleen Hebron
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
467 views1 page

People Vs Gambao GR No. 172707 Ponente: Justice Jose Portugal Perez

This document summarizes a court case regarding the kidnapping of Lucia Tan. The court found that although some of the defendants like Dukilman claimed they were not directly involved, the testimonies and evidence established a conspiracy between the defendants. Specifically: 1) Two defendants repeatedly visited the victim's house before the kidnapping. 2) The defendants changed shifts guarding the victim during the kidnapping. 3) The defendants were present during the ransom exchange and rescue operation. The court ruled this was sufficient to prove conspiracy between all the defendants, making them all principals in the kidnapping crime.

Uploaded by

Joyleen Hebron
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

People vs Gambao GR No.

172707
Ponente: Justice Jose Portugal Perez

Lucia Tan was a fish dealer based in Manila. On the afternoon of August 11, 1998, accused Theng
Dilangalen went to Chan’s house to inquire about a certain passport mistakenly placed inside a box of
fish to deliver to her.
The next morning, Dilangalen returned but was told that the delivery had yet to come. Dilanglen once
more returned together with an unidentified person. This time, upon reaching Chan’s house,
Dilangalen’s companions. They then dragged Chan and forced to board a van.
Chan was taken to a house where appellant Dukilman, Ronas and Evad stood guard on her.
An entrapment after the payment of ransom resulted into the apprehension of Dukilman and three
others. Later, the authorities conducted a rescue operation in the house where Chan was kept and
other appellants were apprehended.
All those apprehended were found guilty of Kidnap for ransom and were sentenced accordingly.
Dukilman, Ronas and Evad appealed the guilty verdict. They averred that as far as they are
concerned, conspiracy is not established. Dukilman intends that he was not one of those
apprehended during the rescue operation and Ebad argues that they did not take part in the negation
for the ransom money.
Issue:
Whether or not there exists a conspiracy in the kidnapping of Chan.
Decision:
Yes. Although Dukilman was not one of those apprehended at the cottage during the rescue
operation, the testimony of Police Inspector Arnado sufficiently established that he was one of the
four people apprehended when the police intercepted the "Tamaraw FX" at the Nichols Tollgate.
Likewise, the testimony of Police Inspector Ouano sufficiently established that Ronas and Evad were
two of those who were arrested during the rescue operation.
This Court has held before that to be a conspirator; one need not participate in every detail of the
execution; he need not even take part in every act or need not even know the exact part to be
performed by the others in the execution of the conspiracy. Once conspiracy is shown, the act of one
is the act of all the conspirators. The precise extent or modality of participation of each of them
becomes secondary, since all the conspirators are principals.
Moreover, Chan positively identified the accused-appellants and placed all of them at the crime
scenes.
Under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code, there is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning a felony and decide to commit it. It has been a long standing opinion of this
Court that proof of the conspiracy need not rest on direct evidence, as the same may be inferred from
the collective conduct of the parties before, during or after the commission of the crime indicating a
common understanding among them with respect to the commission of the offense.
The testimonies, when taken together, reveal the common purpose of the accused-appellants and
how they were all united in its execution from beginning to end. There were testimonies proving that
(1) before the incident, two of the accused-appellants kept coming back to the victim’s house; (2)
during the kidnapping, accused-appellants changed shifts in guarding the victim; and (3) the accused
appellants were those present when the ransom money was recovered and when the rescue
operation was conducted.
Seeing that conspiracy among Gambao, Karim, Dukilman, Abao, Udal, Mandao, Dilangalen,
Macalinbol, Ronas and Evad was established beyond reasonable doubt based on the proffered
evidence of the prosecution, the act of one is the act of all the conspirators.

You might also like