CRIM LAW SEPT 21, 2017

F. Persons Criminally Liable (ART16, RPC)

1. Principals

US v Bundal (DOBIE)
US v. Bundal
GR No. 1312 - 21 December 1903
Ponente: Torres, J.

Facts:
Apr. 14, 1902 - The defendants led by Ignacio Bundal and Tomas Mamega, went to the house of the
municipal president Marcos Bundag (deceased) to buy aniseed wine. In the guise of purchasing the wine,
Mamega struck the deceased with a bolo who then fled to the streets wherein the rest of the defendants
hacked him to death. The municipal secretary, Ciriaco Garrion, was struck by Bundal and died 9 days
later.

On the same night, the perpetrators took control of Buncag's residence and in the morning after, presented
Buncag's corpse to the townspeople, asking the citizens whether they agreed or not to the actions of
Bundal and company. Bundal's men also 'escorted' the deceased's son and showed him the corpse as well.
The vice-president, Francisco Magbanua made a false report stating that the perpetrators were bandits and
had ransacked the treasury (in reality, walang nanakaw).

Apparently, the week preceding the incident, Bundal had already been conducting secret meetings with
the other defendants to plan their attempt on Buncag. The other defendants were people who had a
grudge against Buncag and had agreed to participate in the assassination.

Oct. 11, 1902 - Antique provincial fiscal filed the complaint to the CFI. Bundal, Mamega, Madiong, and
Conde were sentenced to death while the 12 were sentenced to 17 years and 4 months of cadena temporal.
Magbanua, as an accessory, was sentenced to 4 years and 2 months of presidio correccional. The
remaining 10 were acquitted.

Issue:
W/N mere accompaniment of the other 12 accused makes them principal actors in the crime as well?
YES.

Held:
Bundal, Mamega, Madiong, and Conde's liabilities have already been established by their guilty plea. It
is evident that the assassination was pre-planned and had a clear motive and intent. The rest, despite
pleading not guilty albeit admitting that they were present in the assassination and had hid underneath the
staircase of Buncag's house, are necessarily guilty as well. Although only 2 entered the house, all 16 had
the same motive and were prepared to commit the crime as well. The crime must be viewed in solidarity
of act and intent which existed with all 16 accused.
Aggravating circumstances - attack happened at night; attack through deceit
Mitigating circumstances - ignorance of the accused (murder committed by means of sedition or an
uprising): due to the supposed abuses of the deceased, the perpetrators had no choice or means but use
violence to obtain justice.

There is a political character in the crime because of the supposed injustice from the municipal president
that had caused the assassination. However, since this incident did not blow up into a full uprising and is
not connected with the insurrection against Spain/US, this cannot be covered by the July 4, 1902 amnesty.

As for Magbanua's connection to the crime, it appears that he filed the false report under duress and
should not be completely liable. However, because he did not immediately correct or clarify the errors of
the report thereafter, he still has a portion to pay in the indemnity.

Ruling:
All 16 given the penalty of CARDENA PERPETUA with accessory penalties of civil interdiction and
subject to surveillance. All (including Magbanua) have to pay a total of P1000 to the heirs of the
deceased. Magbanua ACQUITTED.

People v Aguilos GRNo. 121828

Petitioner: People of the Philippines
Respondent: Edmar Aguilos, Odilon Lagliba and Rene Gato Pilola(appellant)
Ponente: Callejo Jr. J

Facts: On Feb. 5, 1988, Joselito Capa and Julian Azul were drinking at the store of Elisa Roldan at Nueve
de Pebrero Street, Mandaluyong City. Edmar Aguilos and Odilon Lagliba arrived at the store. Joselito and
Julian invited them to drink and the two joined. During their conversation, Edmar irritated Julian and the
two had a fistfight. Odilon watched and Joselito tried to serve as peacemaker. Odilon did not like Joselito
interfering the fight and proceeded to take out a knife and stabbed him. Ronnie and Rene (Appellant) saw
what their gang member Odilon did and decided to join in, pulling out their own knives and stabbed
Joselito too. Victim fell to a canal. Ronnie went to stab Julian but the latter was able to run away. Ronnie
went back to Joselito’s body and bashed his head with a piece of hollow block, and struck him with a
broken bottle. Joselito died on the spot - cause of death was multiple stabbed wounds.

Odilon was charged with murder. Edmar is still at large. Ronnie died a month after the incident. Rene was
arrested and pleas not guilty for the crime.

Rene had an alibi. He said on the time Joselito was killed he was at Julian Cadion;’s house; his cousin,
and that he was suffering from ulcer. Despite this, court still found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of murder. Hence this petition.

Issue:
Was Elisa a credible witness? YES
Did the court err in finding that there was conspiracy by appellant and others in the killing of Joselito?
NO
Was Rene guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt? YES

Held:

Appellant tried to assail that Elisa was not a credible witness since she said Ronnie struck the head of the
victim with a hollow block. However, on cross-examination, she stated that it was Edmar who struck the
victim. Appellant contended that her conflicting testimonies made her not a credible witness. Court found
this wrong stating that the inconsistency of her account of events is a minor and collateral detail that does
not affect the substance of her testimony.

On the issue of conspiracy; there is conspiracy when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and
decide to commit it. Conspiracy to exist does not require an agreement for an appreciable period prior to
the occurrence, or does not require the person to know the other offenders or the victim. From the legal
standpoint, conspiracy exists if, at the time of the commission of the offense, the accused had the same
purpose and were united in its execution. (If this is satisfied, meaning co-conspirator, also guilty as
principal)

(As opposed to accomplices - they do not decide whether the crime should be committed; they merely
agree to the plans of the principal and cooperate in its accomplishment)

In this case, Odilon initially stabbed the victim. Appellant and Ronnie decided for themselves to join in
and stab Joselito too. Joselito died of multiple stabbed wounds, meaning his death was caused by the
overt acts of the 3 men.) Hence this means appellant was not merely an accomplice but was directly liable
as principal/co-conspirator.

His alibi was also overruled. His own cousin testified that the appellant had left and was no longer seen at
Nueve de Pebrero after the incident.

Decision: decision finding appellant guilty of murder was affirmed.

People v Batin (GABBI)

United States vs Leal Et. Al. (RICKI)(1902)

Petitioners: United States
Respondents: Geronimo Leal Et. Al.

Facts:
1. Segundo Labitoria was present in the house of Geronimo Leal since the former is accusing the
latter of stealing 2 basi jars. Pablo Laranang appeared in the house along with Baldomero
Lacasandeli. While they were all drinking, Leal prompted Laranang to strike Labitoria. Labitoria
was struck 7 times which resulted to his death.
 2. Lacasandeli upon witnessing what happened, was detained by Laranang. The latter called out to
someone outside named Rufino Lastimosa to help bury the body in a cane field near the house.
3. The corpse was discovered and the evidence showed how Pablo Laranang and Geronimo Leal
are guilty of the crime as principals. Baldomero Lacasandeli and Rufino Lastimosa as
accessories. Laranang pleaded guilty and confessed that he attacked the
deceased with a bolo upon instigation of Leal. He argued that they were intoxicated as it happened.

Issue:
1. W/N Leal should also be charged as principal of the crime of homicide? YES.
2. W/N Lacasandeli and Lastimosa should be charged as accessories to the crime? YES.

Held:
1. Due to Laranang's testimony pointing to Leal's involvement, the fact that Leal disappeared from
his house from the date of the crime, and the deceased had an altercation with Leal concerning the
stolen basi jars, it is sufficient to consider Leal's motive in his involvement in killing Labitoria. In
addition, it has been found that Laranang had no motive nor ill feeling towards the deceased. This
therefore strengthens involvement of Leal as principal.
2. There can be no doubt as to the participation in the crime of the other defendants Lacasandeli
and Lastimosa. Although neither of them took part in the perpetration of the crime itself, they
nevertheless aided the principals to conceal the body by unlawfully burying it in a field to that
end and by neglecting to inform the authorities of the facts known to them.
3. The provisions of Article 9, paragraph 6 of the Penal Code must be applied in mitigation of the
penalty, since they were intoxicated in the commission of the crime. It also did not appear that
they were habitual drunkards.

Decision:
Laranang and Leal subject to punishment to 13 years reclusion temporal.
Lacasandeli and Lastimosa condemned to one day to six months and one day of prision correcional, the
accessory penalties fixed by article 61.

People v Labis (JAKE)

People v Labis No. L-22087
Petitioner: People of the PH
Respondent: Mauricio Labis and Isabel Cabiles
Ponente: Bengzon J.P. J.

Facts: Eyewitness accounts presented that at Feb. 29, 1960, about 3 pm in Barrio Taytay, El Salvador,
Misamis Oriental, victim Clarito Fabric was chased by appellant Mauricio Labis with a bolo. When the
victim passed by a coconut tree, appellant Isabel Cabiles grabbed and held him. This enabled Labis to
catch up and stab the victim at his back. Victim was then released and was able to run towards his father’s
house; 2 hours within treatment he died.

The defense had another version of the story. They said that the two of them, along with other people
attended a community group work. After which they went to a wedding, where victim was also present
with his brother-in-law, Espejon. After lunch both groups decided to leave. On the way home, defendants
alleged that Espejon confronted them asking if they had a problem with him. Moments later, they said the
victim, with a bolo, rushed towards them asking them also if they had a problem with him. This was when
the victim slashed his bolo at Labis who blocked the blow with his hand. Victim then allegedly hurled the
bolo at Labis, hitting his breast on the handle part. Labis drew his own bolo and struck the victim. Victim
ran away wounded. The defendants surrendered to the police, surrendering both Labis’ weapon and the
one allegedly used by the victim.

The trial court did not find merit on the version of the story presented by the defense. Medical
examination of the wound of the victim falsifies their account. The court also found that their version was
well rehearsed. TC also found it peculiar how Labis’ hand wound was small compared to damages
usually done by bolo strikes. It was also posited that victim was stronger and bigger than defendant and
could have easily bested him, signaling that the defendants worked together. They were sentenced to
reclusion perpetua with P6K indignation.

Mauricio Labis raised that his actions were self-defense. Cabiles’ stand was non-participation on the
killing. Hence the petition.

Issues:
Was there merit on the theory of self-defense by Labis? NO
Was Cabiles Liable? YES

Held: SC affirmed the findings of the trial court. Having advanced self-defense, it was up to Labis to
justify the killing, to which he did not. Although unnecessary, motive was still established as a witness
testified that Labis came looking for the victim days before the killing because the latter was accused of
stealing the defendant’s chicken. Also, eyewitness account of the killing was not belied. Labis’ self-
defense claim had no merit. The killing of the victim was qualified by treachery. Labis was hardly in any
risk when he killed the victim.

Cabiles was also liable as principal by indispensable cooperation. He held the victim, enabling Labis to
kill the victim.

There was a mitigating circumstance since both of the defendants’ surrendered.

Decision: Decision of TC is MODIFIED. From Reclusion Perpetua to Reclusion Temporal.

People v Montealegre (ANTON)

No. L-67948 May 31, 1988 Justice Cruz
FACTS:
In 1983, Pfc. Renato Camantigue was alerted that two men (Vicente Capalad and herein appellant
Napoleon Montealegre) were smoking marijuana inside Meding’s restaurant. When Camantigue moved
to apprehend the two smokers by collaring them, the smokers resisted. Capalad began stabbing
Camantigue in the back using a knife the former hid. Camantigue attempted to draw his gun, but
Montealegre restrained him. Capalad soon freed himself from Camantigue’s grip, and ran off to the alley.
Camantigue, although wounded, gave pursuit and fired two shots, but was unable to apprehend Capalad.
Camantigue gave up the chase and asked to be brought to the hospital. Capalad was soon found with a
fatal bullet wound. Both Camantigue and Capalad died the day after. Montealegre was apprehended some
time later, while he was boarding a bus to Cavite City. He later admitted that he was the fugitive sought.
The CFI found Montealegre guilty (note: case does not say what judgment). Hence, this appeal to
the SC.
ISSUES:
- W/N Montealegre is guilty of murder consummated by means of conspiracy? (Not murder, but
Complex Crime of murder with assault upon a person of authority. Finding of conspiracy affirmed)
RULING:
- The blatant inconsistencies in Montealegre’s defense of denial cannot overcome the positive
evidence presented by the prosecution. It is very unlikely that Montealegre, a principal accused, does
not remember the details of the incident, while mere onlookers had given vivid and corroborating
testimonies.
- While Montealegre did not personally stab Camantigue, still, his act of preventing Camantigue
from drawing his pistol was material in the murder of the policeman. Capalad was only able to fatally
stab Camantigue because Montealegre rendered the policeman defenseless. As such, Montealegre is a
principal by indispensable cooperation under Art. 17 (3) of the RPC.
o “Conspiracy need not be established by direct proof as it can be inferred from the acts
of the appellants. It is enough…that participants had the same purpose and were
united in its execution” (People v. Laganson)
- Montealegre is GUILTY of complex crime of murder, qualified by treachery, with assault
upon a person in authority. Without any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, he is sentenced to
RECLUSION PERPETUA, with a civil indemnity of P30,000. He is also ordered to reimburse
Camatigue’s medical and funeral expense of P37,380.

People v Alvares et al. (TRISHA)

No. L-10650
October 31, 1959
Plaintiff-appellant: People of the Philippines
Defendant-appellee: Marcelo Alvarez, Aurelio Amulong, and Feredico de Vera
Ponente: Labrador, J.

Facts:
On the afternoon of 29 November 1951, a fight took place two individuals at the railroad station at
Tagkawayan, Quezon. Aurelio Amulong intervened and thrusted his carbine at one of the combatants.
Esteban Malaluan asked that he be allowed to settle the dispute between the combatants. Amulong
refused to recognize Malaluan’s request. Malaluan then set aside the barrel of Amulong’s carbine but
Amulong elbowed him. Antonio Lopez intervened and took away the carbine and gave it to Amulong’s
companion. Once Amulong was able to return to his camp, he reported the incident to Lt. Alejandro
Bordallo and the latter ordered that Sgts. Frederico de Vera and Amulong to organize a small force to
bring in those who participated in the disarming of Amulong.
The following day, they took into custody 3 civilians — Esteban Malaluan, Bernardo Ana, and Inocencio
Inuval. They brought the 3 to the army barracks at Tagkawayan. Malaluan was taken to the office of
Bordallo. Capt. Alvarez and Sgts. de Vera and Amulong were also there. Malaluan was asked about the
incident. According to witnesses, the 2 others in the custody of the military, and as well as the wife of
Malaluan who was able to visit him, Malaluan was heavily beaten up by Alvarez, Bordallo, de Vera,
Prado, and Amulong. One of the most vital injuries of Malaluan was done by Bordallo when the latter hit
the former in the face with the butt of his service pistol. It was so hard that he fell flat on the floor. When
the all of the accused returned to the barracks, Malaluan was found dying. Attempts to revive him were
done but to no avail. Malaluan died. Alvarez ordered that he be placed in a cot and covered by a blanket.
They improvised a coffin and placed Malaluan therein. The corpse was brought in a truck and was
interred in a place outside the cemetery without any religious ceremony. Alvarez had reported the death
of Malaluan to the Justice of Peace, who then requested to make an autopsy of the dead body. The
fracture of the base of the skull is what caused the death of the deceased. Lower court found the accused
had conspired to inflict the injuries that caused Malaluan’s death. All of the accused are found guilty.
Appeals of Alvarez, Amulong, and de Vera are to be considered in the current petition. Bordallo has
withdrawn his appeal while Prado failed to file a brief.

Issues:
1. Whether or not Alvarez is guilty as well since he is the captain and the one in charge? YES
2. Whether or not there is conspiracy among the accused? YES

Held:
1. Alvarez was the one giving orders, given that he is the commanding officer, and he himself had
beaten up Malaluan as stated by the 3 witnesses. Moreover, his actions after the death of
Malaluan would show his guilt given that he interred the body outside the cemetery without any
religious ceremony.
2. There is conspiracy among the accused. Alvarez ordered those under him to continue the
“investigation” wherein all of those under him had heavily beaten up Malaluan. All of the
accused are directly involved as they all physically violated Malaluan.

2. Accomplices (ART18, RPC; see also ART52, 62, 260, 307, 332, 346, RPC)

People v Nierra (GABBI)

People v Galapin (ANTON)
GR 124215 July 31, 1998 Justice Davide, Jr.
FACTS:
Roberto Pillora, Elezer Galapin, and Ernesto Beira, Jr. were drinking at the store of Paquito Aloro
in Himlayan, Negros Occidental. Elezer and Roberto got into an argument during the drinking session. As
Pillora got up to leave, Ernesto stood behind Roberto, held his hands, and pulled down his jacket, which
made Roberto kneel on the ground. Elezer then stabbed Roberto with a fan-knife, which proved to be
fatal. The above facts were gleaned from the testimony of Regemer Gutierrez, Roberto’s 9 year-old
nephew, who was then gathering empty bottles at Aloro’s store. During trial, Regemer positively
identified Elezer and Ernesto, as well as Roberto’s jacket and the fan-knife that was used in the stabbing.
Lydia Pillora, Roberto’s wife, testified that Elezer and Roberto had a score to settle. This began when
Abner Galapin (Elezer’s brother) wounded Roberto with a bolo. A few years later, Alex Galapin (another
brother), threw stones at Lydia’s store. The testimonies of Lydia and Regener were corroborated by Pio
Cabrillos.
For his part, Elezer contested that he killed Roberto in self-defense. Roberto taunted him and
pulled up a fan-knife. In the struggle that ensued, Elezer managed to disarm Roberto and stab him with
that fan-knife. He then went to the house of Ernesto (who is also Elezer’s brother-in-law) who convinced
him to surrender to the police. The trial court convicted Elezer and Ernesto of murder, qualified by
treachery and taking advantage of superior strength. Hence, this present petition.
ISSUES:
- W/N Elezer and Ernesto are guilty of murder (NO- only homicide)
- W/N conspiracy is established (NO- not conspiracy to kill Roberto)
- W/N Ernesto is guilty as an accomplice or principal (Accomplice)
RULING:
- Elezer did not positively establish that he acted in self-defense. For one, Roberto’s taunting
and subsequent brandishing of the fan-knife does not constitute unlawful aggression, because
unlawful aggression contemplates an “actual, sudden, and unexpected attack, or imminent danger
thereof”. And even granting that Roberto exercised unlawful aggression, such aggression ended when
he was disarmed by Elezer. Elezer should not have stabbed Roberto in such a case.
- There is no evidence that Elezer and Ernesto conspired to kill Roberto. While it is true that
Ernesto pulled down Roberto and deprived him of the ability to use his hands for self-defense, it
cannot be established that Ernesto knew that Elezer was going to kill Roberto. As such, Ernesto does
not share in the criminal intent of Elezer.
o Still, he is liable as an ACCOMPLICE, under Art. 18 of the RPC. While he does not
share in the criminal intent, still, his act of restraining Roberto is material to the
commission of the crime of homicide.
- The crime is only HOMICIDE, not murder. In this case, there was no proof that Elezer and
Ernesto had deliberate intent to take advantage of numerical superiority. Furthermore, treachery is not
present since the restraining and subsequent stabbing was preceded by a heated argument.
- Elezer is guilty of HOMICIDE. There is a mitigating circumstance, in that he voluntarily
surrendered to the police. Without any aggravating circumstance, the penalty is RECLUSION
TEMPORAL in the minimum, subject to the ISLAW.
- Ernesto is guilty of being an ACCOMPLICE in the crime of homicide, under Art. 52 of the
RPC. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance, he is sentenced to PRISION MAYOR
in its medium period, subject to the ISLAW.
- The two accused are also ordered to pay P50,000 as civil indemnity for Roberto’s death, as
well as P25,000 for moral damages to Roberto’s widow, Lydia.

People v Madali (DOBIE)

People v. Madali
GR No. 67803-04 - 30 July 1990
Ponente: Fernan, C.J.

Facts:
Oct. 26, 1979 - Ramon, the son of the defendants (Ricarte and Annie Madali), had an altercation with
Felix Gasang and Agustin Reloj.
Oct. 27, 1979 - Felix was summoned to the municipal building. Ricarte Madali, a police officer, scolded
Felix and threatened to "sow bullets in their bodies," for threatening his son.

Oct. 31, 1979 ; 9pm - Agustin (previously accompanied by Felix), while buying cigarettes on his way
home, was taken by Ricarte and Annie. While dragging Agustin towards his house, Annie beat him with
a club. Ricarte also stated that he had been waiting for Agustin for a couple of nights and that this time,
he had him. Agustin managed to run away but was shot in the hip by Ricarte. Felix arrived and was also
shot twice by Ricarte. Cipriano Gasang (Felix's father) also arrived and was also shot by Ricarte.
Merlinda Gasang (Felix's sister) was also hit by the bullet aimed at Cipriano. Annie was allegedly calling
the attention of Ricarte whenever someone was about to attack them and pointed the flashlight towards
the Gasangs to help Ricarte with his aim. Felix and Cipriano died while Agustin and Merlinda survived
the gunshots. Ricarte surrendered to the police.

The information filed for multiple frustrated murder, conspiracy, trachery and evident premeditation were
alleged. The Madalis pleaded not guilty. Ricarte claimed that he acted out of self defense as he heard
stones being thrown at his house and that the Gasangs attacked them with clubs and knives which
prompted him to fire his firearm at them.

The lower court ruled in favor of the prosecution and found that Ricarte and Annie conspired to commit
the crime. It charged the couple with murder (for Felix), frustrated murder (for Agustin), and the
complex crime of murder and frustrated murder (for Cipriano and Merlinda).

Issue:
W/N Annie is guilty as principal by direct participation? NO.

Held:
Annie claimed that she did not directly participate but instead stayed at a distance and merely warned her
husband of the different attackers rushing toward him. Although she presented no proof or added
testimony to show this, the court found no proof beyond reasonable doubt that the couple conspired to
commit the crime. Thus, she was merely an accomplice.

She beamed her flashlight at the victims and warned her husband of their presence. Although she did
assist her husband in aiming by illuminating the area, their statement that it wasn't too dark at the time
would show that her illumination wouldn't have made a difference as Ricarte would still be able to shoot
the victims even if she didn't aid him.

Her shouts of, "here comes another, shoot," cannot be considered to have incited Ricarte to fire at the
victims. The shots were so close together that it would be unlikely that Ricarte was able to hear or was
prompted by Annie to fire.

The fact that Annie hit Agustin with a wooden club before Ricarte fired at him was not indispensable
since Ricarte could have still shot Agustin even if Annie didn't hit him prior.
Ruling:
Lower court decision AFFIRMED. Penalties modified:

Ricarte
10 years and 1 day (prision correccional) - 20 years (reclusion temporal) for murdering Felix.
4 years, 2 months, and 1 day (prision correccional) - 12 years (prision mayor) for frustrated murder of
Agustin.

Annie
6 years and 1 day (prision mayor) - 14 years and 8 months (reclusion temporal) for the murder of Felix.
6 months and 1 day (pricion correccional) - 6 years and 1 day (prision mayor) for the frustrated murder of
Agustin.

*Mitigating circumstance: surrender of Ricarte to the police

People v Bayabos (TRISHA)

G.R. no 171222 & 174786
February 18, 2015
Petitioner: People of the Philippines
Respondent: Ltsg. Dominador Bayabos, et al.

Facts:
Fernando C. Balidoy, Jr. was admitted as a probationary midshipman at the Philippine Merchant Marine
Academy (PMMA). In order to reach active status, all new entrants were required to successfully
complete the mandatory “Indoctrination and Orientation Period,” which was set from 2 May to 1 June
2001. Balidoy died on 3 May 2001. PMMA were criminally charged before the Sandiganbayan as
accomplices to hazing under the Anti-Hazing Law. Before they were arraigned, the Sandiganbayan
quashed the Information against them on the basis of the dismissal of the criminal case against the
principal accused and, the failure to include in the Information the material averments required by the
Anti-Hazing Law. Consequently, this petition was filed before this Court questioning the
Sandiganbayan’s quashal of the Information.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the dismissal of the criminal case of the principal accused be invoked as a ground to
dismiss the criminal case of the accomplices, some school authorities herein? NO

Held:
No. That the case against those charged as accomplices is not ipso facto dismissed in the absence of trial
of the purported principals; the dismissal of the case against the latter; or even the latter’s acquittal,
especially when the occurrence of the crime has in fact been established. In the case of school authorities
and faculty members who have had no direct participation in the act, they may nonetheless be charged as
accomplices if it is shown that (1) hazing, as established by the above elements, occurred; (2) the accused
are school authorities or faculty members; and (3) they consented to or failed to take preventive action
against hazing in spite actual knowledge thereof.

People v Babiera (JAKE)

People v Babiera No. 28871
Petitioner: People of the PH
Respondent: Clemente Babiera, Justo Barbiera and Dominga Bores
Ponente: Villa-Real J.

Facts:
Background: Justo Barbiera sold his 2 parcel of land to Basilio Copreros on condition that if the former
did not pay him back, the land is forfeited to Basilio. The land was not paid back so Basilio took
possession of them and leased them to Severino Haro. (victim) Barbiera tried to take back the land
through action of unlawful detainer. There were also instances when Barbiera and his men harassed
Fermin Bruces, Haro’s copartner.

One night, Clemente Barbiera(son of Justo)’s cow damaged the plantings of Fermin Bruces. The latter
notified his master of what happened. Haro confronted Clemente about the situation and both agrees that
the latter would pay for the damages.

On the evening of Aug. 21, 1927, while Severino Haro, along with companions, was returning to town.
Suddenly, Clemente sprang from the grass, went after Severino and struck him with a bolo in the back.
Upon turning around, Haro received another blow, this time to the head. Clemente threatened Haro’s
companion and then Justo and Dominga appeared placing him on top of the victim’s stomach and knees
to hold him down. Dominga then searched for Haro’s revolver to no avail. Victim was eventually let go,
sent to the hospital, and about a week after the incident, died. The account was from his ante-mortem
declaration.

The defense posited that his actions were of self-defense. In his version, Clemente said that in trying to
prevent Haro from taking his cow, he was violently apprehended by one Margarito Mediavilla, cutting his
hand. He also said that Haro took out his revolver and fired several shots. Defense clainms that because of
this, he struck Haro with his bolo thus causing his eventual death.

TC found him guilty of murder and his father and wife guilty as accomplices.

Issues: Was Severino Haro Treacherously attacked? YES

Held: First, court found the land dispurte to be sufficient motivation for the side of the accused to resort to
violence. The accused also did not prove sufficiently that his actions were of self-defense.

Court found inaccuracies on the statements of the accused; they said that they had to look for the revolver
the following day, taking the gun to the office of the constabulary at around 10 am but witnesses said that
Dominga was already at the office at 5:30am, meaning she didn’t not have to look for the revolvesr
Also, TC found that the wound Clemente had on his arm that was supposedly caused by Mediavilla was
actually self-inflicted as means to escape life penalty. The facts of the case conclude that Clemente’s
actions constitute murder with aggravating circumstance that it was done at night.

Justo Barbiera and Dominga Bores were also guilty but as accomplices because they did not take part in
the infliction of the wound. Yet they took part in the commission ofthe crime having held down the
victim’s body.

Decision: Clemente sentenced to cadena temporal at its maximum degree, meaning life imprisonment.
The 2 accomplices were guilty of the crime of homicide as accomplices; prison mayor or 10 years 1 day.

3. Accessories (ART19, RPC; PD 1612; see also ART53 and 116, RPC)
a. Exceptions (ART16, RPC)
b. Exempt from prosecution (ART20, RPC)

Mendoza vs People(RICKI)
Petitioners: Leonardo Mendoza
Respondents: People of the Philippines

FACTS
1. 310 bags of American rice valued at P5,908 pesos belonging to the Rice and Corn
Administration (RCA) were unloaded from a vessel at the pier in Manila to a truck owned by
Yellow Ball Freight Trains. The truck driver is Ponciano Reponte, and Wilfredo Escopin was a
helper with him.
2. The delivery was supposed to be made, but instead the 2 accused along with a person named
Frank drove the truck to a grocery store of Leonardo Mendoza. Several bags of rice had already
been unloaded when police operatives arrived and arrested Reponte, Escopin, and Mendoza.
Frank escaped and is still at large.
3. Information of Qualified Theft was made naming Reponte, Escopin, and Frank as principals; and
Leonardo Mendoza as accessory.
4. Reponte pleaded guilty of Simple theft. The lower court rendered judgement that there was no
conspiracy between Reponte and Escopin.
5. Mendoza was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt as accessory for Qualified Theft. Mendoza
appealed to CA, the CA affirmed in toto the lower court. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE
1. W/N Mendoza should be guilty as an accessory for the crime of Qualified Theft? (Guilty as
ACCESSORY for SIMPLE THEFT)

HELD
1. Under Art 19 of the RPC, accessories are "those who, have knowledge of the commission of the
crime, and without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part
subsequent to its commission" in any of the three ways enumerated therein.
 2. One manner of participation which is pertinent to this case is "by profiting themselves or
assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime."
3. Court finds Mendoza an accessory to the crime committed by the asportation of the RCA rice. A
reason for this is the testimony of Reponte that there was a previous understanding among the
accused to sell the stolen rice to Mendoza.
4. While there is no direct proof that Mendoza knew that rice had been stolen, the totality of the
circumstantial evidence points to the fact that he knew that the rice he was receiving from Frank
was stolen. Circumstantial evidence may be the basis for conviction if there are more than one
circumstances, the facts from which the inferences may be derived are proven, and the
combination of all circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
5. The crime proven being simple theft, Mendoza should be held liable as accessory to said crime.

DECISION
Leonardo Mendoza convicted as accessory to the crime of theft under Art 308 of the RPC.
penalty of 1 month and one day of arresto mayor is imposed.

Vino v People (TRISHA)

G.R. 84163
October 19, 1989
Petitioner: Lito Vino
Respondent: People of the Philippines and CA

Facts:
Around 7pm, 21 March 1985, Roberto Tejada left their house in Pangasinan to go to the house of Isidro
Salazar to watch TV. Around 11pm, Ernesto (dad of Roberto) was resting then he heard two gunshots and
heard Roberto cry out loud that he had been shot. Ernesto saw Roberto 10 meters away. The Tejada
family who were in the house — Ernesto, his wife, children: Ermalyn & Julius — went down to meet
Roberto. They then called for help from their neighbors. 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 the armalite. Upon reaching Ernesto’s house, they stopped to watch Roberto. Salazar pointed his
armalite at Ernesto and his companions. Thereafter, the two left.

Roberto was brought to the hospital. PC/Col. Bernardo Cacananta took his ante-mortem statement which
says that Jessie Salazar was identified as the assailant as signed with Roberto’s own blood. He died of the
said gunshot wound. Vino and Salazar were charged with murder in a complaint filed in the MTC which
was later endorsed to RTC. Upon arraignment, Vino pleaded as not guilty. Trial court then commenced
and instead of presenting his evidence, Vino filed a motion to dismiss. Trial court found him as an
accessory to the crime of murder and also ordered accused to indemnify the heirs of the victim. Motion
for reconsideration was filed but was denied. Appeal to the CA was also denied, reaffirming the judgment
of the lower court. Hence, this petition.

Issues:
1. Whether or not the accused can be convicted as an accessory of when he was charged in the
information as principal of the crime of murder? YES
 2. Whether or not the trial of an accessory can proceed without awaiting the result of the separate
charge against the principal? YES
3. Whether or not the acquittal of the principal can also acquit the accessory? NO

Held:
1. Yes. Under Art. 16 of the RPC, the two other categories of the persons responsible for the
commission of the same offense are the accomplice and the accessory. Petitioner was charged as
a principal in the commission of the crime of murder. There is no doubt that the crime of murder
had been committed and that the evidence tended to show that Salazar was the assailant. Vino
was present during its commission or must have known its commission is the only logical
conclusions considering that immediately thereafter, he was seen driving a bicycle with Salazar
holding the gun and there were together when they left after. At least two witnesses, Ernesto and
Julius, tested to these facts. It is clear that Vino actively assisted Salazar in his escape. Vino’s
liability is that of an accessory. While Vino 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. The accused can validly be
convicted as an accomplice or accessory under an information charging him as principal.
2. Yes. 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.
3. No. The acquittal of Salazar is predicated on the failure of the prosecution to adduce the quantum
of evidence required to generate a conviction as he was not positively identified as the person
who was seen holding a gun escaping aboard the bicycle of Vino. Accessory can be prosecuted
and held liable independently of the assailant. Vino’s liability as such an accessory was
established beyond reasonable doubt in that he assisted in the escape of the assailant from the
scene of the crime. Identity of the assailant is immaterial for the purpose of the prosecution of the
accessory. Even if the assailant cannot be identified the responsibility of Vino as an accessory is
indubitable.

WHEREFORE, motion of reconsideration is denied and denial is final.

Dimat v People (JAKE)
Dimat v People GRNo. 181184
Petitioner: Mel Dimat
Respondent: People of the PH
Ponente: Abad, J.

Facts: Samson Delgado, together with Jose Mantequilla and police officers testified that Delgado’s wife
bought a Nissan Safari with plate number WAH-569 from Dimat for P850k. On the deed of sale the
vehicle has engine number TD42-126134 and chassis number GRGY60-YO3553.

Police officers halted the vehicle in E.Rod QC. After inspecting the vehicle, they found that the engine
number and chassis number were different and that the vehicle was on their list of stolen vehicles. They
impounded the car and found that its owner was actually Jose Mantequilla. Mantequilla testified that his
the vehicle was carnapped.

In Dimat’s defense, he said he bought the car in good faith from a certain Manuel Tolentino which he
subsequently sold to Delgado. He also said that while the vehicle had the same plate number with the one
on the record of stolen vehicles, they were actually different cars.

RTC found him guilty of anti-fencing law with penalty of prison mayor. CA affirmed with modifications;
prison mayor in its minimum.

Issue: Was Dimat guilty of the crime even if he bought and sold the car in good faith? YES

Held:
The elements of fencing are 1. a robbery or theft has been committed; 2. the accused, who took no part in
the robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and
sells, or in any manner deals in any article or object taken during that robbery or theft; 3. the accused
knows or should have known that the thing derived from that crime; and 4. he intends by the deal he
makes to gain for himself or for another.

First, lacked criminal intent is not an excuse; Anti-fencing law is a special law therefore male prohibitum;
no proof of intent is needed.

Second, upon inspection of the car, the deed of sale did not reflect the actual engine and chassis number.

SC believed that Dimat knew that the car he bought was not properly documented but still proceeded to
sell it to Delgado. SC adds that in actuality, Delgado’s wife could have been guilty of the same crime but
she does not stand accused in the case.

Decision: Court affirms CA decision.