Pp. vs.

Madali
The son was mauled. The family was not in good graces of the
neighborhood. Father challenged everybody and when neighbors approached, he
went home to get a rifle. The shouts of his wife Here comes another, shoot him
cannot make the wife the principal by inducement. It is not the determining cause of
the crime in the absence of proof that the words had great dominance and influence
over the husband. Neither is the wifes act of beaming the victim with a flashlight
indispensable to the commission of the killing. She assisted her husband in taking
good aim, but such assistance merely facilitated the felonious act of shooting.
Considering that it was not so dark and the husband could have accomplished the
deed without his wifes help, and considering further that doubts must be resolved in
favor of the accused, the liability of the wife is only that of an accomplice.

Lim Buanco and a certain bank employee were charged with estafa in two separate cases. They
contended that there was double jeopardy because the information alleged that the crime was in
"furtherance of the conspiracy" so a conviction in one crime should be a bar to a prosecution for
another. The Court found that the word "conspiracy" was used in the information in its ordinary, not
technical or legal, meaning. It was a conspiracy in the sense that there was "fraudulent cooperation"
between Lim and the bank employee and the cooperation of the latter was held to be indispensable
so he is considered as a principal. The Court thus held that each separate fraudulent transaction
constituted a distinct crime, and a conviction of one such crimes cannot be considered as double
jeopardy in the prosection for another.