ARTICLE 15.

ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES

1. Nature and Kinds b. Article 22- Retroactivity

ARTICLE 17. PRINCIPALS. 2. Classification of Penalties

1. Conspiracy a. Article 25 – Penalties that may be imposed

a. People v. Pelagio, 20 SCRA 153 b. Article 26 in relation to Article 9

b. People v. Federico, 247 SCRA 246 3. Duration and effect of penalties

c. People v. Agulos, GR 121828, June 27, 2003 a. Article 27 – duration of penalties

2. Principals by Inducement b. Article 29 – Preventive imprisonment

a. US v. Indanan, 24 Phil. 203 4. Principal and Accessory Penalties

b. People v. Kiichi Omine, 61 Phil. 609 a. Nature and Effects – Article 30-35; 40-45

3. Principals by indispensable cooperation 5. Article 39 – Subsidiary Penalty; RA 10159

a. People v. Montealegre, GR 67948, May 31, 1988 ARTICLE 48. Complex Crimes.

b. US v. Lim Buanco, 14 Phil. 472 1. Compound (Delito Compuesto)

c. People v. Madali, 188 Phil. 69 a. People v. Pincalin, 102 SCRA 136

ARTICLE 18. ACCOMPLICES b. People v. Toling, 62 SCRA 17

a. People v. Tamayo, 44 Phil. 38 c. People v. Tabaco, 270 SCRA 32

b. People v. Realon, 99 SCRA 422 2. Complex Crime Proper

c. People v. Doctolero, 193 SCRA 632 a. Enrile v. Salazar, 186 SCRA 217

d. People v. Watimar, GR Nos. 121651-52 August 16, b. People v. Valdez, 304 SCRA 611
2000
c. People v. Garcia, GR 141125, February 28, 2002
ARTICLE 19. ACCESSORIES
d. People v. Alfeche, GR No. 124213, August 17,
1. Profiting from the effects of the crime 1998, 294 SCRA 352

a. Mendoza v. People, 157 SCRA 464 e. Batulanon v. People, GR No. 139857, September
15, 2006
b. Taer v. C.A., 186 SCRA 598
3. Continued Crime
2. PD 1612
a. People v. de leon, 49 Phil. 437
a. Dizon-Pamintuan v. People, 234 SCRA 63
b. Santiago v. Garchitorena, GR 109266, Dec. 2,
b. Tan v. People, 313 SCRA 220 1993
3. Concealing or destroying the body of the crime c. Gamboa v. CA, GR L-41054, November 28, 1975
a. Corpus Delicti d. People v. Peñas, GR 46353-46355, December 5,
4. Assisting the principal to escape 1938

a. People v. Talingdan, 84 CRA 19 e. People v. Madrigal-Gonzales, Nos. L-16688-90, 7

SCRA 942
b. Vino v, People, 178 SCRA 626
4. Special Complex Crime
5. PD 1829
a. Articles 266-B, 267, 294, 297 and 320
PENALTIES
III. Application of Penalties
1. Penalties (Art. 21-46)
1. Reducing penalties by degrees – Article 46; 50-57
a. Article 21- Nullum Crimen
2. Graduation of penalties – Article 61
3. Application of indivisible penalties – Article 63 3. What civil liability includes

4. Application of penalties with three periods – Article 64 a. Heirs of Raymundo Castro v. Bustos, 27 SCRA 327

5. Scale of Penalties - Articles 70-71 4. Extinction of Civil Liability

6. Indeterminate Sentence Law a. People v. Bayotas, 236 SCRA 239

a. Act No. 4103

b. Death Penalty – RA 9436

· People vs. Bon, GR No. 166401, October 30, 2006

c. People v. Simon, 234 SCRA 555

d. Computation of Indeterminate Penalties

· Revised Penal Code

· Special Laws

EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABLITY (Article 89-99)

1. Pardon and Amnesty

a. People v. Patriarca, et. al., GR 135457,

September 29, 2000

2. Prescription

a. Domingo v. Sandiganbayan, 322 SCRA 655

b. People v. pacificador, 354 SCRA 310

c. Sermonia v. C.A., GR No. 109454, June 14, 1994

d. Romualdez v. CA, GR No. 165510-33, July 28,

2006

3. Probation Law

a. Section 24, RA 9165

b. Llamado v. CS, 174 SCRA 566

c. Bela v. Martinez, 181 SCRA 459

d. Salgado v. CA, 189 SCRA 304

e. Francisco v. CA, 313 Phil. 241 (1995)

f. Moreno v. COMELEC, GR 168550, August 10,

2006

g. Colinares v. CA, GR 182748, December 13, 2011

CIVIL LIABILITY (Articles 100-113)

1. Subsidiary Liability

a. Basilio v. CA, GR 11343, March 17, 2000

b. PRBL v. Mangawang, 458 SCRA 684

2. Persons civilly liable for felonies

a. Carpio v. Doroja, 180 SCRA 1

PEOPLE VS. PELAGIO, CAYMO, AND GUICO
FACTS
This is an appeal from the decision of the CFI condemning the
appellants to death for the crime of robbery with homicide.
Originally, there were 6 appellants but 2 of them were
discharged for turning into state witnesses and 1 died.
Guico, an ex-convict, and Evelyn Villanueva lived in common-
law relationship. He was friends with Pelagio, an ex-convict,
and Armando Manalang. Pelagio came to see the spouses
when the Pelagio’s wife had just delivered a child to borrow
money for expenses.
Taking advantage of the visit, Manalang told Pelagio of a
robbery that he was planning with some friends. The
appellants met again at Guico’s residence to finalize the plan.
Guico’s participation in the first meeting is unclear due to him
taking a shower; however, he was the one who explained the
location and entry points of the house to be robbed.
They all walked towards Aling Nena’s residence but before
reaching it, Caymo ordered Manalang to haild and hold a taxi.
Only Balmeo and Caymo entered the victim’s premises
whereas Pelagio acted as a lookout at the gate.
The 2 entered through the back-kitchen door where Caymo
saw Mrs. Severina de Gloria and pointed her gun to her for
her to produce all the money and jewelry she could. After
getting what they needed, Balmeo and Caymo went to search
for Pelagio but to no avail so they went to Manalang where
the taxi was waiting for them. As the taxi was about to leave,
a jeep blocked its way and Patrolman Francisco Trinidad
alighted and walked towards the taxi. Manalang instructed
Caymo to shoot at the man which he did and the man fell
dead.
Manalang, Caymo, and Balmeo went to the house of
Manalang’s sister where they changed clothes and hid the
death weapon and the stolen items. Balmeo and Caymo
proceeded to a house in Blumentritt where they met Pelagio,
with the latter explaining that he scampered away for he saw
someone slip out of the house to summon the police. The
records did not disclose just how and when the appellants
were apprehended. Caymo executed an extrajudicial
confession, implicating Pelagio, Manalang, and Balmeo. Guico
implicated Pelagio and Manalang. Manalang implicated
Guico, Caymo, Balmeo, and Villanueva.
Pelagio claimed that he was playing mahjong. Caymo claied
he was at home. Guico claimed that he was at the residence
of Jose Obligacion. They also claimed that the extrajudicial
confessions were secured through threat and maltreatment.
Caymo stuck to the defense of alibi. Pelagio then admitted to
the crime but said that he should only be convicted for simple
robbery and not for robbery with homicide. Guico claimed
that he cannot justly be convicted for the crime charged.
ISSUES
1. WoN Caymo’s alibi should stand.
2. WoN Pelagio’s crime should be reduced to simple robbery.
3. WoN there is an aggravating circumstance of a band.
4. WoN Guico should be acquitted.
HELD
1. No. He was positively identified by Mrs. Severina de Gloria
and Francisco Juni, the driver of the taxi. Additionally, state
witnesses Evelyn and Balmeo testified that he was among
those who hatched the plan. He was also found positive for
nitrate burns in both hands. He has offered neither denial nor
any reasonable explanation.
2. Yes. Pelagio evidently fled from his lookout post based on
the statement of Balmeo and Caymo that they can’t locate
him. When the homicide was committed, Pelagio was not in
the taxi and there is no evidence to suggest that homicide
was included when they plotted the robbery.
3. No. Considering that those who actually participated in the
robbery were only three, Pancho Pelagio included, and only
one of them was armed, the same evidently was not "in
band." This being the case, then it would indeed be irregular
or questionable to hold Pancho Pelagio similarly responsible
as Caymo and Balmeo for the killing of Pat. Trinidad. Under
the code, it is only when the robbery is in band that all those
present in the commission of the robbery may be punished,
for any of the assaults which its members might commit.
4. Yes. After answering Armando Manalang's inquiries
relating to the intended house and its surrounding streets
and the means of entrance thereto and the channels of exit
therefrom, his involvement with the conspiracy ceased. He
was also absent during the 2 nd meeting and the robbery itself.
Conspiracy alone without the execution of its purpose is not
punishable except in special instances. Such an absence lends
itself strongly to his evident change of mind.
SUMMARY
The Court finds appellant Oscar Caymo guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with the homicide
attended by the aggravating circumstances, all recited in the
information and proven at the trial, of nocturnity and use of a
motor vehicle without the compensating mitigating
circumstances. On the other hand, appellant Pancho Pelagio
is hereby determined to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of simple robbery under Article 294, paragraph 5 of the
Revised Penal Code, attended by the aggravating
circumstances of nocturnity and recidivism, having been at
the time of the trial, as recited in the information and proven
at the trial, previously convicted for robbery. There is no
mitigating circumstance appreciable in his favor. For both
appellants, therefore, the penalties prescribed by law should
be imposed in their maximum period, although appellant
Pancho Pelagio is still qualified to avail of the benefits of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law. For the reasons given above,
appellant Jose Guico should be, as he is hereby acquitted.
PEOPLE VS. RODOLFO FEDERICO
FACTS
The accused was charged by the RTC with the murder of
Pastor Neil Escala by conspiring with others. He was also
charged with the frustrated murder of Rogelio Fernando but
the two cases were not consolidated.
Sometime in the past, Rogelio Fernando, a tricycle driver, and
Francisco Mediona, a Metro Aide, had an altercation. But
before the incident could worsen, they settled their
differences before the Brgy. Chairman and a Brgy. Tanod.
Marcelo Gallardo saw appellant and the latter’s cousins,
Francisco and Ruben, emerge from an alley across the bakery.
Francisco was holding a butcher’s knife. While Rogeliio,
Pastor Escala, Artemon and Jun were conversing, Ruben and
Rodolfo stayed behind and pulled out darts and aimed
towards the bakery. Francisco bough bread and suddenly
stabbed Rogelio. The latter fled but was blocked by Ruben
and the appellant who aimed their slings and darts at him. He
turned to another street where he was helped by his friends
who brough him to the hospital.
Meanwhile, after stabbing Rogelio, Pastor Escala was then
stabbed. The victim fell and was stabbed again 4 times.
Francisco hurled a challenge on anyone to fight him but
nobody took up his challenge. The pastor died.
The appellant denied any participation in the crime, claiming
that he was in the house of his cousin which is about 20 arms-
length from the bakery when the crime happened. He heard
someone shouting, “may saksakan, may saksakan.” He went
out of the house and saw Medion stab somebody. He
returned to the house but was surprised to be handcuffed by
2 policemen. A policeman also tried to force him to admit
that he killed the deceased which he refused to do so.
The RTC convicted him as a principal on the basis of
conspiracy established by: (a) he, along with his cousins,
emerged together at the same time from an alley nearby the
bakery; (b) instead of proceeding directly to the bakery, they
first veered toward another direction and went to the house
nearby; (c) they reappeared and Francisco pretended to buy
bread while the other 2 positioned themselves strategically
along a street, aiming their darts and slings; (d) when the
deceased was stabbed, the other 2 continued to aim their
weapons; (e) Francisco left the scene together with the other
2.
ISSUE/S
1. WoN Federico should be acquitted on both charges on the
basis of the absence of conspiracy.
HELD
1. Yes, on the charge of frustrated murder. The actions of the
accused in arming himself with a sling and darts which he
aimed towards Rogelio and blocking his path are sufficient
enough to show that he was a conspirator.
No, on the charge of consummated murder. There is
insufficient evidence to prove the conspiracy. Co-conspirators
are liable only for acts done pursuant to the conspiracy; for
other acts done outside the contemplation of the co-
conspirators or which are not the necessary and logical
consequence of the intended crime, only the actual
perpetrators are liable. No reason, motive, or intent on the
part of Francisco was shown or proved why he would stab
Escala. And there is no convincing evidence that the killing of
Escala was part of the conspiracy to kill Rogelio Fernando.
Neither is there any indication that the accused-appellant was
aware that Francisco would attack Escala. He is therefore not
liable for the death of the deceased as a principal but as an
accomplice instead for after the deceased was stabbed, the
accused remained standing in the same place where they
were when Francisco stabbed Fernando and still had their
slings and darts pointed at the people near the bakery. It is
obvious then that at that particular instance, the accused-
appellant became aware of the intent of Francisco to kill
Escala. Moreover, he cooperated in the execution of
Francisco’s purpose and concurred therewith by pointing his
sling and darts, either to give moral support to Francisco or to
deter the people from attacking him in retaliation for the
stabbing of Escala.
DISPOSITION
WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment of Branch 49 of the
Regional Trial Court of Manila in Criminal Case No. 90-82576-
SCC is AFFIRMED, subject to the modifications on the extent
of the accused-appellant’s criminal liability and the imposable
penalty, and as modified, accused-appellant RODOLFO
FEDERICO Y MEDIONA is found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of murder only as accomplice and his
penalty is hereby reduced from reclusion perpetua to an
indeterminate penalty ranging from Eight (8) years of prision
mayor as minimum, to Seventeen (17) years and Four (4)
months of reclusion temporal as maximum.
PEOPLE VS. AGUILOS
FACTS
This is an appeal from the decision of the RTC convicting
Pilola of the crime of murder. Edmar Aguilos, Odilon Lagliba,
and the appellant were all charged with murder. Lagliba was
the first to be tried and convicted of murder which became
final and executory. Aguilos remains at large while Ronnie
Diamante reportedly died a month after the incident.
Joselito Capa and Julian Azul were drinking beer, Edmar
Aguilos and Odilon Lagliba arrived and was subsequently
invited for a drink. The conversation turned heated. An
altercation ensured between Julian and Edmar. Elisa Rolan,
the owner of the store where they were drinking, pacified
them. Edmar and Odilon left but returned. Edmar punched
Julian. They traded blows until they reached Aling Soteras’
store. Joselito tried to placate them, an act which did not sit
well with Odilon. Odilon, perched on top of hollowblocks,
went down and stabbed Joselito. Ronni and the appellant
Pilola who were across the street saw their gangmate Odilon
and joined in stabbing Joselito. Odilon and the appellant fled,
while Ronnie went after Julian who fled. When Julian saw that
no one was chasing him anymore, he looked back and saw
Ronnie bash Joselito’s head with a hollow block and struck
him with a piece of a broke bottle. Joselito died.
Aguilos denied the crime. He claimed that he was in the
house of his cousin, Julian Cadion, when he suddenly heard a
commotion outside and rushed outside to see what’s going
on. He remained inside the house due to ulcer. He later
learned from his neighbor that Joselito had been stabbed and
he did not bother to ask who did it. Julian corroborated the
testimony.
Agripina Gloria, a security guard, saw Ronnie take a knife in
the kitchen of her niece Teresita and run towards where
Edmar and Julian were. She saw Ronnie stab the deceased
but did not see Odilon or Pilola. Rene Pilola was then found
guilty of the crime of murder.
ISSUE/S
1. WoN the court erred in finding that there was conspiracy
and hence, he is not liable as a principal by direct
participation.
2. WoN erred in giving credence to the testimony of Elisa
Rolan.
HELD
1. No. The appellant contends that even if it were true that he
was present at the situs criminis and that he stabbed the
victim, it was Odilon who had already decided, and in fact
fatally stabbed the victim. He could not have conspired with
Odilon as the incident was only a chance encounter between
the victim, the appellant and his co-accused. However, there
may be conspiracy even if an offender does not know the
identities of the other offenders and not aware of all the
details of the plan of operation or was not in on the scheme
from the beginning. It exists if, at the time of the commission
of the offense, the accused had the same purpose and were
united in its execution.
To hold a person liable as an accomplice, two elements must
concur: (a) the community of criminal design; that is, knowing
the criminal design of the principal by direct participation, he
concurs with the latter in his purpose; (b) the performance of
previous or simultaneous acts that are not indispensable to
the commission of the crime. Accomplices do not decide
whether the crime should be committed; they merely assent
to the plan of the principal by direct participation and
cooperate in its accomplishment. However, where one
cooperates in the commission of the crime by performing
overt acts which by themselves are acts of execution, he is a
principal by direct participation, and not merely an
accomplice.
In this case, only Odilon initially decided to stab the victim but
the appellant later joined. His acts before, during, and after
the stabbing incident show that he conspired to kill the
victim. There is no evidence that before the arrival of Ronnie
and the appellant at the situs criminis, the victim was already
dead.
Even assuming that the appellant did not conspire with
Ronnie and Odilon to kill the victim, the appellant is
nevertheless criminally liable as a principal by direct
participation. The stab wounds inflicted by him cooperated in
bringing about and accelerated the death of the victim or
contributed materially thereto. His alibi that he was not at
the scene due to ulcer does not hold water for he failed to
present any medical certificate. Moreover, Elisa positively
identified him. The appellants defenses must crumble in the
face of evidence that despite being informed that he was
sought after by the authorities as a suspect, the appellant
disappeared from his residence to evade arrest. His own
witness, his cousin, inadvertently confirmed such a fact.
2. No. Appellant claimed that Elisa contradicted herself when
she testified on direct examination that 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. This does not hold water. First, the identity of the
hollow block striker is of de minimis importance since the
victim died of multiple wounds from a knife. Second, the
perceived inconsistency as regards minor details does not
affect the substance of her testimony. Third, Elisa has been
consistent in saying that the appellant was one of the men
who stabbed the victim which is corroborated by the autopsy
showing 11 stab wounds and the doctor saying that there
were 2 or more assailants. Fourth, even the appellant himself
declared that he could not think of any reason why Elisa
would accuse him. This only goes to show that Elisa has no
improper motive to accuse Pilola.
In sum, the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior
strength is absorbed by treachery.
US VS. PANGLIMA INDANAN
FACTS
This is an appeal convicting the appellant of the crime of
murder by inducement.
The accused, the headman of Parang, sent Induk to bring to
the house of the accused one Sariol. The next day, Induk
obeyed. Akiran and Suhuri were ordered to tie Sariol. The
accused, in the presence of several witnesses, ordered Sariol
to be taken to the Chinese cemetery and killed due to an
order from the governor. Akiran was given strict orders to be
present at the time of the killing and that he should aid in the
killing by taking the accused’s bolo. The deceased, with his
hands tied behind his back, was struck by Kalyakan while
Akiran joined.
It is evident from the witnesses that they recognize his power
over them that any order issued by him had the force and
efficacy of physical coercion.
ISSUE/S
WoN the appellant is guilty of the crime charged by
inducement.
HELD
Yes. The words and acts of the accused had the effect of a
command. There does not seem to have existed, however,
any official relation between the accused and the persons
whom he induced to kill Sariol. While he appears to have
been the headman of Parang, those whom he induced held
no official position under him and owed him, legally speaking,
no obedience. According to tradition and custom, however,
the headman seems to have been a person whose word was
law and whose commands were to be obeyed. Moreover, the
accused represented to those who physically committed the
crime that he had a warrant from the governor authorizing, if
not requiring, the acts committed, and urged upon them, in
effect, that all must obey the commands of the Government.
This representation was false, but it produced the same effect
as if it had been true. While it may be said, and is true, that
the personal commands of the accused were entirely
sufficient to produce the effects which actually resulted and
that such commands may be considered the moving cause of
the crime, still there is no doubt, under the evidence, that the
representation that the accused had in his possession an
order from the Government commanding the death of Sariol
was also of material influence in effecting the death
There was present premeditation, qualifying the crime as
murder. There were present, also, the aggravating
circumstances of desplobado and nocturnity.
PEOPLE VS. KIICHI OMINE, EDUARDO AUTOR, LUIS LADION,
AND AGAPITO CORTESANO
FACTS
This is an appeal from the decision of the CFI finding the
defendants guilty of frustrated homicide, with the
aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength.
Eduardo, Luis, and Agapito were working on the hemp
plantation of Angel Pulido under the direction of Omine, who
was the manager. The 4 lived together.
Omine asked Pulido for permission to open a new road
through the plantation. According to the offended party, it
was refused because there was already an unfinished road.
Omine, however, contends that he was given the permission.
When Pulido and his son, accompanied by Saito and a Moro,
were returning home, they say a number of hemp plants
destroyed for such a purpose which angered Pulido.
According to the prosecution, while the offended party was
talking with Omine, Autor intervened but was prevented by
the son of Pulido; that Autor attacked the son with a bolo;
that Ladion and Cortesano held Pulido by the arms, and when
Autor approached, Omine shouted to him “pegale y matale,”
and Autor struck Pulido in the breast. The defense claimed
that the offended party called Omine an offensive epithet and
struck him in the breast with brass knuckles; that when Autor
intervened, Pulido’s son attacked him with his fists; that
Ladion and Cortesano ran away; that Omine never uttered
the words in urging Autor to strike.
ISSUE/S
1. WoN there was conspiracy, making Omina a principal by
inducement.
2. WoN Autor is guilty of frustrated homicide.
HELD
2. No. The offended party, his son, and Saito narrated the
facts in a way that all the four defendants would appear to be
equally responsible for the injury sustained by the offended.
The evidence does not convince us that Ladion and Cortesano
took any part in the fight; on the contrary it inclines us to
believe that they ran away and were not present when Angel
Pulido was wounded. This impression is strengthened by the
fact that they were not included in the original complaint
until it was amended. If they did in fact intervene, it may have
been for the purpose of preventing the offended party and
his son from continuing their attack on Omine. There was no
need for Ladion and Cortesano to hold Angel Pulido in order
to enable Eduardo Autor to strike him with his bolo, or for
Kiichi Omine to induce him to do so by shouting" pegale y
matale." According to the witnesses for the prosecution,
Hilario Pulido and Eduardo Autor had already struck each
other in the face with their fists, and Eduardo Autor had
received a blow in the right eye, and then struck Hilario
Pulido with his bolo. Angel Pulido would naturally intervene
in the fight between his son and Eduardo Autor, and if he did
so, Autor, who had already drawn his bolo, would strike him
without the need of any inducement from Omine.
The words uttered by Omine would not be sufficient to make
him a principal by inducement, because it does not appear
that such words caused Eduardo Autor to strike Angel Pulido.
Autor had already other reasons for striking Angel Pulido
when Omine is alleged to have uttered the words of
inducement. Although Eduardo Autor was working under the
direction of Omine, apparently according to the testimony of
Angel Pulido, he was being paid by Pulido. It does not appear
that Omine had any particular influence over Eduardo Autor.
2. No. It is true that the wound was serious and in a vital part
of the body, but judging from the nature of the wound, which
was about eleven inches in length, extending from the breast
to the lower ribs on the right side, we think it is probable that
it was caused by the point of the bolo on a downward stroke.
It was not a stab wound, and was probably given during a
commotion and without being aimed at any particular part of
the body. As we have already stated, Eduardo Autor struck
the offended party only once. If he intended to kill Pulido, he
could have easily done so. The prosecution contends that
Autor did not strike Pulido due to the belief that he had
already killed him because Pulido dropped down
unconscious. However, a cutting wound like that would not
ordinarily render a man unconscious. IN the affidavit of Saito,
it appears that Pulido did not fall down unconscious but even
asked for help.
DISPOSITION
We are therefore of the opinion that Eduardo Autor is guilty
of lesiones graves, since the offended party was incapacitated
for the performance of his usual work for a period of more
than ninety days, and not of frustrated homicide.
For the foregoing reasons, the decision appealed from is
reversed as to Kiichi Omine, Luis Ladion, and Agapito
Cortesano, and they are acquitted with the proportionate
part of the costs de oficio. As to the appellant Eduardo Autor,
the decision of the lower court is modified, and he is
convicted of lesiones graves and sentenced to suffer one
year, eight months, and twenty-one days of prision
correccional, to indemnify the offended party in the sum of
P540, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency,
which shall not exceed one-third of the principal penalty, and
to pay the corresponding costs. In accordance with the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum sentence to be
served by him is fixed at one year of prision correccional.
PEOPLE VS. NAPOLEON MONTEALEGRE
FACTS
The appellant is convicted by the RTC of the complex crime of
murder, as qualified by treachery, with assault upon a person
in authority.
Edmundo Abadilia was eating at a restaurant when he
detected the smell of marijuana coming from a nearby table.
Intending to call a policeman, he went outside and saw Pfc.
Renato Camantigue with whom he reported the matter. They
went inside to follow the smell of the marijuana and
approached Vicente Capalad and Montealegre. Camantigue
forced the two up. While holding the two, Capalad suddenly
pulled out a knife tucked in his waist and stabbed
Camantigue. Camantigue let loose Montealegre to draw his
gun but the appellant restrained the victim’s hand to prevent
him from defending himself as Capalad continued stabbing a
total of 7 times. The three fell to the floor and Capalad ran
away. Camantigue fired, pursued him, and fired again hitting
Capalad on the chest. Capalad fled into a dark alley and
Camantigue stopped the chase and was brought to the
hospital. The two did not survive.
The appellant escaped during the confusion. Capt. Cipriano
GIlera’s team went to look for him but they did not find him
in his house. He was apprehended on board a vehicle bound
for Baclaran. He gave his name as Alegre but later admitted
that he was the fugitive being sought.
ISSUE/S
1. WoN the appellant should be convicted of the crime
charged due to conspiracy by being a principal by
indispensable cooperation.
2. WoN there is an aggravating circumstance of assault upon
a person in authority.
HELD
1. Yes. The appellant claimed to have not known what was
happening during the incident. The evidence has established
that the accused-appellant was directly and personally
involved. If it is true, as he says, that he ran away before the
stabbing, there would have been less likelihood of Capalad's
attack as Camantigue's attention would have been fully
concentrated on his lone captive. Moreover, there would
have been nothing to restrain the policeman from drawing his
pistol and defending himself against Capalad if the appellant
already escaped.
While it is true that the accused- appellant did not himself
commit the act of stabbing, he was nonetheless equally guilty
thereof for having prevented Camantigue from resisting the
attack against him. As interpreted in Art. 17, par. 3 pf the RPC,
the requisites of this provision are: "(1) participating in the
criminal resolution, that is, there is either anterior conspiracy
or unity of criminal purpose and intention immediately
before the commission of the crime charged; and (2)
cooperation in the commission of the offense by performing
another act without which it would not have been
accomplished. Such are present in this case. It is not
necessary or essential that there be a previous plan or
agreement to commit the assault; it is sufficient that at the
time of the aggression all the accused by their acts
manifested a common intent or desire to attack There can be
no question that appellant's act in holding the victim from
behind when the latter was stabbed, was a positive act
towards the realization of a common criminal intent.
2. Yes. At the time of the stabbing, the victim was in uniform
and, therefore, could easily be recognized as a person in
authority. And even assuming that the victim was in civilian
clothes on that tragic night, the record shows that no less
than the accused-appellant himself, replying to questions put
to him by the prosecution, declared twice that he knew the
victim to be a policeman.
US VS. LINO BUANCO AND LUCIANO DE LOS REYES
FACTS
The two defendants were charged jointly with the crime of
estafa. Separate trials were then demanded and granted but
both were found guilty.
For at least 3 ½ years prior to the date of the incident,
Luciano de los Reyes was employed in the Banco Espanol-
Filipino, and there served and acted as bookkeeper and check
registry clerk. During that time he was in charge of certain
current account-books, and it was his duty to inspect certain
checks presented to the bank for payment, including those
drawn by Lim Buanco; to examine the account of the maker
of said checks, and determine whether or not the drawer of
the check had a sufficient balance to his credit to justify the
payment of the check. During this time a conspiracy existed
between the defendants Lim Buanco and Reyes for the
withdrawal of funds from the bank by Lim Buanco, regardless
of whether he had any funds in the bank to his credit, and in
furtherance of this conspiracy the entries in the account of
Lim Buanco on the books of the bank were fraudulently and
illegally manipulated by Reyes in such a manner as to make
the books show an apparent credit balance, when in fact Lim
Buanco was owing the bank a large amount of money.
On Oct. 06, 1906, Buanco drew a check on the Banco for the
sum of P2,000.00 which was presented in due course of
business to and paid by the Banco which was indorsed by de
los Reyes even though the former had no actual credit
balance .and had a debt to the bank in the sum of more than
P300,000.00
ISSUE/S
1. WoN the defendants’ rights were infringed when the
sentence given by to Court to each defendant was embodied
in the findings of facts and conclusions in one decision.
2. WoN the non-testifying of the defendants as witnesses in
their own behalf prejudiced them.
3. WoN the complaint did not allege facts sufficient to
constitute the crime of estafa, because it does not allege
specifically that Lim Buanco did not at the time when the
check was drawn have funds to his credit in the bank
sufficient to pay the check.
4. WoN, as espoused by Reyes, the Court erred in holding him
guilty of the crime charged as a principal.
5. WoN the crime should have been conspiracy and not
estafa.
HELD
1. No. Each sentence was based upon the evidence submitted
upon the separate trial of his case. The practice of entering
one sentence against several defendants thus jointly charged
and separately tried is not that which prevails in the United
States, but it was approved by this court in 2 previous cases
for it is convenient and saves much time and labor which
does not prejudice the rights of a defendant.
2. No. It is very clear from the entire proceedings and the
sentence that this circumstance was not considered as an
evidential fact, and that it in no manner affected the
conclusion reached by the court.
3. No, it did. Under the liberal rule of construction, when read
in connection with the rest of the complaint, it must be
construed as a sufficient allegation that both Lim Buanco and
Reyes, when the check was drawn, knew that Lim Buanco did
not have sufficient money in the bank to pay the same.
4. No. Each performed the part which was necessary to
enable them to accomplish the criminal purpose they had in
view. Article 535 of the Penal Code says that:
The following shall incur the penalties of the preceding
articles:
1. He who shall defraud others by using a fictitious
name, by assuming fictitious power, influence, or
attributes, or by pretending to possess imaginary
property, credit, commission, enterprises, or
business, or by using any other similar deceit that is
not one of those mentioned in the following cases.
The fact that Reyes falsified the accounts-current of Lim
Buanco, making him appear as a creditor when as a matter of
fact he was a debtor of the bank, together with the fact that
he acted in collusion with Lim Buanco, made him guilty of a
deceit under the province of the paragraph above quoted.
Although it may have been the duty of the bank directors to
ascertain the veracity of the entries made by Reyes, such a
negligence in the performance of their duties does not
deprive the criminal character of the act done by Reyes.
Moreover, the failure earlier to discover the fraud does not
deprive the acts of the defendants of criminality.
The bank was deceived by the affirmative act of Reyesm
acting in conjunction with Lim Buanco, hence both are
equally guilty.
5. No. Certain specified acts shall constitute criminal
conspiracies, and provide for their punishment, but the
legislature has not yet deemed it advisable to adopt the
general common law of conspiracy.
DISPOSITION
The judgment and sentence of the trial court should be and
are therefore affirmed, with the costs of this instance against
the appellants.
PEOPLE VS. PAT. RICARTE MADALI AND ANNIE MADALI
FACTS
This is an appeal from the decision of the RTC finding the
spouses guilty of the murder of father and son Cipriano and
Felix Gasang, and frustrated murder of Agustin Reloj and
Cipriano’s daughter, Merlinda.
Days before the incident, Felix figured in a fist-fight with
someone who was a friend of Ramon, son of the appellants.
The latter interceded and mauled Felix with a "chako" One of
Felix's companions then was Agustin Reloj. The police
summoned Felix with his mom accompanying him. Ricarte
Madali, a police officer, angrily scolded Felix and his cousin,
Arnaldo and told them that he would “sow bullets” in the
body of Felix. Madali’s father-in-law agreed. Another
policeman confirmed that such an utterance was made.
Days after, Felix and Agustin were on their way home and
separated; the former buying cigarettes, the latter going
straight home. Agustin was then accosted by Ricarte who
dragged him towards the gate of Madali’s house and was
then clubbed by Annie Madali with a piece of wood. Agustin
freed himself and fled but was shot by Ricarte. He fell on the
ground and Felix arrived. Agustin saw Annie beam her
flashlight at Fleix and uttered, “Here comes another.” Felix
raised his hands but was shot by Ricarte twice. Cipriano
Gasang arrived and Annie said, “Here comes another, fire
upon him,” and he was shot. Merlinda gasang, who was with
her father Cipriano, clung to the fence nearby and was also
hit. One Romeo Manes came to help Merlinda. Agustin
walked towards his house as he saw Roman Galicia, and the
Madali spouses entering their own homes. Desamparada
Gasang, mom of Merlinda, proceeded to the scene of the
crime after hearing the 4th shot.
Ricarte voluntarily surrendered to the police and handed his
revolver. After an investigation, two informations were filed
against the spouses. The first Information charged them with
multiple murder for the killing of the deceased with evident
premeditation. In another Information, the charge was
multiple frustrated murder with conspiracy, treachery, and
evident premeditation.
The spouses pleaded not guilty. Ricarte claimed that he and
his family were about to sleep when a stone was hurled at
their house 4 times. He saw someone crouching behind the
gabi plants, who was later identified as Agustin. He went
down the house to investigate but saw no one. He was about
to go back to his house when someone hit his shoulder. The
second attempt was prevented by him and struck the person
with his nightstick. During the struggle, Ricarte fell. He stood
up and fired at the intruder. He saw two other persons
approaching – one with a club, the other with a knife – and
warned them not to come near. One of the persons struck
him and Ricarte retaliated. When the man with the knife was
about to stab him, he fired at him twice. He then saw the
man with the club about to strike him so he fired at him.
Annie, who was at the balcony, corroborated the story. She
ordered her daughter Agnes to summon the police. To prove
the aggression, Madali Presented a medical certificate. The
lower court believed the prosecution and found that there
was conspiracy and treachery but no evident premeditation.
It noted that the prosecution erred in charging as the
separate crimes of murder and frustrated murder the killing
of Cipriano and the wounding of Merlinda. Observing that
only one bullet hit Cipriano and his daughter, Merlinda, the
lower court concluded that the Madali spouses should have
been charged with the complex crime of murder and
frustrated murder.
ISSUES
1. WoN the court erred in finding Annie Mortel Madali guilty
as principal by direct participation
2. WoN the court erred in not finding that Ricarte Madali
acted in self-defense.
3. WoN the court erred in giving credence and/or adopting
the theory of the prosecution instead of that of the defense.
4. WoN the crime committed was the complex crime of
murder with frustrated murder.
HELD
1. Yes. Annie’s defense is to deny participation and insists
that like any other wife, her natural reaction to situations
which involve risk is "to stay away, meditate and to shout and
warn her husband of the intruders rushing towards him.
Indeed, Annie's role in the commission of the crimes may
appear to be straight out of an action picture were it not for
the fact that her denials and uncorroborated alibi cannot
stand against the categorical declarations of prosecution
eyewitnesses Agustin Reloj and Merlinda Gasang on her
participation therein. She should have presented witnesses to
support her story considering that 6 of her children were
home then.
not credibly established. No one was able to positively
identify the stone-throwers. Not even Madali and his wife,
Annie. There is no proof that the stones found in the Madali
yard were indeed the stones thrown at their house. It is
interesting to note that even defense witness Antonio
Morales, a fellow policeman of Madali, testified that he did
not have personal knowledge on where the stones were
discovered. Hence, such cannot constitute as unlawful
aggression.
Moreover, if it were really true that both Agustin and
Cipriano were armed with clubs, at least Cipriano's club
would have been found as he died on the spot. Granting that
Agustin Reloj and Felix and Cipriano Gasang were armed with
clubs and a knife, Madali's means of resisting them was
unreasonable under the circumstance. Having known that an
interloper was inside his yard, Madali, being a policeman,
should have first fired a warning shot to deter said intruder.
Furthermore, it is rather inconceivable for the victims to ever
trespass inside the premises knowing that the Ricarte is a
police with a revolver.
3. No. Matters of credibility are ordinarily addressed to the
discretion and discernment of the trial court which is
presumed to have observed the demeanor of the witnesses
at the stand.
4. Yes. The Court agrees inasmuch as a single shot hit them
both. It is immaterial that Merlinda Gasang was wounded on
the leg and not on a vital part of her body. What is of
primordial consideration is the fact that the criminal act
which killed Cipriano also caused Merlinda's injury.

However, the existence of conspiracy between the Madali

spouses has not been sufficiently established. With this and
the principle that in criminal prosecution, doubts must be
resolved in favor of the accused, as guides, the Court rules
that the liability of Annie Mortel Madali with respect to the
crimes committed herein, is only that of an accomplice. The
act of beaming her flashlight only assisted her husband in
taking a good aim. Considering that according to them, “it
was not so dark nor too bright,” Ricarte could have
nevertheless accomplished his criminal acts without Annie’s
cooperation and assistance. Annie’s utterances also do not
constitute as having incited Ricarte to do the crime.

2. No. Its allegation that the Madali residence was hurled

with stones before Madali confronted the Gasang group, was
PEOPLE VS. JOSE TAMAYO, RAMON TAMAYO, HILARIO
TAMAYO, FEDERICO TIBUNSAY, AND TEODORO CASPELLAN
FACTS
This is an appeal to the judgment of the CFI finding the five
appellants guilty of homicide of Catalino Carrera.
Catalino, Francisco Carrera, and Juan Gonzales were repairing
a field belonging to the deceased for planting. It was
necessary to turn water into the paddy from an irrigating
ditch flowing nearby; and the deceased accordingly
intercepted the flow of the water in this ditch by constructing
a dirt dam, thereby diverting the water entirely to his own
land.
The five appellants arrived in their own land and found that
no water was available. The five approached the deceased to
allow some water to flow through their land but the deceased
told them to wait for the rain of heaven. This angered the
appellants and Hilario broke the dam with his hands. A
struggle ensued.
Basilla Orensia, the wife of the deceased, arrived to bring
food and is one of the two witnesses for the prosecution
along with the brother of deceased, Francisco. The trial judge
believed that the prosecution exaggerated some facts and
the defense made it appear that only Hilario and Jose were
actually engaged in the assault.
When Hilario Tamayo found himself confronted by the
deceased, he strangled his neck and Francisco ran to the aid
of his brother by taking Hilario and fighting him. Ramon took
Hilario’s place and continued choking the deceased. Jose
delivered a blow with a bamboo stick on the head of the
deceased. The deceased at once gave down but Ramon
continued to choke him. The five left. Upon examination, the
death was caused by the direct shock produced by the blow.
Francisco claims that while the altercation was going on,
Federico Tibunsay encouraged the appellants by exclaiming,
“Go ahead! Go ahead!” Teodoro also allegedly cooperated in
the attack by punching the deceased on the back.
Federico removed a large bolo from the possession of the
deceased which was later found in the hands of Hilario who
delivered it to the justice of peace. When the latter was
arrested, he exhibited a cut on his arms which was allegedly
done by the deceased. Five other individuals were also
accused by the wife of the deceased for encouraging the
combatants but was dismissed by the judge for lack of proof.
ISSUES
1. WoN Ramon Tamayo is guilty as a principal as held by the
trial court.
2. WoN Hilario should be acquitted.
3. WoN Federico is guilty as an accomplice as held by the trial
court.
4. WoN Teodoro must be acquitted.
HELD
1. No. Immediate participation in the criminal design
entertained by the slayer is essential to the responsibility of
one who is alleged to have taken a direct part in the killing, as
a principal, but who has not himself inflicted an injury
materially contributing to the death. This is not the case.
However, in holding and choking the deceased when the
latter was struck by Jose Tamayo, Ramon was acting in
furtherance of the criminal design entertained against the
deceased which is sufficient to make Ramon responsible as an
accomplice.
2. Yes. This is so for at the time Jose Tamayo intervened in
the affray Hilario had desisted from his own acts of
aggression against the deceased; and he did nothing
whatever to assist Jose in the immediate commission of the
homicide. Moreover, such acts as were done by Hilario prior
to the commission of the deed were evidently done without
knowledge of the criminal design on the part of Jose, for that
design had not then been revealed.
3. No. Federico allegedly called out “kill him,” just before Jose
struck the deceased. However, conflicting testimonies of
other witnesses cannot corroborate such. Assuming,
however, that Federico Tibunsay used the expression "go
ahead!" more than once, such utterance is not sufficient to fix
complicity upon such person as an accomplice in the crime of
homicide, where other facts show that the spokesman did
not speak said words with the intention that the person slain
should be wounded.
The complicity depends upon whether the words are of
character, and are spoken under conditions, which give to
them a direct and determinative influence upon the main
actor; and a distinction is pointed out between the words of
command of a father to his sons, under conditions which
determine obedience, and excited exclamations uttered by an
individual to whom obedience is not due. Federico’s
utterance does not appear that he intended anything more
than that the deceased be given a should beating.
4. Yes. His alleged, but doubtful, participation was limited to
the striking of blows upon the back of the deceased.
DISPOSITION
From what has been said it result that the judgment appealed
from must be affirmed in so far as it finds Jose Tamayo guilty
of the offense of homicide…The judgment must be reversed
as to all the other appellants; and as to Ramon Tamayo,
judgment will be entered declaring him guilty of homicide, in
the character of accomplice. xxx
PEOPLE VS. SIMPLICIO REALON AND EUTROPIO SOLIVEN
FACTS
This is an automatic review of the death sentence imposed by
the Circuit Criminal Court on the appellants for the crime of
Murder of Vicente Ramos qualified by treachery and attended
by the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation.
A voice group, in which the appellants and the deceased are a
part thereof, was arranged in four horizontal rows of the
grandstand in Baguio for the inaugural ceremonies of the
Benguet Division of the Bureau of Public Schools. The
teachers in the grandstand were singing when Simplicio
Realon pulled out of the formation and a loud explosion was
heard. Panic ensured and the people began scampering to
safety. Realon and Soliven left in haste but both were caught
and held separately. From the loud explosion, the deceased
fell down due to being shot at the nape.
Dr. Micu stated that two wounds were found – a gunshot
wound at the nape and a contusion near the eye. He
estimated that the distance between the neck and the gun
was between 2 to 3 inches, more or less.
Witness Serfaino Gauydan saw Realon pull out from the
formation but he did not see any weapon nor did he see who
shot the victim. Witness Severino Dionisio did not see if
Realon had a gun. Witness Cipriano Bayangan saw a “very big
brown” gun but he did not see who fired. Witness Federico
Pacleb did not see who fired the shot nor did he see the two
accused. Witness Marcos Palecpec claimed that Realon was
drunk and asked if he can practice, to which the latter
answered in the affirmative. He did not see who shot the
victim. Witness Alejandro Alo heard two children pointing to
the two appellants and saying that they were the killers. He
chased and held Soliven and turned him over to Pat.
Tolentino. Witness Adeline Lumbag, although hesitant,
identified the fleeing pair as the appellants, with Soliven as
the one running ahead and Realon as the one who had a gun
tucked on his waist. Romeo Mandawe saw Soliven throw a
gun inside a garbage drum. Ricardo Birog, the lone
eyewitness to the actual shooting, testified that Realon shot
the victim, fled, and passed the gun to Soliven.
The widow testified that her husband and Realon, a shop
teacher, had an incident two years prior to the incident. It
was around 11:00 pm when Realons was drunk and uttering
words like "Come down,. bull shet, head teacher of
Guinaoang (pertaining to the victim)! He is a thief! Twenty
centavos, one peso contributions. Even if you report me to
the D.O. I am not afraid. Come down! ... I am not afraid. Do
not compare me with Viray!" As a consequence, the victim
wrote a letter to the then District Supervisor asking the latter
to investigate Realon. After the case was settled, Realon
brought a goat to the Ramos spouses, saying that, “This is my
fine, sir.” Realons was then transferred to another school.
One week before the shooting, the widow claimed that her
husband showed her a gun which he bought for security
reasons as Realon had evil plans against him. Two days
earlier, he learned that Realon had a gun.
Realon confirmed that there was an incident between him
and the victim when he called the latter a thief and accused
him of using his collections for his family. During the day of
the incident, he was accompanied by Soliven to get his check.
They went to a dog party afterwards. After urinating, Soliven
came back holding a toy gun with paper bullets. Realon
played with it for a while and returned it to Soliven. During
the practice, Realon claimed that he left his position to tell
Soliven to go ahead to the dog party because he (Realon)
could not go anymore. As he was approaching, he heard a
very loud explosion. He saw Soliven standing up and the toy
gun fell from him. They fled and met Patrolman Tolention to
whom he asked to investigate the commotion. Soliven
corroborated his story. As he was being approached Realon,
he heard an explosion and he immediately stood up and the
toy gun fell which he immediately picked up. Delfin Balajadia
confirmed that Soliven had been working for him as a mason
and that he had organized a dog party for the laborers.
ISSUES
1. WoN the lower court erred in giving credence to the
testimonies of Birog, Mandawe, and Lumbag.
2. WoN the court erred in finding that Realon had a motive to
kill.
3. WoN the failure of the prosecution to present the NBI
officers who fingerprinted and paraffin-tested the accused
gives rise to the willful suppression of evidence.
4. WoN there was conspiracy between the two accused as
held by the lower court.
5. WoN there is evident premeditation.
HELD
1. No. Appellants claim that Birog’s credibility is doubtful
because his name was not included in the information, he
was not presented during the petition for bail, he did not
report what he saw to the police, he could not have been
present during the incident, he claimed to not know the
persons in the grandstand but knew where the accused were
positioned in the formation, and that the prosecution only
used Birog as a last-minute witness to fill a gap in the
evidence. Birog was a mere bystander, he is not expected to
remember all the faces and how many songs were sung. With
respect to Lumbag, appellants claim that it was impossible for
her to see the accused tucking a gun since her view was
obstructed by people running around. The accused also
questions Mandawe since he stated a different color of the
gun handle. The rule is well-settled that "where the issue is
one of credibility of witnesses, the appellate court wig
generally not disturb the findings of the trial court,
considering that it is in a better position to decide the
question, having heard the witnesses themselves and
observed their treatment and manner of testifying during
trial.
2. No. Revenge was the motive. The unfortunate incident
between Realon and Ramos above referred to could not
easily be forgiven and forgotten. It had definitely caused both
of them much embarrassment and humiliation, especially for
Realon who was then a young teacher just starting his career.
His greetings to the Ramos spouses were merely an outward
show of civility or respect, Ramos then having supervisory
authority over him. However, motive is not essential to
conviction, especially when the accused were positively
identified. Moreover, Realon's act of folding the paper and
putting it inside his pocket would rather suggest an intention
NOT to return to the song practice anymore. It could also
imply that he intended to use his hands for some other
purpose, hence he had to get rid of the paper. The defense
was careful to use the phrase “walking fast” in describing the
acts of the accused after the explosion. If this were true, why
did the accused merely "walk fast"? They should have ran like
the others.
3. No. The rule on suppression of evidence finds no
applicability in cases where the evidence allegedly
suppressed is merely corroborative or cumulative.
Furthermore, the presumption of suppression of evidence is
inapplicable to a case where the evidence was at the disposal
of both the defense and the prosecution and would have the
same weight against one party as against the other.
4. No. The issue of conspiracy is mostly premised upon the
claim that the two accused ran together after the shooting
and on the way Realon passed the fatal gun to Soliven who
quickly dumped it in a garbage barrel. The evidence is clear
that accused Soliven did not actively participate in the
shooting of the deceased victim. It may likewise be
considered that only Realon had a known possible motive to
kill the late Ramos. On the part of Soliven, there is no proof
that he knew or had ever met Ramos before the shooting
incident. The two accused were former townmates, it so
happened that they lodged at the same place, and their
known activities for two days were perfectly legitimate.
To hold him liable, upon the other hand, as an accomplice, it
must be shown that he had knowledge of the criminal
intention of the principal which may be demonstrated by
previous or simultaneous acts which contribute to the
commission of the offense as aid thereto whether physical or
moral. However, the evidence establishes his participation as
an accessory to the crime. There can be no conclusion other
than that Soliven witnessed his friend Realon commit the
crime and that having done so, Soliven assisted in Realon's
escape by concealing the instrument used in the perpetration
of the offense in an obvious effort or attempt to prevent its
discovery. The additional fact that Soliven made no protest at
the time of his apprehension only serves to indicate a guilty
mind.
In sum, Realon is guilty of murder qualified by treachery with
no evident premeditation. Soliven is guilty as accessory to the
same murder.
PEOPLE VS. LUDOVICO DOCTOLERO, CONRADO
DOCTOLERO, AND VIRGILIO DOCTOLERO
FACTS
The three accused were convicted by the CFI of the crime of
multiple murder and unspecified physical injuries, with
Ludovico as principal, and his co-accused Conrado and Virgilio
as accomplices which caused the death of Epifania Escosio,
Lolita de Guzman Oviedo, and Marcelo Doctolero, and in
inflicting physical injury on the minor child, Jonathan Oviedo.
According to Marcial Sagun, he and his wife Maria Sagun, and
sister-in-law of Maria, Lolita de Guzman-Oviedo, were on
their way home. Upon reaching a crossing, they met Ludovico
who suddenly held the left shoulder of Marcial and struck him
with a bolo. Marcial was able to evade the blow and wrestled
for the possession of the bolo. Lolita ran away.
Paciencia Sagun-Diamoy, sister of Marcial, saw that while she
was cleaning palay in the yard of her deceased uncle Marcelo,
she saw the three accused throw stones at the house of
Marcial and shouting for the man to come out. She went
towards them and told them to be patient and forget but she
was asked not to interfere. Marcelo also went to them and
asked the same but the three accused replied, “vulva of your
mother, we will also kill you.” Then they struck Marcelo
several times with their bolos. When their father, Antonio,
arrived, he also struck Marcelo on the head. Maria Sagun
corroborated the testimony of Paciencia and declared that
she was in the house of Marcelo when the incident
happened. She was about to go to their house to get her
children but when she saw the accused going up, she hid
behind a palm tree.
The story of the defense is as follows: Ludovico met Marcial
at the crossing and asked him where he has been. Antonio
Oviedo, who was with Marcial, was holding his bolo so
Ludovico asked him why but the the former suddenly boloed
the latter and so Ludovico parried the bolo with his left hand.
Marcial also unsheathed his bolo and Ludovico did the same.
Realizing that he could not afford to fight both Marcial Sagun
and Antonio Oviedo, Ludovico tried to escape by boloing
Maria Oviedo, and ran. He went to the house of his father,
Antonio, and told him to look after his children for he might
meet something bad that night. Then he ran away and failed
to divulge any details. As he was running, he saw the house of
Marcial and his blood boiled so he went to the house and
called him to get down. Deeming Marcial to be absent, he
went upstairs to ask Epifania who told him that Marcial went
towards the South. He was about to leave when the old
woman hit him at the neck, causing him to see darkness and
bolo her several times. When he went down, he noticed
someone approaching. As it was dark, he thought it was
Marcial but it was Marcelo. He asked Marcelo where Marcial
was but the Marcelo hit him due to his foolishness. As
Marcelo tried to hit him again, he evaded and the former fell.
Marcelo unsheathed his bolo then Ludovico boloed him.
Ludovico withdrew his appeal while Virgilio died during the
pendency of the case. Hence, this review is only with respect
to Conrado.
ISSUES
WoN Conrado is an accomplice.
HELD
Yes. Conrado contends that he was not at the place where
the crimes were committed. Appellant's pretension, however,
was not corroborated by any evidence other than the
testimony of the other erstwhile appellants. While the
testimony of a co-conspirator or an accomplice is admissible,
such testimony comes from a polluted source and must be
scrutinized with great caution. This uncorroborated denial of
his participation cannot overthrow the positive and
categorical testimony of the principal witnesses of the
prosecution.
There is no showing that the witnesses had any motive to
testify falsely against appellants. The only imputed grudge
that Paciencia Sagun-Diamoy may have had against
appellants occurred years ago and she was, at the time she
testified, on good terms with appellants. Nor can appellant
successfully assail the testimony of Sgt. Delfin Ronquillo who
conducted the investigation himself. Credence is accorded to
the testimonies of prosecution witnesses who are law
enforcers for it is presumed that they have regularly
performed their duties in the absence of convincing proof to
the contrary.
There is no question that while the three appellants were
stoning the house, they must have heard the two women
thereat protesting their acts, after which the appellants went
up. It is impossible for Virgilio and Conrado to not know that
Ludovico was killing Lolita and Epifania, and wounding the
child Jonathan. It could not have been possible for the two
brothers not to hear ither the screams of pain or the contact
between the blade of bolo and their bodies. It is obvious that
the two knew what was going on but they just stood by and
did nothing to stop their brother. Their presence gave
Ludovico the encouragement to proceed with his acts. Where
one goes with the principals and stayed outside while the
others rob and kill the victim, the former effectively supplied
the criminals with material and moral aid, making him guilty
as an accomplice.
Appellants contend that the murders occurred as a
consequence of a sudden thought or impulse, thus negating 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
that he was aware that it was an illicit act.
LEONARDO MENDOZA VS. PEOPLE
FACTS
310 bags belonging to the Rice and Corn Administration (RCA)
were unloaded to a truck owned by the Yellow Ball Freight
Lines, the driver of which was Ponciano Reponte with
Wilfredo Escopin as helper. The cargo was intended to for
delivery to RCA warehouse No. 3, however, Reponte and
Escopin together with Frank, diverted it to the grocery store
of Leonardo Mendoza. Police arrived and arrested Reponte,
Escopin, and Mendoza. Frank eluded arrest.
An information was filed in the CFI for qualified theft naming
Reponte, Escopin, and Frank as principals, and Mendoza as
accessory after the fact or 'purchasing and receiving from the
principal the said bags of rice thereby aiding the accused to
profit from the effects of the crime.’ Reponte and Escopin
pleaded not guilty but the former withdrew his plea. Escopin
moved to dismiss the charges but was denied. He was,
however, acquitted due to no evidence of conspiracy
between him and Reponte. Mendoza was found guilty.
ISSUE/S
1. WoN Mendoza’s guilty as an accessory could not be
sustained in the absence of evidence that he had knowledge
of the alleged commission of the crime.
2. WoN, should the quantum of evidence presented warrant
Mendoza’s conviction, he should only be held liable as
accessory to the crime of simple theft under Article 308 of the
RPC.
HELD
1. No, he is guilty. Mendoza is found guilty as an accessory to
the crime committed by the transportation of RCA rice. One
reason for such finding is the testimony of Reponte that there
was a previous understanding among the accused to sell the
stolen RCA rice to Mendoza. The latter's admission that the
RCA rice was brought to his store merely for deposit does not
negate Reponte's testimony but it proves his complicity to
the crime. It is impossible for a person to accept the
responsibility of having in custody for one night 310 bags of
rice valued approximately at P5,908.60 without ascertaining
the real ownership of the same. And being an outlet or
retailer of the RCA he knows that the RCA rice are supposed
to be placed in the bodega of the RCA and that they are
distributed to the retailers not in big quantities such as in the
instant case. It is surprising why he will accept from a person
whom he does not even know the full name, such a big
quantity of rice if he is not interested in buying the said rice.
Being an RCA retailer, he is of full knowledge how RCA rice
are distributed and sold to the public.
2. Yes. The situation may have been different had Frank,
who, allegedly, is actually Rogelio Suba y Gamboa and a
security guard of the RCA 14 been arrested and put on trial, it
being a grave abuse of confidence.
JORGE TAER VS. CA
FACTS
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the
CA convicting Taer for the crime of cattle rustling. Emilio
Namocatcat was also found guilty but only Taer appealed.
Cirilo Saludes slept in the house of Taer. Namocatcat and
Mario Cago arrived at Ter’s house with 2 male carabaos
owned by and which Namocatcat wanted Taer to tend.
Tirso Dalde and Eladio Palaca discovered that their carabaos
were missing. After reporting the matter to the police, Felipe
Reyes informed Dalde that he saw the carabao. The owners
went to see the carabao and ofund them tied near the house
of Taer. Upon query, Taer replied that the carabaos reached
his place tied together without any person in company and
that the carabaos were brought to his place by the accused
Namocatcat who asked him to tell anybody looking for them
that they just strayed thereat. The carabaos were then
retrieved.
ISSUE/S
1. WoN conspiracy existed between Taer and Namocatcat,
making them both as principals.
HELD
1. No. The CA espoused that it is unbelievable that Taer was
not suspicious of the origin of the carabaos which were
delivered at the unholy hour of 2:00 am, and that if
Namocatcat left the carabaos with him with the word that if
anybody would look for them, he was to tell that the
carabaos just strayed, the more Taer ought to be suspicious.
He never apprised the barangay captain living just 2 km. away
from his house. However, the present Court disagrees as they
are mere suspicions and speculations. Mere knowledge,
acquiescence to, or approval of the act, without cooperation
or agreement to cooperate, is not enough to constitute one a
party to a conspiracy absent the intentional participation in
the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the
common design and purpose.
At most the facts establish Taer's knowledge of the crime.
And yet without having participated either as principal or as
an accomplice, for he did not participate in the taking of the
carabaos, he took part subsequent to the commission of the
act of taking by profiting himself by its effects. Taer is thus
only an accessory after the fact.
On the conspiracy charge, the most cogent proof that the
prosecution could ever raise was the implication made by the
accused Namocatcat (he did not appeal his conviction to the
Court of Appeals) in his affidavit of confession. However, the
settled rule is that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced
by an act, declaration, or omission of another. The testimony,
being res inter alios acta, cannot affect another.
NORMA DIZON-PAMINTUAN VS. PEOPLE
FACTS
This is a petition for review of the decision of the CA finding
the petitioner guilty of the violation of the Anti-Fencing Law
(P.D. No. 1612) but set aside the penalty imposed and
ordered the trial court to receive additional evidence on the
"correct valuation" of the pieces of jewelry involved for the
sole purpose of determining the penalty to be imposed.
Teodoro Encarnaciom, DPWH Undersecretary, has just
arrived t his house, leaving behind his driver and 2
housemaids outside to pick-up his personal belongings from
his case. 5 unidentified masked armed persons appeared
from the grassy portion of the lot beside the house and poked
their guns to his driver and two helpers and dragged them
inside his house. That the men pointed a gun at him and he,
his wife, the maids and the driver were made to lie face down
on the floor. The robbers ransacked the house and took away
jewelries and other properties. He was later told that some of
the lost items were in Chinatown area as tipped by the
informer the police had dispatched. That an entrapment
would be made with their participation where they would
pose as a buyer. They recognized the items displayed at the
stall of Dizon-Pamintuan. Norma testified that she has no
prior knowledge of the stolen jewelries.
The defense presented the testimony of Rosito DIzon-
Paminutan, brother of Norma. He, together with the accused,
were waiting for a acancy to eat lunch. Suddenly, three
persons arrived and he overheard that Cpl. Jao told her sister
to get the jewelry from inside the display window but her
sister requested to wait for Fredo, the owner of the stall. But
ten minutes later when said Fredo did not show up, the police
officer opened the display window and got the contents. The
accused was brought to the police.
ISSUES
1. WoN the petitioner is an accessory or a principal.
2. WoN the prosecution proved the existence of the third
element: that the accused knew or should have known that
the items recovered from her were the proceeds of the crime
of robbery or theft.
3. WoN, as held by the CA, there is insufficient evidence to
prove the actual value of the recovered articles.
4. WoN the petitioner is at risk of double jeopardy.
HELD
1. Before P.D. No. 1612, a fence could only be prosecuted for
and held liable as an accessory, as the term is defined in
Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code. P.D. No. 1612 was
enacted to "impose heavy penalties on persons who profit by
the effects of the crimes of robbery and theft." Evidently, the
accessory in the crimes of robbery and theft could be
prosecuted as such under the Revised Penal Code or under
P.D. No. 1612. However, in the latter case, he ceases to be a
mere accessory but becomes a principal in the crime of
fencing. Elsewise stated, the crimes of robbery and theft, on
the one hand, and fencing, on the other, are separate and
distinct offenses.
The state may thus choose to prosecute him either under the
Revised Penal Code or P.D. No. 1612, although the preference
for the latter would seem inevitable considering that fencing
is a malum prohibitum, and P.D. No. 1612 prescribes a higher
penalty based on the value of the property.
2. There is no need to prove the existence of knowledge. The
elements of fencing are:
1. A crime of robbery or theft has been committed;
2. The accused, who is not a principal or accomplice
in the commission of the crime of robbery or theft,
buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals,
sells or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner
deals in any article, item, object or anything of value,
which has been derived from the proceeds of the
said crime;
3. The accused knows or should have known that the
said article, item, object or anything of value has
been derived from the proceeds of the crime of
robbery or theft; and
4. There is, on the part of the accused, intent to gain
for himself or for another.
Mere possession of any item which has been the subject of
robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing.
The presumption is reasonable for no other natural or logical
inference can arise from the established fact of her
possession of the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.
The petitioner was unable to rebut the presumption under
P.D. No. 1612. She relied solely on the testimony of her
brother which was insufficient to overcome the presumption,
and, on the contrary, even disclosed that the petitioner was
engaged in the purchase and sale of jewelry and that she
used to buy from a certain Fredo. Fredo was not presented as
a witness and it was not established that he was a licensed
dealer or supplier of jewelry.
3. No, there is. The penalty is reduced to an indeterminate
penalty ranging from Ten (10) years and One (1) day of
Prision Mayor maximum as minimum to 18 years and 5
months of Reclusion Temporal.
4. No. A remand for further reception of evidence would not
place her in double jeopardy.
RAMON TAN VS. PEOPLE
FACTS
This is an appeal from the decision of the CA convicting Tan of
the crime of fencing.
Complainant Rosita Lim is the proprietor of Bueno Metal
Industries. Manuelito Mendez left the employ of the
company. Lim noticed that some of the welding rods,
propellers, and boat spare parts were missing. Complainant
Rosita Lim informed Victor Sy, uncle of Manuelito Mendez, of
the loss. Subsequently, Manuelito Mendez was arrested in
the Visayas and he admitted that he and his companion
Gaudencio Dayop stole from the complainant's warehouse.
He pointed to petitioner Ramon C. Tan as the one who
bought the stolen items. After asking for forgiveness,
complainant did not file a case against Mendez and Dayop.
Assistant City Prosecutor then filed an information against
petitioner for violating P.D. No. 1612. He pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution presented Lim, Sy, and Mendez as witnesses.
The defense presented Lim and Mendez as hostile witnesses.
Petitioner denied having bought the stolen spare parts worth
P48,000.00 for he never talked nor met Manuelito Mendez,
the confessed thief. That further the two (2) receipts
presented by Mrs. Lim are not under her name and the other
two (2) are under the name of William Tan, the husband, all
in all amounting to P18,000.00. Besides, the incident was not
reported to the police. He likewise denied having talked to
Manuelito Mendez over the phone on the day of the delivery
of the stolen items and could not have accepted the said
items personally for every time the goods are delivered to his
store, the same are being accepted by his staff. It is
impossible for him to be at the office at 7 to 8 am since he
usually reports to his office at 9 am.
ISSUES
WoN the prosecution has successfully established the
elements of fencing as against petitioner.
HELD
No. In this case, what was the evidence of the commission of
theft independently of fencing?
Lim testified that she lost certain items and Manuelito
Mendez confessed that he stole those items and sold them to
the accused. However, Rosita Lim never reported the theft or
even loss to the police. She admitted that after Manuelito
Mendez, her former employee, confessed to the unlawful
taking of the items, she forgave him, and did not prosecute
him. Theft is a public crime. It can be prosecuted de oficio, or
even without a private complainant, but it cannot be without
a victim. As complainant Rosita Lim reported no loss, we
cannot hold for certain that there was committed a crime of
theft. Thus, the first element of the crime of fencing is absent,
that is, crime of robbery or theft has been committed.
There was no sufficient proof of the unlawful taking of
another's property. True, witness Mendez admitted in an
extra-judicial confession that he sold the boat parts he had
pilfered from complainant to petitioner. However, an
admission or confession acknowledging guilt of an offense
may be given in evidence only against the person admitting or
confessing. The confessant must have the assistance of
counsel; otherwise, the admission would be inadmissible in
evidence against the person so admitting. Neither may such
extra-judicial confession be considered evidence against
accused.
There must be corroboration by evidence of corpus delicti
(body of the crime in Latin) to sustain a finding of guilt. In its
primary sense, it refers to the fact that the crime has been
actually committed. In theft, corpus delicti has two elements,
namely: (1) that the property was lost by the owner, and (2)
that it was lost by felonious taking. The theft was not proved
for it was not complained to the public authorities. What is
more, there was no showing at all that the accused knew or
should have known that the very stolen articles were the
ones sold him.
PEOPLE VS. NEMESIO TALINGDAN, MAGELLAN TOBIAS,
AUGUSTO BERRAS, PEDRO BIDES, AND TERESA DOMOGMA
FACTS
This is an appeal convicting all of the accused of the crime of
the murder of Bernardo Bagabas qualified by treachery and
attended by the generic aggravating circumstance of evident
premeditation and dwelling, with Teresa Domogma, the
supposed wife of the deceased, being charged with the same
crime instead of parricide due to lack of proof of their
marriage.
Prior to the incident, Bagabag, Teresa, and their children
arrived together in their house. Their relationship, however,
had been beset with troubles wherein Teresa had deserted
the family home a couple of times. On 2 different occasions,
Nemesio visited Teresa, apparently having an illicit
relationship with her. 2 days before the incident, the spouses
quarreled; Bernardo slapped Teresa several times with the
latter seeking the help of the police. Thereafter, Nemesio
called Bernardo to come down but he ignored him because
the former is a policeman and is armed. Nemesio left but not
before warning the deceased that someday he would kill him.
Bernardo’s daughter, Corazon, who was washing clothes saw
Teresa meeting with the 4 other accused, as she approached
them, she heard one of them say "Could he elude a bullet";
and when accused Teresa Domogma noticed the presence of
her daughter, she shoved her away saying "You tell your
father that we will kill him".
The following day, she saw the appellants possessing long
guns. She called her parents to eat but Bernardo did not heed
his daughter’s call so Corazon ate alone. While Bernardo was
at the kitchen, Corazon stayed nearby to watch him, at that
time, he was suddenly shot below the stairs of the batalan.
The four accused then climbed the stairs, seeing that
Bernardo was still alive, Nemesio and Magellan fired at him
again. When Corazon tried to call for help, Pedro threatened
to kill her. Teresa came out from her silid later, she informed
Corazon not to reveal the matter to anyone or else she will be
killed.
Story of the defense: Teresa claimed that she never quarreled
with Bernardo although she had to talk to Bernardo when he
quarrels with his own mother who wanted his earnings to be
given to the mom; at those times, Bernardo would tell Teresa
to leave him alone. Her in-laws hater her because she did not
give Juanito, brother of Bernardo, the carpentry tools given
by her own brothers to her. Teresa knew Nemesio well
because they are neighbors but there is no illicit relationship
between them. Teresa was with her two other children in a
separate room when she heard the shots. When saw his
husband shot, she took him in her arms. eresa suspects that
since her mother-in-law and her brother-in-law have axes to
grind against her and they have her daughter, Corazon, under
their custody, they had forced the said child to testify against
her.
Nemesio claimed that, at the time of the incident, he was one
of the 2 policemen who acted as bodyguard of the Mayor
who attended the cursillo in Bangued. Magellan claimed that
he was in thouse of one Mrs. Bayongan and that he was one
of those who was called upon by the police to answer the
help of the wife of the victim. The other two appellants Bides
and Berras also alleged that they were in the same house of
Mrs. Bayongan on that date; they are tillers of the land of said
Mrs. Bayongan.
ISSUES
1. WoN the inconsistencies in the testimony of Corazon
should have been considered to acquit the appellants.
2. WoN the alibi of the defense should stand.
3. WoN Teresa conspired with her co-appellants.
HELD
1. No. Moreover, Corazon as hardly thirteen (13) years old
when she testified, an age when according to Moore, a child,
is, as a rule, but little influenced by the suggestion of others"
because "he has already got some principles, lying is
distasteful to him.” Demolishing the theory of the accused
that such testimony was taught to her by her uncle, the judge
pointed out that the testimony, both direct and cross, was
constant and firm.
2. No. It cannot stand firmly in the face of a positive and
unwavering testimony of the prosecution witness who
pointed out to the accused as the authors of the crime.
Granting that Augusto, Pedro, and Magellan were sleeping in
the house of Mrs. Bayonga at 8 pm, the incident happened
between 6-6:30 pm, hence they still could have committed
the crime. Nemesio’s alibi that he was guarding the mayor at
that time cannot stand for he could have returned anytime
on the evening.
3. No. Proof of Teresa’s direct participation in the conspiracy
is not beyond reasonable doubt neither is it clear that she
helped directly in the planning thereof. The court, however, is
convinced that she knew it was going to be done and did not
object.
However, she is an accessory to the offense. As she came out
after the shooting, she inquired from Corazon if she was able
to recognize the assailants of her father. 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.
LITO VINO VS. PEOPLE
FACTS
Roberto Tejada left his house. While Ernesto, Roberto’s
father, was resting, he heard two gunshots. He saw and heard
Roberto cry out that he had been shot. He, his wife, and their
children, went to meet Roberto and saw Lito Vino and Jessie
Salazar riding a bicycle. Vino was the one driving 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, then left. Roberto died but his
ante-mortem statement, signed with his own blood, was
taken wherein he identified Jessie Salazar as his assailant.
Lito Vino and Sgt. Salazar were charged with murder.
Salazar’s case was indorsed to the Judge Advocate General’s
office because he was a member of the military while Vino’s
case was given due course. Vino pleaded not guilty. Instead of
presenting evidence on his own behalf, the accused filed a
motion to dismiss for insufficiency of evidence. He was found
guilty as an accessory to the crime of murder. Hence, this
appeal.
ISSUES
1. WoN the accused can be convicted as an accessory to the
crime even if he is charged as a principal in the Information.
2. WoN the conviction of an accessory pending the trial of the
principal violates the procedural orderliness.
3. WoN the accused can be convicted in light of the principal
being acquitted.
HELD
1. Yes. Two witnesses, Ernesto and Julius Tejada attested to
the fact that he actively assisted Salazar in his escape, hence
his liability is that of an accessory. This is not a case of a
variance between the offense charged and the offense
proved, and the offense as charged is included in or
necessarily includes the offense proved. This is not a mistake
in charging the proper offense. The correct offense of murder
was charged in the information. 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.
2. No. 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 liability of the accessory
can proceed independently of that of the principal.
3. Yes. The principal was acquitted on the ground of
reasonable doubt by the same judge who convicted Vino as
an accessory. The identity of the assailant was not clearly
established. The dying declaration pinpointing Salazar was
not given due credit for it was not show that it was revealed
to the victim’s father and brother who came to his aid
immediately. The court also deplored the failure of the
prosecution to subject to ballistic examinations of the bullet
slug recovered from the body of the deceased. In this case,
Vino did not even adduce evidence in his defense that he was
not the driver. Instead, he relied on the results of the case of
Salazar.