Ommission

People v. Silvestre and Atienza

Ponente: Villa-real, J.

Roman Silvestre the wife of Joaquin by second marriage co-habitted with Atienza on month of March
1930 in Masocol, Mun. Paombong, Bulacan.

Domingo Joaquin then filed a complaint of Adultery to the Court of First instance. Backed by affidavits of
Gerardo Cabigao and Castor De La Cruz. In The same day both of the accused were arrested on a
warrant issued by the justice, tho paid bail at P6,000 pesos. Both begged The Municipal President
Franciso Suerte to convince Domingo Joaquin to withdraw his complaint. Promising to 1. Not to co-habit
again and 2.) To never live in the Barrio of Paombong again. Atienza voluntarily signed the promise and
Suerte gave it to the complaining husband. Domingo accepted and filed a dismissal of his complaint and
the judge cancelled the proceedings.

The accused moved to Santo Nino who was again inside paombong.

In November 1930 Silvestre met her son in her first marriage, Nicolas De La Cruz and asked him for some
nipa leaves so they went back to his home in Masacol. Atienza followed suit to the residence of the De
La Cruz Couple. Atienza after staying for 5 days demanded to remove the furniture and declared he will
set the house and barrio on fire for revenge for the complaint instigated against him and Silvestre.
Having a pistol by his side the audience were not able to desist him nor were they able to say a word in
protest. The De La Cruz couple ran out and reported it to the lieutenant barangay. And heard Fire being
shouted a total of 48 houses were destroyed.

Tomas Santiago, Gonzales, and Clemente witnessed Martin Atienza and Romana Silvestre leaving the
house that started the fire.

The Counsel de officio prayed to affirm that Martin Atienza was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Arson
and as principal by Direct Participation. And Sylvestre was found guilty of Arson as accomplice for she
did not raise a protest nor give alarm then Atienza set the house on Fire.

Art. 14 of the Old Penal Code.

, defines an accomplice to be one who does not take a direct part in the commission of the act, who
does not force or induce other to commit it, nor cooperates in the commission of the act by another act
without which it would not have been accomplished, yet cooperates in the execution of the act by
previous or simultaneous actions.

Now then, which previous or simultaneous acts complicate Romana Silvestre in the crime of arson
committed by her codefendant Martin Atienza? Is it her silence when he told the spouses, Nicolas de la
Cruz and Antonia de la Cruz, to take away their furniture because he was going to set fire to their house
as the only means of revenging himself on the barrio residents, her passive presence when Martin
Atienza set fire to the house, where there is no evidence of conspiracy or cooperation, and her failure to
give the alarm when the house was already on fire?
The complicity which is penalized requires a certain degree of cooperation, whether moral, through
advice, encouragement, or agreement, or material, through external acts. In the case of the accused-
appellant Romana Silvestre, there is no evidence of moral or material cooperation, and none of an
agreement to commit the crime in question. Her mere presence and silence while they are simultaneous
acts, do not constitute cooperation, for it does not appear that they encouraged or nerved Martin
Atienza to commit the crime of arson; and as for her failure to give the alarm, that being a subsequent
act it does not make her liable as an accomplice.

Atienza cannot be charged for Arson less serious even if he did not intend to burn 40 other houses, nor
because he didn’t have the intention to burn down houses with people in them.

Therefore Affirmed with modifiactions.

Sylvestre asquitted, Atienza convicted.