SUBSTANTIVE ARGUMENT

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT TAY LOKO (Father-in-Law) IS GUILTY OF ILLEGAL

DETENTION IN CONSONANCE WITH VAWC FOLLOWING THE DOCTRINES OF
CONSPIRACY.
It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Sharica Mari L. Go-Tan vs Spouses
Perfecto C. Tan and Juanita L. Tan (GR 168852) that:
While the said provision provides that the offender be related or connected to the victim
by marriage, former marriage, or a sexual or dating relationship, it does not preclude the
application of the principle of conspiracy under the RPC.
It is our position that conspiracy insofar as the accused is concerned was not proven, thus
the accused is not guilty of VAWC. We submit the following arguments:
The facts and testimonial evidence did not prove the existence of any overt act of Tay Loko
as a conspirator in the illegal detention of the complainant.
Conspiracy must be established, not by conjectures, but by positive and
conclusive evidence. Conspiracy transcends mere companionship and mere presence at
the scene of the crime does not in itself amount to conspiracy. Even knowledge,
acquiescence in 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 with a view to
the furtherance of the common design and purpose. (Ledonga v. People)
In terms of proving its existence, conspiracy takes two forms. The first is the express
form, which requires proof of an actual agreement among all the co-conspirators to
commit the crime. However, conspiracies are not always shown to have been expressly
agreed upon. Thus, we have the second form, the implied conspiracy. An implied
conspiracy exists when two or more persons are shown to have aimed by their acts
towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their
combined acts, though apparently independent, were in fact connected and cooperative,
indicating closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment. ( Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo Vs. People of the Philippines and Sandiganbayan/Benigno B. Aguas Vs. Sandigabayan
G.R. No. 220598/G.R. No. 220953)

Implied conspiracy is proved through the mode and manner of the commission of the
offense, or from the acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the
crime indubitably pointing to a joint purpose, a concert of action and a community of
interest. But to be considered a part of the conspiracy, each of the accused must be shown
to have performed at least an overt act in pursuance or in furtherance of the conspiracy,
for without being shown to do so none of them will be liable as a co-conspirator, and
each may only be held responsible for the results of his own acts. ( Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo Vs.
People
of
the
Philippines
G.R. No. 220598/G.R. No. 220953)

and

Sandiganbayan/Benigno

B.

Aguas

Vs.

Sandigabayan

In the present case the prosecution did not muster the requisite of proving an overt act either
express or implied that the accused (Tay Loko), conspired to illegally detain the complainant.
1. The affidavit of the complainant did not show the overt acts of the accused, the
excerpts from the complainants judicial affidavit narrated the following:

Q. Kailan ito nangyari?

A. May 16, 2016.
Q. Bakit kayo namaltrato ulit?
A. Dahil po ayaw po talaga nila makipag-ayos. Na Bakit daw po nagpetisyon ako ng
sustento, kasalanan ko naman daw pong umalis ako sa kanila. Nagkasagutan po kami
at dahil po doon, hinila nila po ako pababa. Ipinasok po nila ako sa basement po nila.
Kinadena po nila ako sa isang kama doon, at saka isinara ang pinto. Tapos nun.
Q. Matapos po nun, Misis, ano ang nangyari?
A. Matapos po nun, sinunod nilang ikulong ang anak naming. Hindi na po sila
naaawa na kahit may kapansanan si Luko, ikinulong pa din nila. Wala po silang awa.
Kahit anong pagmamakaawa ko po ni isa sa kanila, wala pong tumulong sa amin ni
Luko. Papakawalan lang daw po nila kami kapag iaatras daw po naming yung
sustento. Yun lang daw po makakatulong samin sabi nila.
Q. Sinong sila po ang tinutukoy niyo misis?
A. Ang asawat mga biyenan ko po.
2. Moreover, the records of investigation of the MPD Police Station 2, narrated the
incident as follows:
She filed a case for child support case on December 01, 2014 and won the case
sometime on May this year, days after winning the case sometime on May 16,
Manlo visited his estranged wife and daughter asking them to come back home
with him and fix things up. Nagpa, convinced that all will be well again, went
with his husband and daughter to his husbands paternal house. There, a heated
conversation transpired regarding the child support case; thus Manlo illegally
detained his wife and daughter in a basement with no communication to anyone
(emphasis ours), with Nagpa being chained to bed.
In this connection, the excerpts from the judicial affidavits and investigation reports failed to
adduce an overt act of the accused. In People v. Lizada, character of the overt act has been
explained:
An overt or external act is defined as some physical activity or deed, indicating
the intention to commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning or
preparation, which if carried out to its complete termination following its natural
course, without being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the spontaneous
desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete
offense.
In Bahilidad vs People:
It is necessary 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 the crime or by exerting moral ascendancy over the other coconspirators. Hence, the mere presence of an accused at the discussion of a
conspiracy, even approval of it, without any active participation in the same, is
not enough for purposes of conviction. (emphasis ours)

Clearly, the narration of the complainant in her judicial affidavit and to the investigating office
did not specify the overt act of the accused. Aside from this sweeping allegation of conspiracy,
the information failed to mention any act as to how petitioner had taken part in the in the alleged
conspiracy.

CONCLUSION
The group concludes that the case should be for the failure of the complainant to prove
conspiracy.