ALMORADIE, MA. CARIZA L.

PEOPLE v TAMAYO – 44 PHIL 38

FACTS: On the morning of July 17, 1921, Catalino Carrera with his brother, Francisco Carrera, and a
13-year old, Juan Gonzales, repaired his field in the Barrio of San Felipe, Binalonan, Pangasinan, to do
agricultural work, preparatory to the planting of palay. To accomplish such, it was necessary to turn water
into the paddy from an irrigating ditch flowing nearby; and Catalino accordingly intercepted the flow of the
water in the ditch by constructing a dirt dam which diverted the water entirely from his own land. While
Catalino was engaged in working in and around the irrigation ditch, Francisco was occupied nearby in
leveling the soil with a light rake, and Juan mounted on a carabao and used a narrow to smoothen the
surface of the field, a few rods away.

While the three were busy, Jose Tamayo, Ramon Tamayo, Hilario Tamayo, Federico Tibunsay and
Teodoro Caspellan arrived, to begin work preparing another plot of land for cultivation, adjacent to or near
the paddy upon which Catalino was at work. Upon arriving, the five of them found out that no water was
available for watering the land which they intended to prepare, owing to the fact that all the water in the
canal was being appropriated by Catalino. They the approached Catalino, and either Hilario or Ramon
asked him to allow the water to flow through the canal. Catalino then told them to wait for the rain in
heaven which foster the anger of them five.

When Hilario found himself confronted with the attitude of Catalino, he at once, closed in upon him and,
seizing him firmly by the neck, began choking him, with the result that Catalino was rendered incapable of
effectual resistance. Upon this, Francisco ran to assist Catalino and taking Hilario by belt, pulled him
away, which resulted to a minor altercation ensued between these two. During the remainder of the
affray, Hilario remained separate a few meters from Catalino. As soon as Hilario had been this drawn
away from Catalino, Ramon at once took Hilario’s place and continued choking him until he became
weak; and that it was at this moment that Jose ran up and delivered a blow with a bamboo stick on the
side of the head of Catalino just above his left ear. Catalino gave down, but Ramon continued to choke
him until the former died. Seeing what had happened, the five went away and left Catalino’s body from
where it had fallen.

The five were then charged with Homicide by the RTC.

ISSUE: W/N Ramon, Hilario, Federico and Teodoro were to be considered as accomplices of Jose in the
commission of the crime?

HELD:

Yes, in the case of Ramon. His actuations of approving the blow struck by his son, Jose; and a
participation in the criminal design of Jose was sufficiently shown to make Ramon responsible as an
accomplice.

In the case of Hilario, he must be absolved from all the responsibility of homicide, for at the time Jose
intervened in the affray, Hilario already desisted from his own acts of aggression against Catalino, and he
did nothing whatever to assist Jose in the immediate commission of the crime. Moreover, such acts as
were done by Hilario prior to the commission of the deed were evidently done without knowledge of the
criminal design on the part of Jose, for that design had not then been revealed. He must the only be guilty
of misdemeanor.

Federico should not also he held as an accomplice, for his expression “go ahead!” more than once while
the unlawful assault was committed does not follow the complicity in the offense of homicide.
Teodoro was also acquitted. His participation was limited to the striking of blows upon the back of the
deceased while the latter was held by either Hilario or Ramon.

PEOPLE v REALON – 99 SCRA- 422 – AUGUST 29, 1980 - GUERRERO

FACTS: On April 13, 1969, a group of more than 40 male and public school teachers were assembled,
and rehearsing a song at Burnham Park, Baguio City in preparation for the inaugural ceremonies of the
Benguet Division of the Bureau of Public Schools at La Trinidad, Benguet. The group was arranged in
four horizontal rows and in accordance with their voice groups. Simplicio Realon, a member of the tenor
group, arrived with Eutropio Soliven, a mason.

While waiting for Realon, Soliven seated himself somewhere higher up the steps of the grandstand
behind the fourth line of teachers, more specifically at the back of the tenor group.

In the midst of the practice, Realon pulled himself out of the formation, and shortly thereafter, a loud
explosion was heard. Panic ensued, and people at the vicinity ran to different directions. Realon and
Soliven left the grandstand in haste; however, they were caught and held separately near the main gate
of said place.

Immediately after the explosion, Vicente Ramos, one of the teachers fell from where he was standing, for
he was shot at the upper portion of his nape, which then caused his death.

Several witnesses were presented by both parties in the trial. The testimony of the deceased established
that Realon and her husband had a previous rift, and such could have been the motive of his killing.

RTC found Realon and Soliven guilty of Murder.

.
ISSUE: W/N Soliven acted as Realon’s accomplice on the matter of killing Ramos?

HELD: No. The evidence is clear that Soliven did not actively participate in the shooting of Ramos. It may
likewise be considered that Realon had only a known possible motive to kill Ramos. On the part of
Soliven, there is no proof that he knew or had ever met Ramos before the incident. Up to the time of the
shooting, there is nothing in the evidence that would suffice to make Soliven liable as a co-conspirator or
even an accomplice.

However, Soliven is without any liability at all. The evidence clearly established his participation and
involvement as an accessory to the crime committed by Realon. His actuations which are immediately
subsequent to the shooting up to the time of his apprehension established that he has incurred criminal
liability as an accessory.

In finding Soliven guilty as an accessory, the court considered the following facts and circumstances, as
gathered from the evidence:

1. From where he was seated at the grandstand, Soliven must have seen Realon leave his place in
the formation, approached the victim from behind and fired the gun at the latter.
2. Soliven ran with Realon when the latter fled from the scene of the crime.
3. While in flight, Realon passed the fatal weapon to Soliven who then dumped the gun inside a
garbage barrel
4. And, upon his apprehension, Soliven did not show or make any act of protestation. From the
foregoing, there can be no conclusion other than that Soliven witnessed his friend, Realon,
commit the crime and that having so, Soliven assisted in Realon’s escape by concealing the
instrument used in the perpetration of the offense in an obvious effort or attempt to prevent its
discovery. The fact that he does not protest at the time of his apprehension serves to indicate a
guilty mind.
PEOPLE v DOCTOLERO – 193 SCRA 632 – FEBRUARY 7, 1991 – REGALADO

FACTS: On the evening of November 9, 1970, Epifania Escosio and Lolita De Guzman were killed in the
house of Marcial Sagun in Sitio Binday, San Fabian, Pangasinan where they were living. Jonathan
Oviedo, 1 ½ year old child of Lolita was on the same occasion, slightly injured while being fed on the
breast of his mother. On the road, a few meters from the house of Marcial, Marcelo Doctolero, 81 years
old, was fatally injured and eventually died.

The evidence for the prosecution tend to shoe that the three accused, Ludovico, Conrado and Virgilio (all
surnamed “Doctolero”) were responsible for the deaths of Epifania and Lolita, and in inflicting physical
injuries to Jonathan. And immediately thereafter, with their father and co-accused, Antonio, they hacked
Marcelo with their bolos which caused his death.

The witnesses for the prosecution stated that while Marcial was on his way home with his wife, Lolita,
they met Ludovico, who without a warning, struck Marcial with a bolo, but the latter was able to evade the
attack. Frightened, Lolita ran to the direction of their house in Sitio Binday. In said house, Ludovico,
Conrado and Virgilio threw stones. At about that time, Marcelo was going towards the house of Marcial
when he met the three accused, who then struck him with a bolo in the head.

During the pendency of the case, Virgilio died. Conrado was then adjudged as an accomplice of Ludovico
in the commission of the crime charged.

ISSUE: W/N Virgilio and Conrado acted as accomplices of Ludovico in the slaying of the women and in
the infliction of injuries to Jonathan?

HELD: Yes. There is no question that while the three were still stoning and hurling challenges at the
house of Marcial, they must have already heard the two women protesting with what they were doing, and
shouting back at them, after which, all of them went up to the house. Under these facts, it is impossible
that both Virgilio and Conrado did not know or were not aware when their brother, Ludovico, was brutally
killing inside the room of said house the two women, Moreover, from the nature, number and locations of
the many wounds sustained by the two women and the child, it could not have been possible for
Ludovico’s brothers not to hear either the screams of pain of the victims or the contact between the blade
of his bolo and their bodies when Ludovico was ruthlessly hacking them several times. Under these
circumstances, it is obvious that they knew what was going on inside the room of the house, but they just
stood up and did nothing. Their presence implies that they were ready to lend assistance, and reliance on
Ludovico’s part to proceed, as he did proceed, in committing the heinous crimes against the victims.
POEOPLE v WATIMAR – GR Nos. 121651-52 – August 16, 2000 – Ynares-Santiago

FACTS: Myra Watimar, a 20-year old woman, testified that on March 26, 1990, she slept together with
her brothers and sisters, namely: Bernardo, Marilou, Leonardo, Ariel and Lea, without their mother, for the
latter went to the hospital to assist her aunt who was about to give birth. Her father slept also with them in
the same room.

As early as dawn, Myra felt that some was on top of her and kissing her neck. She then recognized the
man to be her father, Fernardo Watimar. He proceeded to threaten Myra, and succeeded in having sexual
intercourse against her will.

On November 28, 1992, while Myra was cooking alone, she was surprised when Fernando who was at
her back, suddenly kissed her and pulled her bringing her to the place where they used to sleep. Despite
her resistance, her father still succeeded in having his sexual desires unto her.

Fernando, in the course of trial, denied the incident and alleged the defense of alibi, saying that he was
not at home when the incident happened. He further testified that it was Celestino Bonalias Jr, youngest
brother of his wife, who impregnated Myra.

The trial court found Fernando guilty of rape.

ISSUES:

1. W/N the possibility of rape is negated by the presence of family members in the place where the
crime happened?
2. W/N Myra has to prove that she resisted the assault?

HELD:

1. NO. The possibility of rape is not negated by the presence of even the whole family of the accused
inside the same room with the likelihood of being discovered. For rape to be committed, it is not
necessary for the place to be ideal, or the weather to be fine, for rapists bear no respect for locale and
time when they carry out their evil deed. Rape may be committed even when the rapist and the victim are
not alone, or while the rapist's spouse was asleep, or in a small room where other family members also
slept, as in the instant case. The presence of people nearby does not deter rapists from committing their
odious act.

Rape does not necessarily have to be committed in an isolated place and can in fact be committed in
places which to many would appear to be unlikely and high-risk venues for sexual advances.

2. NO. The law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving resistance, especially where
there is intimidation. Physical resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is exercised
upon the victim and she submits herself against her will to the rapist's lust because of fear for her life or
personal safety. In rape cases, it is not necessary that the victim should have resisted unto death or
sustained injuries in the hands of the rapist. It suffices that intercourse takes place against her will or that
she yields because of a genuine apprehension of great harm. In incestuous rape, actual force and
intimidation is not even necessary. The reason for this is that in a rape committed by a father against his
own daughter, the moral ascendancy of the former over the latter substitutes for violence and intimidation.