PEOPLE VS NIERRA

DOCTRINE/TOPIC: Art. 18, Accomplices

FACTS: ​Juliana Gadugdug-Nierra, 52, and Pagano Nierra, 39, her brother-in-law, were
competitors in the businesses of launch transportation and the sale of soft drinks in Barrio
Tinago, General Santos City. Juliana sold coca-cola while Pagano sold pepsi-cola. Juliana was
the owner of two motor launches, ​Elsa I and II, while Paciano was the owner of two launches,
Sylvania I and II. Juliana was the wife of Aniceto Nierra, Paciano's elder brother. To mollify
Pagano, by diminishing the competition between their launches, Aniceto sold ​Elsa II.
Nonetheless, Aniceto and Paciano were not on speaking terms.

In order to monopolize those businesses in the locality, Paciano Nierra conceived the Idea of
liquidating his competitor, Juliana. For that purpose, ​Felicisimo Doblen, a cousin-in-law of
Paciano, accompanied to Paciano's house in the afternoon of July 4, 1969 Gaspar Misa, 29, a
convicted murderer who in 1965 had escaped from the Davao Penal Colony.

Upstairs in the bedroom of Paciano's house, Misa, in the presence of Gaudencia

Garrido-Nierra, the wife of Paciano, ​agreed to kill Juliana in consideration of three thousand
pesos. Paciano promised that in the morning after the killing he would pay Misa four hundred
pesos near the municipal hall of Tupi, South Cotabato which is about forty kilometers away
from General Santos City. That arrangement was confirmed by Gaudencia. When Misa
scheduled the assassination on July 8, 1969, Pagano said that it was up to Misa since he was
the one who would kill Juliana.

In the evening of July 6, 1969, Doblen, in behalf of Pagano Nierra, delivered to Misa at the
beach a package containing a caliber .38 pistol with five bullets. Misa contacted his friend,
Vicente Rojas, and apprised him that he (Misa) had been hired to kill Juliana. Misa asked ​Rojas
to act as lookout on the night of July 8, 1969 when the killing would be perpetrated.

On that night, Rojas posted himself at the Bernadette store near the creek or canal about
twenty-seven steps from the scene of the crime. Gaudencia was stationed near the house of
Maning Desinorio about eighteen steps from the scene of the crime. Pagano was near the
house of Juanito Desinorio about twenty-seven steps from the scene of the crime. The houses
of the two Desinorios were separated from the house of Juliana Nierra by an alley.

Misa secluded himself near a warehouse about five steps from the scene of the crime in close
proximity to the back of Juliana's house where. as he had previously observed some nights
before, she used to answer the call of nature. The house was at the back of the Esso Gas
Station near the beach of Sarangani Bay at Barrio Tinago, General Santos City.
1
Between seven and eight o'clock that night, the unwary Juliana went to the beach where she
was accustomed to void and when she squatted, Misa unexpectedly appeared behind her,
held her hair, thus tilting her face, and while in that posture, ​he inserted into her mouth the
muzzle of the pistol and fired it. Paciano and Gaudencia, who were near the beach, witnessed
the actual killing.

Aniceto Nierra, on hearing the gunshot and the ensuing commotion, went down from the
house and saw his prostrate wife with blood oozing from her mouth and nose. Her panty was
pulled down, her dress was raised up to her waist, and her genital organ was exposed. At the
hospital, the doctor pronounced her dead.

After firing the gun, Misa walked slowly on the beach in front of Paciano and Gaudencia,
passed by the alley between the houses of Tony Desinorio and Francisco Desinorio, emerged
at the back of the Esso Gas Station crossed the creek or canal on the west, reached the Lagao
road, threw the gun into the dense ​talahib grass and rode on a bus. He proceeded to the Saint
Elizabeth Hospital. Then, he changed his mind and returned to the beach near the victim's
house.

The Nierra spouses left the scene of the crime by passing through the alley between the house
of the victim and the Desinorio houses, which alley separated the building of the Northern
Lines and the Matutum Hotel from the Esso Gas Station, and emerged on A. Morrow
Boulevard which intersects Saguing Street where Paciano and Gaudencia resided. Their
residence was about two hundred meters away from the scene of the crime.

Early in the morning of the next day, Misa took a bus bound for Tupi and alighted near the
municipal building. Paciano Nierra arrived in that place and gave him four hundred pesos. Misa
returned to General Santos City, gave fifty pesos to Rojas, and proceeded to the victim's house
where he mingled with the persons playing cards and domino. He kept vigil there, staying
there for four nights.

He resumed his old job of looking for passengers for the, buses and the pumpboat of Rojas. He
received a commission of one peso per passenger. Policemen arrested him and Rojas as for
questioning but they were later released. He left the city and brought his family to Barrio Luan,
Maitum South Cotabato. There, he was arrested again, this time by Constabulary soldiers.

On August 11, 1969, ​Misa testified at the preliminary investigation. In his testimony, he
admitted again the killing and confirmed his confession implicating Paciano Nierra, his wife
Gaudencia, Doblen and Rojas.

2
Thirty-seven days after the killing or on August 14, 1969, Misa, Doblen, Rojas and the Nierra
spouses, as co-conspirators, were charged with murder aggravated by reward, treachery,
evident premeditation, nocturnity, ignominy and abuse of superiority and, as to Misa,
recidivism, since he had been sentenced to ​reclusion perpetua for the murder of Antonio Abad
Tormis in Cebu City.

ISSUE: ​WON Doblen and Rojas should be held guilty as accomplices in the crime committed —
YES

RULING: YES. The activities of Doblen and Rojas indubitably show that they had community
of design with the Nierra spouses and Misa in the assassination of Juliana Nierra. ​It is true,
strictly speaking, that as co-conspirators they should be punished as co-principals. However,
since their participation was not absolutely indispensable to the consummation of the
murder, the rule that the court should favor the milder form of liability may be applied to
them.

In some exceptional situations, ​having community of design with the principal does not
prevent a malefactor from being regarded as an accomplice if his role in the perpetration of
the homicide or murder was, relatively speaking, of a minor character.

People v. Doble (1982)

Accomplices

Facts:​ Ten (10) men, almost all of them heavily armed with pistols, carbines and Thompsons
proceeded to Navotas by a banca. Their mission: to rob the Navotas Branch of the Prudential
Bank and Trust Company. Once in Navotas and taking advantage of the darkness of the night,
eight (8) men disembarked from the banca and proceeded to the beach in the direction of the
branch bank. Within a few minutes, shots were heard throwing the people around in panic. As
the commotion died down, the eight men returned to their banca, still fully armed and some
of them carrying what looked like "bayongs". "They boarded the waiting motor banca and
sped away. As a result of the shooting, many people got killed and some injured. Among those
who were killed were policemen.

The Prudential Bank and Trust Company branch office located at the North Bay Boulevard,
Navotas has unusual banking hours. It opens at midnight and closes at 8:00 in the morning.
The bank has ten employees, more or less, including a security guard. Two men entered the
bank asking that their money be changed. Domingo refused, saying that they had no small
3
denominations. Suddenly, three men armed with long guns barged in and fired at the ceiling
and the wall of the bank. They ordered the employees to lie down, face downward and then
demanded the key to the vault. When Reyes answered that they do not have the key, the
armed men aimed their guns at the vault and fired upon it until its doors were opened. They
entered the vault and found that they could not get anything as the compartments inside the
said vault were locked. Not being able to get anything from the vault, the armed men went to
the two teller cages and took whatever they could lay their hands on. Not long afterwards, the
men left, carrying with them the sum of P10,439.95.

Just beside the bank was a police outpost. On the night in question, Pat. Nicolas Antonio was
in the outpost and was on duty. Antonio could not see who was firing the shots. Suddenly, he
said, he saw one of his companions topple down. He fell from the shots coming from the left
side of the bank. After the firing ceased, Antonio saw his wounded companions placed in a
vehicle.

It is noteworthy that from the above narration as to how the robbery and the killing that
followed in its wake were actually committed, the three appellants had no participation. It is
not surprising that the Solicitor General has recommended the acquittal of one of the
appellants, Simeon Doble.

The only link between Simeon and the crime is his house having been used as the meeting
place of the malefactors for their final conference before proceeding to Navotas to rob the
Prudential Bank. He did not join them because of a 5-year-old foot injury which would make
him only a liability. If they met at his house, it was only because it was near the landing place
of the banca. His mere presence in his house where the conspirators met, and for merely
telling them that he could not join them because of his foot injury, and will just wait for them;
evidently as a mere gesture of politeness in not being able to join them in their criminal
purpose. In his statement, he said “he has not yet received his share.”

Romaquin, for his part, appears not to be known to the principal malefactors still at large, to
be asked to join actively in the conspiracy. The amount received by Romaquin who alone was
given money by the malefactors in the sum of P441.00, indicate that the latter did not
consider appellant as their confederate in the same character as those constituting the band
of robbers. The sum given to Romaquin could very well represent only the rental of his banca,
4
and for the cooperation he extended to the malefactors, which, by no means, is an
indispensable one.

Issues:
1. WON Doble and Romaquin should be acquitted due to lack of active part in the
commission of the crime. .

Ruling:​ No. It is not established by the evidence that in the meeting held in the house of
Simeon Doble, the malefactors had agreed to kill, if necessary to carry out successfully the plan
to rob.​ What appellants may be said to have joined is the criminal design to rob, which
makes them accomplices. Their complicity must, accordingly, be limited to the robbery, not
with the killing.​ Having been left in the banca, they could not have tried to prevent the killing,
as is required of one seeking relief from liability for assaults committed during the robbery
(Art. 296. Revised Penal Code).

The circumstances pointed out would not make appellants liable as co-principals in the crime
charged. At the most their liability would be that of mere accomplices. ​They joined in the
criminal design when the robbers looked for a banca and Romaquin provided it​ when asked
by the gang leader Joe Intsik, and then brought the malefactors to the scene of the robbery,
despite knowledge of the evil purpose for which the banca was to be used. ​It was the banca
that brought the malefactors to the bank to be robbed and carried them away from the
scene after the robbery to prevent their apprehension. Appellants thus cooperated but not
in an indispensable manner. Even without appellants providing the banca, the robbery could
have been committed, specially with the boldness and determination shown by the robbers
in committing the crime.

Romaquin, although testifying that he was threatened with a gun, could have tried a get-away,
as should have been his natural impulse had he not joined in the criminal design. His act of
hiding the money he received from the malefactors, and repainting his boat, all attest to his
guilty conscience arising from the act of cooperation he knowingly extended to the principal
culprit to achieve their criminal purpose.

An accomplice is one who, not being principal as defined in Article 17 of the Revised Penal
Code, cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts (Art. 18,
5
Revised Penal Code). ​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 and in as efficacious way​. In this case,
appellants' cooperation is like that of a driver of a car used for abduction which makes the
driver a mere accomplice.

The finding that appellants are liable as mere accomplices may appear too lenient considering
the gravity and viciousness of the offense with which they were charged. ​The evidence,
however, fails to establish their complicity by a previous conspiracy with the real
malefactors who actually robbed the bank and killed and injured several persons, including
peace officers. Accordingly, We find appellants Cresencio Doble and Antonio Romaquin
guilty beyond reasonable doubt, but only as accomplices for the crime of robbery in band.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
LUDOVICO C. DOCTOLERO alias "ECOY," CONRADO C. DOCTOLERO alias "CONDRING," and
VIRGILIO C. DOCTOLERO alias "VERGEL," accused-appellants.

Doctrine: ACCOMPLICES

FACTS:
On November 08, 1970, the three brothers Ludovico, Conrado and Virgilio Doctolero,
armed themselves with bolos and went to the house of Marcial Sagun and conspired and
mutually aided one another with intent to kill and with evident premeditation and treachery,
with abuse of superior strength and with extreme cruelty, did, then and there, wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, hack, stab and strike Lolita de Guzman Oviedo,
Epifania Escosio and Jonathan Oviedo (the child of Lolita and only 1 ½ years old) and
immediately thereafter, the same accused while already on the road, conspiring together and
mutually aiding one another, with intent to kill and with evident premeditation and treachery,
attack, assault, hack and stab Marcelo Doctolero, thereby inflicting upon him multiple mortal
wounds which caused his death.
The three accused successfully murdered Lolita and Epifania, while her son Jonathan
was inflicted with slight physical injuries as he was attacked while being breastfed by Lolita.

6
Principal witnesses Marcial Sagun, his wife Maria, and her sister Pacencia ​testified that upon
reaching a crossing of the road in Bo. Binday they met the accused Ludovico Doctolero who,
without warming and without cause or reason, Marcial’s left shoulder with his left hand and
struck him which the latter evaded and wrestled with the possession of the bolo while Maria
ran away.
On the other hand, Pacencia’s testimony, gave clarity to what occurred while Marcial
and Maria were in the fields and was still just on their way home.​ While cleaning the yeard of
her uncle, Marcelo, she witnessed how the three accused Ludovico, Conrado and Virgilio
threw stones at Marcial’s house and called for him to come out. With Epifania and Lolita
inside, the three men marched inside and heard the two women scream. Leaving the house,
Marcelo Doctolero, their uncle who lived next door, went to them, ignorant of what they just
did, and told them why they can't be patient and forget, but the three accused replied ‘​Vulva
of your mother, we will also kill you.'​ Then they struck Marcelo Doctolero several times with
their bolos. And when their father Antonio Doctolero (Marcelo’s half-brother) arrived, he also
struck him with a bolo on the head and all of them ran away.
The Court thus finds the three accused guilty for the murders of Epifania, Lolita, and
Marcelo with ​Ludovico as principal, while Conrado and Virgilio as accomplices. ​Ludovico is
sentence to suffer THREE LIFE IMPRISONMENTS (​Cadena Perpetua)​ and the additional penalty
of 4 Months and 1 Day to 6 Months of arresto mayor, for inflicting slight physical injury to (sic)
the minor child, Jonathan Oviedo. The two accomplices were sentenced to suffer the penalty
of 10 years and 1 Day of prision mayor to 17 Years and 4 months of reclusion temporal.
ISSUES:
1. WON the two co-accused were correctly held as accomplices.
2. WON conspiracy is present in the offense- holding the two co-accused criminally
liable.
3. WON the Court erred in the penalty imposed for the physical injuries inflicted on
Jonathan Oviedo.
4. WON the death of the other appellant, Virgilo, terminates his liability of the offense.

RULING:

1. YES. While Conrado argues that he did not participate in the commission of the acts,
and provides an alibi, he fails to prove this with any sufficient evidence.​ ​While the
testimony of a co-conspirator or an accomplice is admissible, such testimony comes
7
 from a polluted source and must be scrutinized with great caution as it is subject to
grave suspicion. This uncorroborated denial of his participation cannot overthrow the
positive and categorical testimony of the principal witnesses of the prosecution.
Furthermore, from the nature, number, and locations of the many wounds sustained by
the two women and child, it could not have been possible for Ludovico's two brothers Virgilio
and Conrado (assuming that they did not go inside the house) not to hear either the screams
of pain of their brother's victims, all three of them were also armed during this event. It is,
therefore, reasonable to believe that the two appellants, Conrado and Virgilio, merely stood
by as their brother Ludovico Doctolero was murdering the two deceased women, ready to
lend assistance.
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.
2. NO. While it was not shown that there exists conspiracy, there is still ample evidence
of their criminal participation, ​there is only doubt on the nature of their liability or
the degree of which they participated​, thus, the courts should favor the milder form
of liability or responsibility which is that of being mere accomplices
While appellants contend that the murders occurred as a consequence of a sudden thought or
impulse, which would negate a common criminal design in their minds. This pretension must
be rejected since ​one can be an accomplice even if he did not know of the actual crime
intended by the principal provided he was aware that it was an illicit act.
3. YES. The child required medical attention for fifteen (15) days, hence the liability of
appellants therefor is for less serious physical injuries punished with arresto mayor
under Article 265 of the Revised Penal Code. There being no modifying
circumstances, a penalty of twenty (20) days of arresto menor should be imposed for
said offense on appellant Conrado Doctolero as an accomplice.

4. NO. ​While his criminal liability is terminated, his civil liability still exists.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court is MODIFIED and judgment is hereby rendered
IMPOSING on appellant Conrado Doctolero three (3) indeterminate sentences often (10) years
of prision mayor to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal each for

8
the death of Epifania Escosio, Lolita de Guzman Oviedo and Marcelo Doctolero, and a penalty
of twenty (20) days of arresto menor for the less serious physical injuries inflicted on Jonathan
Oviedo. Appellant Conrado Doctolero and the estate of Virgilio Doctolero are ORDERED to
indemnify, in the sum of P50,000.00 for each set or group of heirs, the respective heirs of
Epifania Escosio, Lolita de Guzman Oviedo and Marcelo Doctolero, and to pay one-half (1/2) of
the costs.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ​plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
NEMESIO TALINGDAN, MAGELLAN TOBIAS, AUGUSTO BERRAS, PEDRO BIDES and TERESA
DOMOGMA, ​accused-appellants.
DOCTRINE:
Accessories are those who do not participate in the criminal design, nor cooperate in the
commission of the felony, but with knowledge of the commission of the crime, he
subsequently tales part in 3 ways by:
(3) Harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape of the principal of the crime.
FACTS:
● Teresa Domogma is the wife of the victim, Bernardo Bagabag. For some time their
relationship had been strained and beset with troubles, for Teresa had deserted their
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 or so before Bernardo was killed, Teresa had again left their house and
did not come back for a period of more than three (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; the latter went down the
house and sought the help of the police.
● Accused Talingdan, an armed police officer, came to the vicinity of Bernardo's house and
called him to come down; but Bernardo ignored him.

9
 ● On June 24, 2967 (Saturday) – after working on a plow, the victim proceeded to the
kitchen and sat himself on the floor near the door. Corazon, his daughter, was watching
him when suddenly he was shot from below the stairs of the “batalan”.
● The four accused then climbed the stairs of the "batalan" carrying their long guns and
seeing that Bernardo was still alive, Talingdan and Tobias fired at him again. Bides and
Berras did not fire their guns at that precise time, but when Corazon tried to call for help
Bides warned her, saying "You call for help and I will kill you", so she kept silent. The
assailants then fled from the scene, going towards the east.
● 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.
ISSUE:
WON Teresa Domogma is an accessory to the crime. - ​YES
RULING:
WHEREFORE, with the above finding of ​guilt beyond reasonable doubt​ of the appellants
Nemesio Talingdan, Magellan Tobias, Augusto Berras and Pedro Bides of the ​crime of murder
with two aggravating circumstances​, ​without any mitigating circumstance to offset them​,
they are ​each hereby sentenced to DEATH​ to be executed in accordance with law. ​Guilty
beyond reasonable doubt​ as accessory to the same murder, appellant Teresa Domogma is
hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of five ​(5) years of ​prision
correccional a​ s minimum to eight (8) years of ​prision mayor a​ s maximum​, with the accessory
penalties of the law. In all other respects, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed, with costs
against appellants.
RATIO:
The court believed Corazon’s testimonies.
Accordingly, the court reviewed that appellants Nemesio Talingduan, Magellan Tobias,
Augusto Berras and Pedro Bides are guilty of murder qualified by treachery and have
committed conspiracy with each other, with evident premeditation and in the dwelling of the
offended party. No mitigating circumstance have been proven.
In regards to Teresa Domogma, the court found that she is not wholly innocent in this crime.
True it is that the proof of her direct participation in the conspiracy is not beyond reasonable
doubt, for which reason, sue cannot have the same liability as her co-appellants. Indeed, she
had no hand at all in the actual shooting of her husband. Neither is it clear that she helped
directly in the planning and preparation thereof, albeit we are convinced that she knew it was
10
going to be done and did not object. it is not definitely shown that she masterminded it either
by herself alone or together with her co-appellant Talingdan.
But this is not saying that she is entirely free from criminal liability. ​There was a proof that she
is at the very least an accessory to the offense committed by her co-accused.​ She was inside
the room when her husband was shot. As she came out after the shooting, she inquired from
Corazon if she was able to recognize the assailants of her father. When Corazon Identified
appellants Talingdan, Tobias, Berras and Bides as the culprits, ​Teresa did not only enjoin her
daughter not to reveal what she knew to anyone, she went to the extent of warning her,
"Don't tell it to anyone. I will kill you if you tell this to somebody."​ Later, when the peace
officers who repaired to their house to investigate what happened, ​instead of helping them
with the information given to her by Corazon, she claimed she had no suspects in mind​. In
other words, whereas, before the actual shooting of her husband, she was more or less
passive in her attitude regarding her co-appellants' conspiracy, known to her, to do away with
him, after Bernardo was killed, she became active in her cooperation with them. ​These
subsequent acts of her constitute "concealing or assisting in the escape of the principal in
the crime" which makes her liable as an accessory after the fact under paragraph 3 of Article
19 of the Revised Penal Code.

VINO VS. PEOPLE

DOCTINE: ​Accessories

FACTS:

At about 7:00 o’clock in the evening of March 21, 1985, Roberto Tejada left their house at
Burgos Street, Poblacion, Balungao, Pangasinan to go to the house of Isidro Salazar to watch
television. At around 11:00 P.M., while Ernesto, the father of Roberto, was resting, he heard
two gunshots. Thereafter, he heard Roberto cry out in a loud voice saying that he had been
shot. He saw Roberto ten (10) meters away so he switched on the lights of their house. Aside
from Ernesto and his wife, his children Ermalyn and Julius were also in the house. They went
down to meet Roberto who was crying and they called for help from the neighbors. The
neighbors responded by turning on their lights and the street lights and coming down from
their houses. ​After meeting Roberto, Ernesto and Julius saw Lito Vino and Jessie Salazar
riding a bicycle coming from the south. Vino was the one driving the bicycle while Salazar
was carrying an armalite. Upon reaching Ernesto’s house, they stopped to watch Roberto.
Salazar pointed his armalite at Ernesto and his companions. Thereafter, the two left.
11
Roberto was brought to the Sacred Heart Hospital of Urdaneta. PC/Col. Bernardo Cacananta
took his ​ante-mortem​ statement.

CAUSE OF DEATH
Tension Hemathorax”​1

Lito Vino and Sgt. Jesus Salazar were charged with murder in a complaint filed by PC Sgt.
Ernesto N. Ordoño in the Municipal Trial Court of Balungao, Pangasinan.

Upon arraignment, the accused Vino entered a plea of not guilty.

On January 21, 1986,​2 a decision was rendered by the trial court finding ​Vino guilty as an
accessory to the crime of murder

ISSUES:
In as much as the petitioner was charged in the information as a principal for the crime of
murder, can he thereafter be convicted as an accessory – YES

WON the trial of an accessory can proceed without awaiting the result of the separate charge
against the principal -YES

HELD:

Petitioner was charged as a principal in the commission of the crime of murder. Under ​Article
16 of the Revised Penal Code​, the two other categories of the persons responsible for the
commission of the same offense are the ​accomplice and the accessory​. There is no doubt that
the crime of murder had been committed and that the evidence tended to show that Jessie
Salazar was the assailant. That the petitioner was present during its commission or must have
known its commission is the only logical conclusion considering that immediately thereafter,
he was seen driving a bicycle with Salazar holding an armalite, and they were together when
they left shortly thereafter. At least two witnesses, Ernesto and Julius Tejada, attested to
these facts. It is thus clear that petitioner ​actively assisted Salazar in his escape. Petitioner’s
liability is that of an accessory.

This is not a case of a variance between the offense charged and the offense proved or
established by the evidence, and the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes
the offense proved, in which case the defendant shall be convicted of the offense proved
included in that which is charged, or of the offense charged included in that which is proved.​5

12
In the same light, this is not an instance where after trial has begun, it appears that there was
a mistake in charging the proper offense, and the defendant cannot be convicted of the
offense charged, or of any other offense necessarily included therein, in which case the
defendant must not be discharged if there appears to be a good cause to detain him in
custody, so that he can be charged and made to answer for the proper offense.​6
In this case, the correct offense of murder was charged in the information. The commission of
the said crime was established by the evidence. ​There is no variance as to the offense
committed​. The variance is in the participation or complicity of the petitioner. While the
petitioner was being held responsible as a principal in the information, the evidence adduced,
however, showed that his participation is merely that of an accessory. The greater
responsibility necessarily includes the lesser. An accused can be validly convicted as an
accomplice or accessory under an information charging him as a principal.

2.) ​The corresponding responsibilities of the principal, accomplice and accessory are distinct
from each other. As long as the commission of the offense can be duly established in
evidence the determination of the liability of the accomplice or accessory can proceed
independently of that of the principal.

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1612

ANTI-FENCING LAW OF 1979

WHEREAS, reports from law enforcement agencies reveal that there is rampant robbery and
thievery of government and private properties;

WHEREAS, such robbery and thievery have become profitable on the part of the lawless
elements because of the existence of ready buyers, commonly known as fence, of stolen
properties;lawphil.net

WHEREAS, under existing law, a fence can be prosecuted only as an accessory after the fact
and punished lightly;

13
WHEREAS, is imperative to impose heavy penalties on persons who profit by the effects of the
crimes of robbery and theft.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines by virtue of the

powers vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby order and decree as part of the law of the
land the following:

Section 1. Title. This decree shall be known as the Anti-Fencing Law.

Section 2. Definition of Terms. The following terms shall mean as follows:

(a) "Fencing" is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall
buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any
other manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows, or should
be known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.

(b) "Fence" includes any person, firm, association corporation or partnership or other
organization who/which commits the act of fencing.

Section 3. Penalties. Any person guilty of fencing shall be punished as hereunder indicated:

(a) The penalty of prision mayor, if the value of the property involved is more than 12,000
pesos but not exceeding 22,000 pesos; if the value of such property exceeds the latter sum,
the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one
year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not
exceed twenty years. In such cases, the penalty shall be termed reclusion temporal and the
accessory penalty pertaining thereto provided in the Revised Penal Code shall also be
imposed.

(b) The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the value of the
property robbed or stolen is more than 6,000 pesos but not exceeding 12,000 pesos.

(c) The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the
property involved is more than 200 pesos but not exceeding 6,000 pesos.
14
(d) The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum
period, if the value of the property involved is over 50 pesos but not exceeding 200 pesos.

(e) The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period if such value is over five (5) pesos but
not exceeding 50 pesos.

(f) The penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period if such value does not exceed 5 pesos.

Section 4. Liability of Officials of Juridical Persons. If the fence is a partnership, firm,

corporation or association, the president or the manager or any officer thereof who knows or
should have known the commission of the offense shall be liable.

Section 5. Presumption of Fencing. Mere possession of any good, article, item, object, or
anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie
evidence of fencing.

Section 6. Clearance/Permit to Sell/Used Second Hand Articles. For purposes of this Act, all
stores, establishments or entities dealing in the buy and sell of any good, article item, object of
anything of value obtained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier thereof, shall before offering
the same for sale to the public, secure the necessary clearance or permit from the station
commander of the Integrated National Police in the town or city where such store,
establishment or entity is located. The Chief of Constabulary/Director General, Integrated
National Police shall promulgate such rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of this
section. Any person who fails to secure the clearance or permit required by this section or who
violates any of the provisions of the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder shall upon
conviction be punished as a fence. lawphi1.net

Section 7. Repealing Clause. All laws or parts thereof, which are inconsistent with the
provisions of this Decree are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

Section 8. Effectivity. This Decree shall take effect upon approval.

15
Done in the City of Manila, this 2nd day of March, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred
and seventy-nine.

RULES AND REGULATIONS TO CARRY OUT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 6 OF PRESIDENTIAL

DECREE NO. 1612, KNOWN AS THE ANTI-FENCING LAW.

Pursuant to Section 6 of Presidential Decree No. 1612, known as the Anti-Fencing Law, the
following rules and regulations are hereby promulgated to govern the issuance of
clearances/permits to sell used secondhand articles obtained from an unlicensed dealer or
supplier thereof:

I. Definition of Terms

1. "Used secondhand article" shall refer to any goods, article, item, object or anything of value
obtained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier, regardless of whether the same has actually or
in fact been used.

2. "Unlicensed dealer/supplier" shall refer to any persons, partnership, firm, corporation,

association or any other entity or establishment not licensed by the government to engage in
the business of dealing in or of supplying the articles defined in the preceding paragraph.

3. "Store", "establishment" or "entity" shall be construed to include any individual dealing in

the buying and selling used secondhand articles, as defined in paragraph hereof.

4. "Buy and Sell" refer to the transaction whereby one purchases used secondhand articles for
the purpose of resale to third persons.

5. "Station Commander" shall refer to the Station Commander of the Integrated National
Police within the territorial limits of the town or city district where the store, establishment or
entity dealing in the buying and selling of used secondhand articles is located.

II. Duty to Procure Clearance or Permit

16
1. No person shall sell or offer to sell to the public any used secondhand article as defined
herein without first securing a clearance or permit for the purpose from the proper Station
Commander of the Integrated National Police.

2. If the person seeking the clearance or permit is a partnership, firm, corporation, or

association or group of individuals, the clearance or permit shall be obtained by or in the name
of the president, manager or other responsible officer-in-charge thereof.

3. If a store, firm, corporation, partnership, association or other establishment or entity has a

branch or subsidiary and the used secondhand article is acquired by such branch or subsidiary
for sale to the public, the said branch or subsidiary shall secure the required clearance or
permit.

4. Any goods, article, item, or object or anything of value acquired from any source for which
no receipt or equivalent document evidencing the legality of its acquisition could be presented
by the present possessor or holder thereof, or the covering receipt, or equivalent document,
of which is fake, falsified or irregularly obtained, shall be presumed as having been acquired
from an unlicensed dealer or supplier and the possessor or holder thereof must secure the
required clearance or permit before the same can be sold or offered for sale to the public.

III. Procedure for Procurement of Clearances or Permits

1. The Station Commanders concerned shall require the owner of a store or the president,
manager or responsible officer-in-charge of a firm, establishment or other entity located
within their respective jurisdictions and in possession of or having in stock used secondhand
articles as defined herein, to submit an initial affidavit within thirty (30) days from receipt of
notice for the purpose thereof and subsequent affidavits once every fifteen (15) days within
five (5) days after the period covered, which shall contain:

(a) A complete inventory of such articles acquired daily from whatever source and the names
and addresses of the persons from whom such articles were acquired.

(b) A full list of articles to be sold or offered for sale as well as the place where the date when
the sale or offer for sale shall commence.
17
(c) The place where the articles are presently deposited or kept in stock.

The Station Commander may, at his discretion when the circumstances of each case warrant,
require that the affidavit submitted be accompanied by other documents showing proof of
legitimacy of the acquisition of the articles.

2. A party required to secure a clearance or permit under these rules and regulations shall file
an application therefor with the Station Commander concerned. The application shall state:

(a) The name, address and other pertinent circumstances of the persons, in case of an
individual or, in the case of a firm, corporation, association, partnership or other entity, the
name, address and other pertinent circumstances of the president, manager or
officer-in-charge.

(b) The article to be sold or offered for sale to the public and the name and address of the
unlicensed dealer or supplier from whom such article was acquired.

In support of the application, there shall be attached to it the corresponding receipt or other
equivalent document to show proof of the legitimacy of acquisition of the article.

3. The Station Commander shall examine the documents attached to the application and may
require the presentation of other additional documents, if necessary, to show satisfactory
proof of the legitimacy of acquisition of the article, subject to the following conditions:

(a) If the legitimacy of acquisition of any article from an unlicensed source cannot be
satisfactorily established by the documents presented, the Station Commander shall, upon
approval of the INP Superintendent in the district and at the expense of the party seeking the
clearance/permit, cause the publication of a notice in a newspaper of general circulation for
two (2) successive days enumerating therein the articles acquired from an unlicensed dealer or
supplier, the names and addresses of the persons from whom they were acquired and shall
state that such articles are to be sold or offered for sale to the public at the address of the
store, establishment or other entity seeking the clearance/permit. In places where no
newspapers are in general circulation, the party seeking the clearance or permit shall, instead,
18
post a notice daily for one week on the bulletin board of the municipal building of the town
where the store, firm, establishment or entity concerned is located or, in the case of an
individual, where the articles in his possession are to be sold or offered for sale.

(b) If after 15 days, upon expiration of the period of publication or of the notice referred to in
the preceding paragraph, no claim is made with respect to any of the articles enumerated in
the notice, the Station Commander shall issue the clearance or permit sought.

(c) If, before the expiration of the same period for publication of the notice or its posting, it
shall appear that any of the articles in question is stolen property, the Station Commander
shall hold the article in restraint as evidence in any appropriate case to be filed. Articles held in
restraint shall be kept and disposed of as the circumstances of each case permit, taking into
account all considerations of right and justice in the case. In any case where any article is held
in restraint, it shall be the duty of the Station Commander concerned to advise/notify the
Commission on Audit of the case and comply with such procedure as may be proper under
applicable existing laws, rules and regulations.

4. The Station Commander concerned shall, within seventy-two (72) hours from receipt of the
application, act thereon by either issuing the clearance/permit requested or denying the same.
Denial of an application shall be in writing and shall state in brief the reason/s therefor.

5. The application, clearance/permit or the denial thereof, including such other documents as
may be pertinent in the implementation of Section 6 of P.D. No. 1612 shall be in the forms
prescribed in Annexes "A", "B", "C", "D", and "E" hereof, which are made integral parts of
these rules and regulations.

6. For the issuance of clearances/permit required under Section 6 of P.D. No. 1612, no fee shall
be charged.

IV. Appeals

Any party aggrieved by the action taken by the Station Commander may elevate the decision
taken in the case to the proper INP District Superintendent and, if he is still dissatisfied
therewith may take the same on appeal to the INP Director. The decision of the INP Director
19
may also be appealed to the INP Director-General whose decision may likewise be appealed to
the Minister of National Defense. The decision of the Minister of National Defense on the case
shall be final. The appeal against the decision taken by a Commander lower than the INP
Director-General should be filed to the next higher Commander within ten (10) days from
receipt of notice of the decision. The decision of the INP Director-General should be appealed
within fifteen (15) days from receipt of notice of the decision.

V. Penalties

1. Any person who fails to secure the clearance or permit required by Section 6 of P.D. 1612 or
who violates any of the provisions of these rules and regulations shall upon conviction be
punished as a fence.

2. The INP Director-General shall recommend to the proper authority the cancellation of the
business license of the erring individual, store, establishment or the entity concerned.

3. Articles obtained from unlicensed sources for sale or offered for sale without prior
compliance with the provisions of Section 6 of P.D. No. 1612 and with these rules and
regulations shall be held in restraint until satisfactory evidence or legitimacy of acquisition has
been established.

4. Articles for which no satisfactory evidence of legitimacy of acquisition is established and

which are found to be stolen property shall likewise be held under restraint and shall,
furthermore, be subject to confiscation as evidence in the appropriate case to be filed. If, upon
termination of the case, the same is not claimed by their legitimate owners, the article/s shall
be forfeited in favor of the government and made subject to disposition as the circumstances
warrant in accordance with applicable existing laws, rules and regulations. The Commission on
Audit shall, in all cases, be notified.

5. Any personnel of the Integrated National Police found violating the provisions of Section 6
of P.D. No. 1612 or any of its implementing rules and regulations or who, in any manner
whatsoever, connives with or through his negligence or inaction makes possible the
commission of such violations by any party required to comply with the law and its

20
implementing rules and regulations, shall be prosecuted criminally without prejudice to the
imposition of administrative penalties.

VI. Visitorial Power

It shall be the duty of the owner of the store or of the president, manager or responsible
officer-in-charge of any firm, establishment or other entity or of an individual having in his
premises articles to be sold or offered for sale to the public to allow the Station Commander or
his authorized representative to exercise visitorial powers. For this purpose, however, the
power to conduct visitations shall be exercise only during office or business hours and upon
authority in writing from and by the INP Superintendent in the district and for the sole purpose
of determining whether articles are kept in possession or stock contrary to the intents of
Section 6 of P.D. No. 1612 and of these rules and regulations.

VII.Other Duties Imposed Upon Station Commanders and INP District Superintendent and
Directors Following Action on Applications for Clearances or Permits

1. At the end of each month, it shall be the duty of the Station Commander concerned to:

(a) Make and maintain a file in his office of all clearances/permit issued by him.

(b) Submit a full report to the INP District Superintendent on the number of applications for
clearances or permits processed by his office, indicating therein the number of
clearances/permits issued and the number of applications denied. The report shall state the
reasons for denial of an application and the corresponding follow-up actions taken and shall be
accompanied by an inventory of the articles to be sold or offered for sale in his jurisdiction.

2. The INP District Superintendent shall, on the basis of the reports submitted by the Station
Commander, in turn submit quarterly reports to the appropriate INP Director containing a
consolidation of the information stated in the reports of Station Commanders in his
jurisdiction.

3. Reports from INP District Superintendent shall serve as basis for a consolidated report to be
submitted semi-annually by INP Directors to the Director-General, Integrated National Police.
21
4. In all cases, reports emanating from the different levels of the Integrated National Police
shall be accompanied with full and accurate inventories of the articles acquired from
unlicensed dealers or suppliers and proposed to be sold or offered for sale in the jurisdictions
covered by the report.

These implementing rules and regulations, having been published in a newspaper of national
circulation, shall take effect on June 15, 1979.

FOR THE CHIEF OF CONSTABULARY DIRECTOR-GENERAL, INP:

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1829

PENALIZING OBSTRUCTION OF APPREHENSION AND PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL OFFENDERS

WHEREAS, crime and violence continue to proliferate despite the sustained vigorous efforts of
the government to effectively contain them;

WHEREAS, to ​discourage​ public ​indifference​ or ​apathy​ ​towards the apprehension and

prosecution of criminal offenders,​ it is necessary to ​penalize acts​ ​which obstruct ​or​ frustrate
or ​tend to obstruct​ or ​frustrate the successful apprehension and prosecution of criminal
offenders​;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND, E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the

powers vested in me by law do hereby decree and order the following:

Section 1. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period, or a fine ranging from
1,000 to 6,000 pesos, or both, shall be ​imposed​ ​upon​ ​any person ​who knowingly or willfully
obstructs​, impedes, frustrates or ​delays​ the ​apprehension of​ ​suspects​ and the ​investigation
and ​prosecution​ of criminal cases by committing any of the following acts:

(a) ​preventing​ witnesses ​from testifying​ in any criminal proceeding or from reporting the
commission of any offense or the identity of any offender/s by means of ​bribery​,
misrepresentation​, ​deceit​, ​intimidation​, ​force​ or ​threats​;
22
(b) ​altering​, ​destroying​, ​suppressing​ or ​concealing​ any paper, record, ​document​, or object,
with intent to impair​ its verity, ​authenticity​, legibility, availability, or admissibility as evidence
in any ​investigation of or official proceedings ​in, criminal cases, or to be used in the
investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases;

(c) ​harboring​ or concealing, or facilitating ​the escape of​, any ​person​ he knows, or has
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, ​has committed any offense​ under existing penal
laws in order to prevent his arrest prosecution and conviction;

(d) publicly ​using a fictitious name​ for the purpose of ​concealing a crime​, evading prosecution
or the execution of a judgment, or concealing his true name and other personal circumstances
for the same purpose or purposes;

(e) ​delaying the prosecution of criminal cases ​by obstructing the service of process or court
orders or disturbing proceedings in the fiscal's offices, in Tanodbayan, or in the courts;

(f) making, presenting or using any record, document, paper or object with knowledge of its
falsity and with intent to affect the course or outcome of the investigation of, or official
proceedings in, criminal cases;

(g) soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to accept any benefit in consideration of abstaining from,
discounting, or impeding the prosecution of a criminal offender;

(h) threatening directly or indirectly another with the infliction of any wrong upon his person,
honor or property or that of any immediate member or members of his family in order to
prevent such person from appearing in the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal
cases, or imposing a condition, whether lawful or unlawful, in order to prevent a person from
appearing in the investigation of or in official proceedings in, criminal cases;

(i) giving of false or fabricated information to mislead or prevent the law enforcement
agencies from apprehending the offender or from protecting the life or property of the victim;
or fabricating information from the data gathered in confidence by investigating authorities for

23
purposes of background information and not for publication and publishing or disseminating
the same to mislead the investigator or to the court.

If any of the acts mentioned herein is penalized by any other law with a higher penalty, the
higher penalty shall be imposed.

Section 2. If any of the foregoing acts is committed by a public official or employee, he shall in
addition to the penalties provided thereunder, suffer perpetual disqualification from holding
public office.

Section 3. This Decree shall take effect immediately.

Done in the City of Manila, this 16th day of January, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred
and eighty-one.

24