You are on page 1of 8

PEOPLE v SANGALANG (Treachery) Nature: Appeal from CFI Tagaytay (wow!) judgment FACTS: June 9, 1968, 6 a.m.

.: Ricardo Cortez left his nipa hut in Silang, Cavite to gather tuba from a nearby coconut tree. His wife Flora Sarno was left inside the hut. While on top of the tree, Cortez was struck by a valley of shots. He later on fell to the ground at the base of the coconut tree. Flora went outside & was supposed to help his husband but the five persons each armed w/a long firearm fired at her too. She went back to the hut for cover but she was able to recognize the 5 as Conrado Gonzales, Irineo Canuel, Perino Canuel, Eleuterio Cuyom & Laureano Sangalang. The latter was known to Flora & her bro Ricardo since childhood. The five left after about 5mins & when she returned to her husband, he was already dead. Ricardo Sarno, Floras bro who lived nearby, heard the gunshots too. He went out & saw Sangalang shooting Cortez w/a Garand carbine. He was supposed to help Cortez but he was fired upon by the men too. Sarno & Flora executed sworn statements & based on these, a complaint against the 5 offenders was filed. Only Sangalang was arrested. CFI convicted him of murder & was sentenced to RP. Defense: Sangalang claims that during that time, he was in Sampaloc, Manila to borrow money from a certain Gatdula for the tuition fees of his children. He likewise impugns the credibility of Mrs. Cortez & Ricardo. Issues & Ratio: 1. WON Sangalangs alibi is admissible NO. Discrepancies in the testimonies of Sarno & Mrs. Cortez are not glaring and instead these strengthen their credibility & show that they did not rehearse their testimonies. Cortez & Sarno clearly & consistently testified that Sangalang was among those who shot Ricardo. Their unwavering identification negates Sangalangs alibi. Although motive for killing was not proven, it was not shown either that Cortez & Sarno were impelled by malicious desires to falsely incriminate Sangalang. 2. WON the qualifying AC of treachery (alevosia) should be appreciated. YES. When the crime happened, victim was on top of a coconut tree. He was unarmed & defenseless. The assault was unexpected. He didnt give any immediate provocation. Deliberate & surprise attack insured victims killing w/o any risk to the offenders arising from any defense w/c the victim could have made. Thus, offense is murder. Treachery absorbs the AC of band. Evident premeditation, though alleged, was not proven. Held: CFI affirmed. PEOPLE v TORREFIEL Facts: December 17, 1942, 5:00 p.m. Torrefiel and Ormeo were on their way to the USSAFE headquarters in the mountains. They passed by Eadys residence and talked to him at the balcony to ask for khakis. Ceferina Cordero also came to the balcony and inquired about their mission. She scolded Torrefiel and Ormeo because all their belongings have been looted by USSAFE soldiers. Torrefiel threatened her with slapping; brought out revolver. Eady and Cordero were charged with being fifth communists as they refused to give aid to them. Subsequently they were taken to the USSAFE headquarters to explain their accusations. Torrefiel: Eady and Ormeo: Cordero. Their hands were free but they were blindfolded. Cordero called to Eady every now and then to know if he was following. After a while Eady did not respond anymore so they stopped to wait for them. Torrefiel had taken the wrong way so he went back to a guardhouse & left Eady there. He tried to find a way to overtake Ormeo and Cordero but was unsuccessful. At the guardhouse, he discovers Eady had escaped. Torrefiel followed a different route enabling him to find Ormeo and Cordero. Ormeo rushed back to the guardhouse upon discovering that Eady had escaped; Cordero was left with Torrefiel. As Cordero was about to urinate, Torrefiel pushed her and carried her to a log and laid her on it and raped her. Torrefiel began to unbutton his pants and wound cogon leaves around his genitals. It was visible to Cordero as her blindfold had fallen down a little. Pressing her neck so she would remain silent, Torrefiel proceeded to have intercourse with her. Ormeo taking advantage, also had sex with her. The soldiers desisted from bringing Cordero to their headquarters and returned her to their house. Servant informed Cordero that Eady had gone away. Upon Eadys return, Cordero informed him that she was abused by Torrefiel. IGNOMINY is present. o The novelty of the act of winding cogon grass on his genitals before raping the victim augmented the wrong done by increasing its pain and adding moral disgrace thereto. People vs. Jose, 37 SCRA 450 Facts: - Magdalena Maggie de la Riva. 25, single, actress. Maggie was driving home with her maid 4:30am in June 26, 1967 when the appellants car bump her car. Accused were Jaime Jose y Gomez, Basilio Pineda, Jr., Eduardo Aquino y Payumo, and Rogelio Caal y Sevilla, principals, with accomplices Wong Lay Pueng, Silverio Guanzon y Romero and Jessie Guion y Envoltario. - Pineda went to her car, he tried to force her out, she screamed together with the maid but the other 3 helped Pineda. They took her to their car, left the maid and sped away. She was seated in the backseat between Jose and Aquino. She pleaded for them to release her but they replied with abusive language and threats (shoot her and throw acid at her face). Jose and Aquino busied themselves by kissing and touching her. They exchange knowing glances. When they were at Makati she was blindfolded, told not to shoot otherwise theyd kill her. They entered the Swanky Hotel (Pasay). - When they were inside the room they removed her blindfold and she was told to undress but she refused. They undressed her and feasted their eyes. They left the room with her clothes. This time, Jose entered the room, undressed himself, she defended herself but he hit her and raped her. He left. Aquino entered the room and did the same thing.

- When she got into a state of shock, they poured water and slapped her to revive her. Pineda took his turn on her. She got into a state of shock again but they revived her again so that she would know whats happening. Canal was the last to rape her. While each of them take their turns the others are outside the room just behind the door threatening her and telling her to give in because she cant escape anyway. When they were done they asked her to tidy herself up and that when she gets home tell her mom that a she was mistaken as a hostess but was released after knowing that she is an actress. They threatened her not to tell anyone. She was so weak that they had to carry her to the car. Jose held her head down to his lap for other people not to see her. They stopped near channel 5 to make it appear that she just came from a taping. - Pineda told Jose to hail a taxi from a not well known company. Canal accompanied her to the cab. In the cab she burst in tears. The appellants didnt follow her. She came back home at about 630 am. There are police and media in their house. She told her mom what happened. Her mom told her to clean up and douche to avoid infection and pregnancy. She was treated by the family doctor but they didnt tell him about the sexual assault. - On June 29, they finally decided to file the complaint. Jose was apprehended. He said that they waited for her in abs cbn, followed and abducted her. He named the other three but only Aquino and Pineda criminally assaulted her. The other three were apprehended. Canal and Pineda confirmed that they abducted her. But they said that Maggie yielded her body on the condition that she will be released. When they took the witness stand the three (except Pineda) said that they just took Maggie for a striptease which she agreed to for 1000 pesos. The court did not buy it for it was apparent from medical exams that Maggie was physically and sexually assaulted and she is earning a lot as an actress. - Pineda pled guilty of the crime RTC: Forcible abduction with rape done in conspiracy; Death penalty Issue: 1. WON PINEDA should get a lighter sentence because of his plea of guilty 2. Whether the aggravating circumstances should be appreciated Use of a motor vehicle. Night time sought purposely to facilitate the commission of the crime and to make its discovery difficult; Abuse of superior strength; That means were employed or circumstances brought about which added ignominy to the natural effects of the act; and That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for the commission (cruelty) Held: 1. No 2. YES except cruelty. Ratio: 1. While a plea of guilty is mitigating, at the same time it constitutes an admission of all the material facts alleged in the information, including the aggravating circumstances, and it matters not that the offense is capital, for the admission (plea of guilty) covers both the crime and its attendant circumstances qualifying and/or aggravating the crime - Since he pleaded guilty his presence in court for evidence is not required. - The situation would be different if he asked to prove mitigating circumstances. He was advised by his counsel of the effects of the plea of guilty. - The voluntary plea of guilty does not in the least affect the nature of the proper penalties to be imposed, for the reason that there would still be three aggravating circumstances remaining. As a result, appellants should likewise be made to suffer the extreme penalty of death in each of these three simple crimes of rape. (Art. 63, par. 2, Revised Penal Code.) 2. a) nighttime, appellants having purposely sought such circumstance to facilitate the commission of these crimes; (b) abuse of superior strength, the crime having been committed by the four appellants in conspiracy with one another (Cf. People vs. De Guzman, et al., 51 Phil., 105, 113); (c) ignominy, since the appellants in ordering the complainant to exhibit to them her complete nakedness for about ten minutes, before raping her, brought about a circumstance which tended to make the effects of the crime more humiliating; and (d) use of a motor vehicle. SC: Forcible abduction and 3 crimes of rape 3. Multiple death penalties are not impossible to serve because they will have to be executed simultaneously.The imposition of multiple death penalties, far from being a useless formality, has practical importance. The sentencing of an accused to several capital penalties is an indelible badge of his extreme criminal perversity, which may not be accurately projected by the imposition of only one death sentence irrespective of the number of capital felonies for which he is liable. People vs. Butler, 120 SCRA 281 Facts: - Accused-appellant Michael Butler and the victim, Enriquita Alipo alias Gina Barrios were together at Colonial Restaurant in Olongapo City. - They were seen together by Lilia Paz, an entertainer and friend of the victim, who claimed to have had a small conversation with the accused and one Rosemarie Suarez. - The accused left the restaurant with the victim together with Rosemarie. - Emelita Pasco, housemaid of the victim testified that Gina came home with Michael. They immediately went into the formers bedroom. Shortly thereafter, the victim left the room with a paper containing the ff. words: MICHAEL BUTLER, 44252-8519 USS HANCOCK. - She then rushed back to her room after instructing Pasco to wake her up in the morning. But before retiring. Rosemarie arrived and had a small conversation with her. - Pasco, in the morning, knocked at the door. She found that the victim was lying on her bed, facing downward, naked up to the waist, with legs spread apart with a broken figurine beside her head. She immediately called the landlord and the authorities. - An investigation was conducted by the authorities. After being located and identified as a crew member of USS Hancock, the accused was brought to the legal office of the ship. The accused was searched, handcuffed and was brought to the Naval Investigation Services Resident Agency office. - The result of the NISRA investigation was a document taken from the accused consisting of 3 pages signed and initialed on all pages by him and containing a statement that he was aware of his constitutional rights and a narration of the facts of the case.

- Dr. Roxas testified that the anal intercourse happened after the victims death. He also testified that the victim died of asphyxia due to suffocation when extreme pressure was exerted on her head pushing it downward, thereby pressing her nose and mouth against the mattress. - After trial, the accused was found guilty of murder. - A motion for new trial was filed by the accused-appellant alleging that he was a minor at the time the offense was committed. The motion was denied. A motion for reconsideration was subsequently filed which was also denied. Hence, a petition for mandamus. Issues: 1. WON the trial court erred in giving full credence to the testimony of the prosecution witness - As a matter of established jurisprudence, the findings of the trial court on credibility of a witness are not disturbed on appeal unless there is a showing that it failed to consider certain facts and circumstances which would change the same. - There were three persons who identified the accused. The finger print examination showed that one of the three prints lifted from the cellophane wrapping of the figurine was identical with the accused finger; and the accused failed to present clear and positive evidence to overcome the scientific and specific finding and conclusion of the medico-legal officer. 2. WON the trial court erred in admitting in evidence the alleged extra-judicial admission of the accused and appreciating it against him Contrary to what the counsel for the accused-appellant contends, there is no evidence showing that the accused was roughly handed from the very start. Neither is there any evidence to prove that he was first handcuffed and informed that he was first handcuffed and informed that he was a suspect in a murder case before he was warned of his rights. - While it may be true that a considerable span of time elapsed from the moment the accused was brought to the NISRA office to the time the interrogation was begun and reduced to writing, there is no competent evidence presented to support the allegation that the statement made by the accused was a result of pressure and badgerings. 3. WON the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty of the crime of murder qualified by abuse of superior strength - The Court holds that there was an abuse of superior strength attending the commission of the crime. It is not only the notorious advantage of height that the accused had over the hapless victim, but also his strength which he wielded in striking her with the figurine on the head and in shoving her head and pressing her mouth and nose against the bed mattress. 4. WON the trial court erred in appreciating treachery and abuse of superior strength simultaneously and separately - The evidence on record, however, is not sufficient to show clearly and prove distinctly that treachery attended the commission of the crime since there was no eyewitness account of the killing. 5. WON the trial court erred in accepting the testimony of Dr. Roxas, the medico-legal Officer, that asphyxiation by suffocation was the cause of death of the victim - The Court sustains the finding of the lower court that the aggravating circumstance of outraging or scoffing at the corpse of the deceased applies against the accused since it is established that he mocked or outraged the person or corpse of his victim by having an anal intercourse with her after she was already dead. - The fact that the muscles of the anus did not close and also the presence of spermatozoa in the anal region as testified to by Dr. Roxas and confirmed to be positive in the Laboratory Report clearly establishes the coitus after death. 6. WON the trial court erred in denying the accused the benefits of Sec. 192 of PD 603 before its amendment by PD 1179 on Aug. 15, 1977 - At the time of the commission of the offense, the trial and rendition of judgment, the applicable law was PD 603. The Court does not agree with the reasoning of the trial court that the accused did not invoke the law because the records manifestly show the vigorous plea of the accuse for its application. The accused was below 21 years at the time of his trial and even at the time judgment was promulgated to him on December 3, 1976 (he was then 19 years, 3 months and 3 days old) - The Court likewise holds that the penalty of death was not justified. The accused is a minor and he is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of minority. - The amendment to keep away from its beneficient provision cases of conviction of a minor when penalty imposed is death cannot prejudice the accused whose case was pending appeal when the amendment took effect. Disposition: The case against the accused is DISMISSED. Civil liability imposed upon him by the lower court shall remain. People v. Ilaoa (1994) Facts: The 5 accused were charged for the gruesome murder of Nestor de Loyola. The conviction was based on the following circumstances: a) The deceased was seen on the night before the killing in a drinking session with some of the accused; 2) The drunken voices accused Ruben and Nestor were later heard and Nestor was then seen being kicked and mauled by the 5 accused; 3) some of the accused borrowed the tricycle of Alex at about 2 a.m.; 4) blood was found in Rubens shirt. Held: Evident premeditation cannot be considered. There is nothing in the records to show that appellant, prior to the night in question, resolved to kill Nestor, nor is there proof to show that such killing was the result of meditation, calculation or resolution on his part. On the contrary, the evidence tends to show that the series of circumstances which culminated in the killing constitutes an unbroken chain of events with no interval of time separating them for calculation and meditation. The fact that Nestors decapitated body bearing 43 stab wounds, 24 of which were fatal, was found dumped in the street is not sufficient for a finding of cruelty where there is no showing that appellant Ilaoa, for his pleasure and satisfaction, caused Nestor to suffer slowly and painfully and inflicted on him unnecessary physical and moral pain. Number of wounds alone is not the criterion for the appreciation of cruelty as an aggravating circumstance. Neither can it be inferred from the mere fact that the victims dead body was dismembered. People v. Atop (1998) Facts: 11-year-old Regina lives with her grandmother. Atop is the common-law husband of her grandmother. Atop was found guilty of 4 counts of rape which was committed in 1993 (2x), 1994 and 1995. The lower court took into account the AC of relationship. Nature: Appeal from the Automatic Review of the joint decision of the RTC of Ormoc Alejandro Atop alias Ali guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of rape and sentencing him to two terms of reclusion perpetua for the first two counts, and to death for the third. According to the prosecution: Regina Guafin, told the court that she is a granddaughter of Trinidad Mejos and that the accused Alejandro Atop is the common law husband of said Trinidad Atop

- Her mother is a daughter of Trinidad Atop and lives in Pangasinan. She is an illegitimate child and she does not even know her father. Since her early childhood she stayed with her grandmother Trinidad Atop and the accused. Sometime in 1991 when she was already 10 years of age the accused started having lustful desire on her. The accused then inserted his finger into her vagina. She told her grandmother about this but her grandmother did not believe her. She was then told by her grandmother, Trinidad Mejos, that what her grandfather did to her was just a manifestation of fatherly concern. She continued staying with her grandmother and her common law husband Alejandro Atop. - Oct. 9, 1992 Atop had carnal knowledge of Regina. Regina informed her grandmother but her grandmother refused to believe her. -Regina reported the incidents of rape that happened in 1992, 1993, and 1994 only in January 1995. She said that she was afraid to report the incident because Ali threatened to kill her. According to Defense: - Ali denied the accusations of Regina and imputed ill motive upon her aunts, who were the daughters of his live in partner. Issues: 1. WON the circumstances of nighttime and relationship as aggravating can be appreciated. NO. Nocturnity -Must have been deliberately sought by the offender to facilitate the crime or prevent its discovery or evade his capture or facilitate his escape. -Must have purposely taken advantage of the cover of night as an indispensable factor to attain his criminal purpose. - The prosecution failed to prove that nighttime was deliberately sought by appellant to facilitate this dastardly acts. In fact, the prosecution failed to show that appellant consummated his carnal designs at night, except only for the December 26, 1994 incident which the victim said occurred at 11:00 p.m. There are no evidence substantiating the trial courts conclusion that appellant intentionally sought the darkness to advance his criminal exploits Scope of Relationship Spouse Ascendant Descendant Legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister Relative by affinity in the same degree Relationship by affinity refers to a relation by virtue of a legal bond such as marriage. Relatives by affinity are those commonly referred to as in-laws, stepfather, stepmother, stepchild and the like. -Relatives by consanguinity or blood relatives encompassed under the second, third and fourth enumeration above. - The law cannot be stretched to include persons attached by common-law relations. -There is no blood relationship or legal bond that links the appellant to his victim. Thus, the modifying circumstance of relationship cannot be considered against him -11 of A335 of the RPC as amended: The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common law spouse of the parent of the victim -Appellant is not the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. He is the common-law husband of the girls grandmother. Neither is appellant the victims parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the 3rd civil degree. Hence, hes not encompassed in any of the relationships expressly enumerated. -Penal statutes are to be liberally construed in favor of the accused 2. WON accused committed the crime beyond reasonable doubt. - YES. No simple barrio lass would so candidly admit before the public that a man who had lived as common-law husband to her grandmother had inserted his penis in her vagina for so many times in the past. It is unthinkable that complainant, a young lady of fifteen years, would allow her private parts to be examined and would withstand the rigors of a public trial along with the shame, humiliation and dishonor of exposing her own mortifying defilement if she was not in fact ravished It is unnatural and unbelievable for Reginas aunts to concoct a story of rape of their own very young niece, that would bring shame and scandal not only to her but to the entire family, especially to their mother. Held: The law cannot be stretched to include persons attached by common-law relations. In this case, there is no blood relationship or legal bond that links Atop to his victim. PEOPLE v San Pedro Facts: A lifeless body of Felimon Rivera was found. It was found that the group of San Pedro, who pretended to hire Riveras jeep to haul coconuts, had hit Rivera at the nape with a water pipe. He was able to jump out of the jeep but was chased and stabbed at the back several times at the back. The jeep was then sold by the accused. Held: Lack of instruction is not applicable to the crimes of theft and robbery, much less the crime of homicide. The reason is that robbery and killing are, by their nature wrongful acts and are manifestly so to be enlightened, equally as to the ignorant. Abejuela v. People August 19, 1991 Who incurs criminal liability Accomplice Fernan, J: Facts: This is a case of estafa. Abejuela became close friends with Balo, a Banco Filipino employee. Abejuela has an account with Banco Filipino.

Issue: Ratio:

Balo borrowed Abejuelas passbook with Banco Filipino and used it to deposit and withdraw money, even amounting to almost 200k. He told Abejuela that what he was depositing were from the insurance proceeds of his grandfather but that as a Banco Filipino employee he could not open his own account and so had to use Abejuelas. It was found that Balo used his being an employee of the bank to post false deposits. Abejuela did not know of this and when he started getting suspicious, he actually even closed his account with Banco Filipino to prevent Balo from continuing. Both Balo and Abejuela were charged with Estafa. During pendency of the case, Balo was purportedly killed by the NPA. The trials continued for Abejuela. RTC ruled that Abejuela is an accomplice to the crime. CA affirmed the rtc decision. Whether or not Abejuela is an accomplice to the crime of estafa. NO HE IS NOT. o After carefully weighing the arguments of both parties as well as taking into consideration the evidence on record, we are inclined to believe that petitioner Abejuela was completely unaware of the malevolent scheme of Balo. From Balo's own admissions, it was he who deceived Abejuela through sweet talk, assurances, drinking sprees and parties and cajoled him into giving in to his requests. Furthermore, during that time, nobody would have questioned Balo's source of money and since he had a perfect alibi, i.e. the insurance proceeds of his later father. When Balo showed Abejuela some checks purporting to be his father's insurance proceeds, Abejuela was hoodwinked into believing that Balo indeed had money. Balo's request to borrow Abejuela's passbook in order to facilitate the encashment of the checks seemed reasonable enough, considering that they were close friends and "compadres". On being an accomplice: o Knowledge of the criminal intent of the principal in this case, (Glicerio Balo, Jr.) is essential in order that petitioner Abejuela can be convicted as an accomplice in the crime of estafa thru falsification of commercial document. To be convicted as an accomplice, there must be cooperation in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts. However, the cooperation which the law punishes is the assistance rendered knowingly or intentionally, which assistance cannot be said to exist without the prior cognizance of the offense intended to be committed. In a number of cases decided by the court, it has been held that knowledge of the criminal intention of the principal is indispensable in order to hold a person liable as an accomplice. It has been satisfactorily established that Banco Filipino suffered damage. Although abejuela was unaware of the criminal workings of Balo, he nevertheless contributed to their eventual consummation by recklessly entrusting his passbook to Balo and by signing the withdrawal slips. He failed to exercise prudence and care. Therefore he must be held civilly accountable. o

Ruling: Abejuela is acquitted. People vs. Doble, 114 SCRA 131 Nature: Automatic review of the decision of CFI Rizal. 1982 FACTS: Late in the night of June 13, 1966, 10 men, almost all heavily armed w/ pistols, carbines and thompsons, left the shores of Manila in a motor banca & proceeded to Navotas,Rizal to rob the beach-bank Prudential Bank & Trust Co. Said bank wad an unusual banking hours, open from midnight till 8AM. Once docked in Navotas and taking advantage of the darkness of the night, 8 men disembarked from the banca and proceeded to their mission. Once inside, they started firing at the banks ceiling, walls & door of the vault. The 8 men then returned to the waiting motor banca w/ about P10.5K & sped away. As a result of the shooting, many people got killed & injured. Among those who got killed were agents of the law. Only 5 of the 10 men were brought to trial, the rest still remain at large. 2 of the 5 accused were acquitted. It is only Cresencio Doble, Simeon Doble and Antonio Romaquin appealing in the charge of bank robbery committed in band, w/ multiple homicide, multiple frustrated homicide and assault upon agents of persons in authority. HELD: First, as to appellant Simeon, evidence shows that the malefactors met in his house to discuss the plan to rob the bank. This circumstance alone doesnt conclude his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The facts do not show that he performed any act tending to the perpetration of the robbery, nor that he took a direct part therein or induced other persons to commit, or that he cooperated in its consummation by some act w/o w/c it would not have been committed. At most, his act amounted to joining in a conspiracy w/c is not punishable. Simeon then was not a principal both by agreement and encouragement for his non-participation in the commission of the crime. Nor was it clearly proven that he had received any part/fruits of the lootedmoney as to make him an accessory. As recommended by SolGen, Simeon Doble is entitled to acquittal w/ no sufficient evidence to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Next, as regards Romaquin & Doble, the malefactors who waited in the banca, both contend that their extra-judicial statements upon w/c their conviction was principally made to rest, are inadmissible for having been allegedly obtained by force and intimidation, torture and maltreatment, and in violation of basic constil rts to counsel and against self-incrimination. However, it must be noted that they didnt present any medical cert to attest to the injuries allegedly inflicted. More so that their testimonies match each others. And it should also be noted that Celso Aquinos testimony, as one of the accused, admitted that no violence was inflicted on him to procure his statement. This is evidence enough that the appellants could not have been dealt w/ differently as their co-accused Aquino who was allowed to give his statement freely. The extra-judicial statements o the appellants are convincing to show that their liability is less than that of a co-principal by conspiracy or by actual participation. Cresencio was merely in-charge of the banca and had no knowledge of the concrete plan and execution of the crime. The mastermind obviously did not extend confidence in him as he was only asked to provide a banca just a few hours before

the commission of the crime. Nor was Romaquin considered a principle malefactor as there was a gun pointed at him by Cresencio to prevent him from fleeing away from the scene, evident to show that he never joined in the criminal purpose and that his acts were not voluntary. An accomplice is one who, not being principal as defined in Art 17 RPC, cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts. There must be a community of unlawful purpose between the principal and accomplice and assistance knowingly and intentionally given to supply material and moral aid in the consummation of the offense. In this case, the appellants cooperation is like that of a driver of a car used for abduction w/c makes the driver a mere accomplice. But it isnt established by evidence that in the mtg held in the house of Simeon that they all agreed to kill and not just rob. The finding that appellants are liable as mere accomplices may appear too lenient but evidence fails to establish their conspiracy w/ the real malefactors who actually robbed the bank and killed several people. Wherefore, Doble & Romaquin are guilty beyond reasonable doubt as accomplices for the crime of robbery in band. The penalty imposable upon appellants is prision mayor min. The commission of the crime was aggr by nighttime & the use of a motorized banca. There being no MC, both appellants should be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of prision correccional from 5 yrs, 4 mos, 21 days to 8 yrs of prision mayor as maximum. PEOPLE v DOCTOLERO People vs. Doctolero, 193 SCRAI 632 FACTS: Epifania and Lolita were killed in the house of Marcial where they were living. A few meters from the house, Marcelo was fatally injured. The evidence of the prosecution tend to show that the three accused were responsible for the deaths of Epifania and Lolita and in inflicting injuries to Jonathan. And immediately, with their father and co-accused, Antonio Doctolero they hacked Marcelo with their bolos which caused the death of the latter. HELD: We have held that where one goes with the principals and in staying outside of the house while the others went inside to rob and kill the victim, the former effectively supplied the criminals with material and moral aid, making him guilty as an accomplice. Appellant contend that the murders occurred as a consequence of a sudden thought or impulse, thus negating common criminal design in their minds. This pretension must be rejected since one can be an accomplice even if he did not know if the actual crime intended by the principal provided that he was aware that it was an illicit act. People v. Talingdan (1978) Facts: Teresa Domogma was the supposed wife of the deceased Bernardo Bagabag No certificate or any other proof of their marriage could be presented by the prosecution They lived with their children in Sobosob, Salapadan, Abra Their relationship had been strained and beset with troubles for Teresa had deserted her family home a couple of times and each time Bernardo took time out to look for her On 2 different occasions, appellant Nemesis Talingdan has visited Teresa in their house while Bernardo was out at work, and during those visits Teresa had made Corazon, their then 12-year old daughter to go down the house and leave them Bernardo had gotten wind that an illicit relationship was going on between Talingdan and Teresa About a month before Bernardo was killed, Teresa had again left their house and did not come back for a period of more than 3 weeks, and Bernardo came to know later that she and Talingdan were seen together in the town of Tayum Abra during that time Just two days before Bernardo was killed (Thursday), Bernardo and Theresa had a violent quarrel; Bernardo slapped Theresa several times, resulting in Theresa seeking the help of the police Accused Talingdan, a policeman, came armed to the vicinity of Bernardo's house and called him to come down; Bernardo ignored him; Talingdan instead left and warned Bernardo that someday he would kill him On Saturday, June 24, 1967, Bernardo was gunned down in his house The defendants' and Corazon's accounts of what happened had variations

Corazon's version: Friday morning: Corazon was in a creek to wash clothes. She saw her mother Teresa meeting with Talingdan and their coappellants Magellan Tobias, Augusto Berras, and Pedro Bides in a small hut owned by Bernardo She heard one of them say "Could he elude a bullet" When Teresa noticed Corazon, she shoved her away saying "You tell your father that we will kill him" Saturday, after sunset: Corazon was cooking food for supper when she saw her mother go down the house to go to the yard where she again met with the other appellants.

She noted the long guns the appellants were carrying. Teresa came back to the house and proceeded to her room. Corazon informed Bernardo, who was then working on a plow, about the presence of persons downstairs, but Bernardo paid no attention Bernardo proceeded to the kitchen and sat himself on the floor near the door He was suddenly fired upon form below the stairs of the batalan The four accused climbed the stairs of the batalan and upon seeing that Bernardo was still alive, Talingdan and Tobias fired at him again Bides and Berras did not fire at that precise time but when Corazon tried to call for helo, Bides warned her that he will kill her if she calls for help Teresa came out of her room and when Corazon informed her that she recognized the killers, the former threatened to kill the latter if she reveals the matter to anyone

The defendants'' version: Issue: Whether or not Teresa Domogma is an accessory to Bernardo's murder Holding: Yes. She is an accessory to Bernardo's murder. Ratio: Note: The court believed Corazon's testimony. It is true that proof of her direct participation in the conspiracy is not beyond reasonable doubt; she cannot have the same liability as her co-appellants. She had no hand in the actual shooting. It is also not clear if she helped directly in the planning and preparation thereof. But the court is convinced that she knew it was going to be done and did not object. There is in the record morally convincing proof that she is at the very least an accessory to the offense committed. She did not only order her daughter not to reveal what she knew to anyone, she also claimed to have no suspects in mind when the peace officers came into their house later to investigate Whereas before the actual shooting she was more or less passive in her attitude regarding the conspiracy, after Bernardo was killed, she became active in her cooperation with her co-appellants These acts constitute "concealing or assisting in the escape of the principal in the crime" Male appellants sentenced to death. Guilty beyond reasonable doubt is Teresa Domogma, sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 5 years of prision correccional as minimum to 8 years of prision mayor as maximum. It is contended that there is no evidence proving that she actually joined in the conspuracy to kill her husband because there is no showing of actual cooperation on her part with co-appellants in their culpable acts that led to his death It is claimed that what is apparent is "mere cognizance, acquiescence or approval thereof on her part, which it is argued is less than what is required for her conviction as a conspirator Teresa loved Bernardo dearly, they never quarreled, and her husband never maltreated her. Teresa came to know Talingdan only when the latter became a policeman in Sallapadan; an illicit relationship never existed between them Talingdan was not in Sallapadan at the time of the killing on June 24; he escorted the Mayor in Bangued from June 22 to June 26 Tobias, Bides, and Berras claimed to be in the house of one Mrs. Bayongan in Sallapadan, 250-300 meters from the place of the killing

People vs. Jorge, 231 SCRA 693 Facts: Francisco Palma was being molested by three men. Jorge and Lajera held the hands of Palma and a woman stabbing him on the left chest with a long instrument which caused his death.

Held: In order to convict appellant as a principal by direct participation in the case, it is necessary that conspiracy among them be proved. No conspiracy was established. Conspiracy must be proved as sufficient as the crime itself through clear and convincing evidence not only be mere conjectures. Theappealed decision does not mention much less discuss conspiracy.

You might also like