KATHERINE MAE B.

PEREZ
Criminal Law I Case Digest

ABARQUEZ vs. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 150762, January 20, 2006

FACTS:

Paz, Quejong and their friends were drinking liquor in the house of Boyet. Meanwhile, about
six or seven meters away from Boyet’s house, Almojuela, Ising and Abarquez were likewise drinking
liquor in front of Almojuela’s house. As the group of Paz was passing towards the main road,
Almojuela and his companions blocked their path. Almojuela asked Paz, "Are you brave?" Paz
replied, "Why?" Almojuela got angry and attacked Paz with a knife. Paz sustained injury. Almojuela
then confronted Quejong and they had an altercation, followed by a scuffle. Paz tried to get away
from Abarquez who tried to stop him from joining the fray. Upon seeing Almojuela and Quejong fall
on the ground, Paz struggled to free himself from Abarquez. Paz approached Quejong and found
him already bloodied. It turned out the Almojuela stabbed Quejong with a knife. Paz tried to pull up
Quejong but failed. Paz left Quejong and ran. While Paz was running away, he heard Abarquez
shout, "You left your companion already wounded!" Thereafter, Quejong died at the UST Hospital.
Almojuela and Abarquez were charged for homicide. The trial court found Abarquez guilty as an
accomplice in the crime of homicide and ruled that Abarquez, in holding and restraining Paz,
prevented the latter from helping Quejong and allowed Almojuela to pursue his criminal act without
resistance.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the prosecution’s evidence satisfies the test of moral certainty and is
sufficient to support Abarquez’s conviction as an accomplice in the crime of homicide?

RULING: the ruling of the court is

NO. The prosecution’s evidence does not satisfy the test of moral certainty and is not
sufficient to support Abarquez’s conviction as an accomplice in the crime of homicide

The supreme court said - To be deemed an accomplice, one needs to have had both
knowledge of and participation in the criminal act. The mere fact that the accused had prior
knowledge of the principal’s criminal design did not automatically make him an accomplice.
This circumstance, by itself, did not show his concurrence in the principal’s criminal intent.

When there is doubt on the guilt of an accused, the doubt should be resolved in his
favor. Every person accused has the right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proven
beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence stands as a fundamental principle of both
constitutional and criminal law. Thus, the prosecution has the burden of proving every single fact
establishing guilt.

Where the evidence on an issue of fact is in issue or there is doubt on which side the
evidence preponderates, the party having the burden of proof loses. The equipoise rule
finds application if, as in this case, the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable
of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the
accused and the other consistent with his guilt, for then the evidence does not fulfill the
test of moral certainty, and does not suffice to produce a conviction. Briefly stated, the
needed quantum of proof to convict the accused of the crime charged is found lacking.

In this case, Abarquez’s act of trying to stop Paz does not translate to assistance to
Almojuela in committing the crime of homicide. Hence, the Court acquitted Abarquez as an
accomplice in the crime of homicide.

The "equipoise doctrine" is the rule which states that when the evidence of the

prosecution and the defense are so evenly balanced the appreciation of such evidence
calls for tilting of the scales in favor of the accused