Albert G.

Ambagan Jr vs People of the Philippines

GR Nos. 233442-44
November 28, 2018
I. Ticker
Principal by Inducement

II. Doctrine
Article 17. Principals. — The following are considered principals:
1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act.
2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it.
3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act
without which it would not have been accomplished. (Revised Penal
Code)

A testimony that an accused made a statement which allegedly initiated the

shootout, such testimony not being entirely credible, cannot sustain the
conviction of said accused as principal by inducement.

III. Facts
 Involved: Mayor Ambagan Jr. (accused), Ronnel Bawalan (witness no. 1),
Patam (witness no. 2 - police) Rene Amparo (one of A’s men), Rey Santos
(victim)
 Patam and Bawalan attended the birthday party of his son's kumpadre. In
the afternoon to the house of Edgardo Mamuyac for the birthday party of
Mamuyac's son, where they had singing spree and a little drink.
 Patam received a call from Reynaldo Santos who was at Mamuyac's
place. Santos requested Patam to go back to Mamuyac's house, which
was already closed, as Santos had no companion there. When Patam and
Domingo returned to the place of Mamuyac, they saw Santos in front of
his Space Gear van. After a little chat, Patam invited Santos and Domingo
to go home. Domingo rode with Santos, while Patam took his own car.
Santos and Domingo left ahead of him.
 Upon reaching the boundary of Tamacan and Banay-banay, he saw the
van of Santos parked at the side of the street behind another van whose
owner he did not know. He likewise saw Ronnel Bawalan, the brother of
Domingo, standing at their gate, looking at the direction of the vehicles
parked. Santos ordered the four apprehended men to line up at the other
side of the street. Two of them put down their short firearms upon the
order of Santos. After telling the group to step away from the firearms.
Santos came near the firearms, but without touching them. Thereafter,
Santos phoned Superintendent Cabillo and informed him of what
happened.
  Patam parked his car behind Santos' van and alighted therefrom.
Immediately, Santos handed him a baby annalite, which according to
Santos, he got from Mayor Ambagan's men. While the four-armed men
was on hold, Rey heard a radio call emanating from them. Patam placed
the baby annalite at the driver's seat of his car.
 While Santos was talking to Cabillo, somebody called Patam "Kuya
Taring." After a few minutes. Mayor Ambagan arrived. Patam went near
Mayor Ambagan and greeted him. The Mayor greeted him back and
asked who was at the other side. Patam told him that it was Reynaldo
Santos, a policeman.
 The Mayor requested to let the incident go away however Rey repeatedly
refused his request. Patam felt that the situation was heating up, so he
asked Mayor Ambagan to go to the house of Patam's cousin, Miling
Javier.
 While Patam was pushing Mayor Ambagan, who was angry and cursing
Santos, to Javier's house, Patam heard the first gunshot emanating from
where he and the Mayor were but did not see anything when he looked
back.
 Ronnel said that shooting started after he heard the mayor said "GE, IYAN
PALA ANG GUSTO MO, MGA KASAMA BANATAN N YO NA YAN".
 The men of Mayor Ambagan (referring to Rene Amparo, Domingo Villasis,
Michael Malabanan, Ely Garcia, and Roger Causaren) were spread along
the road, firing their guns at Santos and Domingo. After several gunshots
that lasted for about five minutes, he saw Mayor Ambagan's men board
their vehicles and left in the direction of Amadeo, after taking the guns
from Santos and Domingo.
 Ronnel quickly went home and told his parents that his brother just got
killed. They went to the place of incident after the policemen had arrived.
 Evidence provides that R has negative paraffin test which would lead to
the fact that it is not the Mayor's men who initiated the shooting but rather
from the deceased Santos.
 The Sandiganbayan convicted Ambagan of the crime of double homicide
petitioner moved for reconsideration of the aforequoted ruling. A was
charged and convicted by the Sandiganbayan with 2 counts of homicide
as principal by inducement (enticement). The prosecution presented
statements from 2 persons who was said to be directly present during the
shooting.
 The Sandiganbayan, however, would deny petitioner's motion through its
assailed October 31, 2012 Resolution. Hence, the instant petition.

IV. Issue
 Whether or not A can be held guilty for double homicide principal by
inducement. No.

V. Decision
This Court is not inclined to believe that petitioner indeed made the
declaration that started the fray(fight). The court a quo failed to take note of
substantial inconsistencies in the testimonies of star prosecution witnesses.
These contradictions refer not only to minor details but even to the facts of
important aspect of the case, seriously eroding the weight of the evidence of
the prosecution and casting reasonable doubt on the culpability of petitioner.

The court is not bound by the findings of the Sandiganbayan should it

discover that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are marred with
inconsistencies that are neither collateral nor trivial, but are material and
substantial in matters determinative of petitioner's guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.

In conclusion, the scant evidence for the prosecution serious doubts to the
guilt of petitioner as principal by inducement. It was not convincingly
established, beyond reasonable doubt, that petitioner indeed ordered his men
to open fire at Santos and Domingo Bawalan. The evidence offered against
him in court does not pass the test of moral certainty and is insufficient
to rebut the presumption of innocence that petitioner is entitled to under
the Bill of Rights. And where there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of
an accused, he must be acquitted even though his innocence may be
questioned, for it is not sufficient for the proof to establish a probability,
even though strong, that the fact is more likely to be true than the
contrary.

VI. Ratio
when two or more persons are involved in killing another, it is necessary to
determine the participation of each. If they are all principals, all of them may
be principals by direct participation (par. 1); or one may be a principal
by induction (par. 2); and the other a principal by direct participation;
or one may be a principal by direct participation and the other a principal by
indispensable cooperation.

In order that a person may be convicted of a crime by inducement it is

necessary that:   

1. The inducement be made directly with the intention of procuring the

commission of the crime; and 
2. Such inducement be the determining cause of the commission of the
crime. 
There is a principal by induction or by inducement only if it is shown that the
crime was committed by another who was induced. 

One who only orders or induces another to commit a crime is not a principal
by direct participation, because he does not personally execute the act
constituting the crime. It is the one personally committing the crime in
obedience to that order or because of the inducement, who is the principal by
direct participation.