G.R. No.

L-30028 May 3l, 1982

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
CRESENCIO DOBLE, ET AL defendants, CRESENCIO DOBLE, SIMEON DOBLE and ANTONIO
ROMAQUIN,defendants-appellants.

FACTS:

Late in the night of June 13, 1966, 10 men, almost all heavily armed with 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 had 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 bank’s ceiling, walls & door
of the vault. The 8 men then returned to the waiting motor banca with P10,439.95 & 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, with multiple homicide, multiple frustrated homicide and assault upon
agents of persons in authority.

ISSUE:

WON the three accused can be considered as accomplices of the crime.

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 doesn’t 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
without which it would not have been committed. At most, his act amounted to joining in a conspiracy
which 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 looted money as to make him an accessory. As recommended by SolGen, Simeon Doble
is entitled to acquittal with no sufficient evidence to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Next, as regards Romaquin & Cresencio, the malefactors who waited in the banca, both contend that
their extra-judicial statements upon which 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 constitutional rights to counsel and against self-incrimination. However, it must be noted that
they didn’t present any medical cert to attest to the injuries allegedly inflicted. More so that their
testimonies match each other’s. And it should also be noted that Celso Aquino’s 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 with differently as their co-accused Aquino who
was allowed to give his statement freely.

The extra-judicial statements of 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 which makes the driver a mere accomplice.

But it isn’t established by evidence that in the meeting 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 with the real malefactors who actually robbed the
bank and killed several people.

RULING:

Wherefore, Cresencio & 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 aggravating 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 years, 4 months, 21 days
to 8 years of prision mayor as maximum.