7 | VAMS

People v. Nierra
Persons criminally liable; in grave or less grave felonies | February 12, 1980 | Per curiam

DOCTRINE: In some exceptional situations, having community of design with the principal does not prevent a
malefactor from being regarded as an accomplice if his role in the perpetration of the homicide or murder was,
relatively speaking, of a minor character.
SUMMARY: Paciano sought to eliminate her competition and sister-in-law, Juliana. He, as witnessed by his wife,
Gaudencia, contracted the services of Misa, a convict, who was brought by Paciano’s cousin-in-law, Doblen, to Paciano.
Two days before the murder, Rojas, friend of Misa, brought him the gun that will be used to kill Juliana, and was asked
to act as lookout during the night of murder. When Juliana was defecating on the beach, Misa shot her through the mouth.
Paciano, Gaudencia, Doblen, and Rojas were all lookouts. Misa was soon arrested, confessed, and plead guilty. The
Nierras, Doblen, Rojas, and Misa were all convicted for the murder of Juliana. SC said that Misa’s plea was not
improvident; that the Nierras were liable as co-principals by inducement and cooperation; and that Doblen and Rojas,
while co-conspirators, were liable only as accomplices.

Note: This case is fact-heavy.

FACTS:
• [THE MOTIVE]
o Juliana Nierra, the victim, and her brother-in-law, Paciano Nierra, were competitors1 in the businesses of
launch transportation and the sale of soft drinks in Barrio Tinago, General Santos City.
o In order to monopolize those businesses in the locality. Paciano conceived the idea of liquidating his
competitor,
• [DAYS BEFORE THE MURDER]
o Juliana → Felicisimo Doblen, cousin-in-law of Paciano, brought to Paciano’s house, Gaspar Misa2 →
Misa, in the presence of Paciano and Paciano’s wife, Guadencia, agreed to kill Juliana for consideration.
o Before the scheduled night of assassination, Doblen, in behalf of Paciano Nierra, delivered to Misa a
package containing a caliber .38 pistol with five bullets → Misa contacted his friend, Vicente Rojas, and
apprised him that he [Misa] has been hired to kill Juliana and asked Rojas to act as lookout when the
killing would be perpetrated.
• [RIGHT BEFORE THE MURDER]
o Rojas: posted himself at a store about 27 steps from the scene of crime
o Gaudencia: stationed near a house3 about 18 steps from the scene of the crime.
o Paciano: near a house4 about 27 steps from the scene of the crime.
o secluded himself near a warehouse about five steps from the scene of the crime in close proximity to the
back of Juliana's house where.as he had previously observed some nights before, she used to answer
the call of nature
• [THE MURDER]
o Between 7 to 8 PM, The unwary Juliana went to the beach where she was accustomed to void 5.
o When she squatted, Misa unexpectedly appeared behind her, held her hair, thus tilting her face, and
while in that posture, he inserted into her mouth the muzzle of the pistol and fired it.
o Paciano and Gaudencia, who were near the beach, witnessed the actual killing.
• [CASE BEFORE CFI]
o Misa was subsequently arrested by Constabulary soldiers and signed a confession admitted the killing of
Juliana and implicating the Nierras, Doblen, and Rojas.
o Misa, Doblen, Rojas, and the Nierra spouses, as co-conspirators, were charged with murder aggravated
by reward, treachery, evident premeditation, nocturnity, ignominy, and abuse of superiority and, as to
Misa, recidivism for a prior murder conviction.
o Misa pleaded guilty.

1 Juliana sold coca-cola while Pagano sold pepsi-cola. Juliana was the owner of two motor launches, Elsa I and II, while Paciano was the owner of two launches,
Sylvania I and II. Juliana was the wife of Aniceto Nierra, Paciano's elder brother. To mollify Pagano, by diminishing the competition between their launches, Aniceto
sold Elsa II. Nonetheless, Aniceto and Paciano were not on speaking terms.
2 A convicted murderer who in 1995 escaped from the Davao Penal Colony. Misa came to Barrio Tinago in June 1969 and resided with his cousin, Silvestre Misa.
3 House of Maning Desinorio. The houses of the two Desinorios were separated from the house of Juliana Nierra by an alley.
4 House of Juanito Desinorio. The houses of the two Desinorios were separated from the house of Juliana Nierra by an alley.

5
Euphemism for defecating.
7 | VAMS
o
The Nierra, Doblen, and Rojas were convicted, with Misa’s confession and testimony as main basis of the
judgment of conviction, and were imposed the death penalty.
• [ELEVATION OF THE CASE]
o Doblen, Rojas, and the Nierras appealed.
o Misa’s death sentence is under automatic review.

ISSUE:
• Whether Misa gave an improvident plea of guilt? – NO
• Whether the Spouses Nierra were guilty beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals by inducement and
cooperation – YES
• Whether Doblen and Rojas, even though co-principals, should be punished as an accomplice - YES

RULING:
• Misa’s case
o His testimony against his co-accused, delineating their roles in the commission of the killing, which he
had perpetrated, fortified his plea of guilty and removed any scintilla of doubt as to his culpability and as
to his understanding of the consequences of his mea culpa.
o Misa, as an escaped prisoner, had acquired some experience in criminal procedure.
o He also executed two extrajudicial confessions.
o He reenacted the crime as the triggerman.
o He testified at the preliminary investigation, and, after he was sentenced to death, he was the prosecution
star witness during the trial of his co-accused.
• Spouses Nierra’s case
o The Nierra’s were co-principals by inducement and by acting as lookouts, became co-principals by
cooperation as well.
o According to the Nierras:

They were just inside their house with their son when they
were informed that Juliana was shot.
They went to the funeral parlor but not able to talk with
Paciano’s brother6, offered prayers for Juliana, and gave
contribution7 to the funeral expenses; attended the funeral;
help revive Aniceto when he fainted during the burial;
closed the niche
Misa was not a credible witness as he was a recidivist and
his testimony was riddled with inconsistencies.
No proof of conspiracy.
Misa’s testimony to the alleged conspiracy is inadmissible
n view of the rule that "the act or declaration of a conspirator
Alibi
• Misa testified against his own penal interest.
• Discrepancies in his testimony refer to minor
details.
• The fact that the Nierra spouses did not comply
with their contractual commitment to pay Misa the
balance of two thousand six hundred pesos must
have impelled him to unmask them and to reveal
the truth even if such a revelation speeled his own
destruction.
• Misa had no personal motive for killing Juliana
Nierra. He was induced to do so because of the
monetary consideration promised by the Nierra
spouses.
• Doblen (Simoy), married to Paciano's cousin,
introduced Misa to the Nierra spouses.
• Before Juliana's assassination, Gaudencia had
contracted Misa to kill Nene Amador, her former
housemaid, who was allegedly Paciano's mistress.
[Did not materialize]
Erroneous. Section 27 "applies only to extrajudicial acts or
declarations but not to testimony given on the stand at the

6 Aniceto Nierra.
7
Abuloy.
7 | VAMS
relating to the conspiracy and during its existence, may be
given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the
conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act or
declaration" (Sec. 27, Rule 130, Rules of Court).
Trial court erred in finding that the motive for the killing
was to stifle business competition.
Trial court convicted them on the basis of the hearsay
testimonies of Guillermo Sanchez and Jose Samoya.
Trial court erred in admitting as evidence the affidavit of
appellant Vicente Rojas (Exh. J) which was obtained
through an alleged promise of immunity.
trial where the defendant has the opportunity to cross-
examine the declarant"
Refuted by the testimonies of Aniceto Nierra and his son
Rodelio which show that Paciano Nierra was antagonistic
to his sister-in-law, Juliana, the manager or "brains" of
Aniceto's transportation and coca-cola distribution
businesses.
Misleading. The judgment of conviction was anchored
principally on the confessions and testimony of Misa, the
tool used by the Nierra spouses in encompassing
Juliana's death. Misa's evidence cannot be regarded as
hearsay. The testimonies of Sanchez and Samoya merely
proved that Misa, Rojas and Doblen were implicated in the
killing of Juliana Nierra. It was the affidavit of Sanchez,
linking Misa to the killing, that gave the police a
breakthrough in the solution of the case.
No promise of immunity was shown to have been made
by the fiscal to Rojas. In any event, his affidavit is a minor
piece of evidence and is cumulative in character.

o The guilt of Nierras was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

▪ On the night of the shooting, Paciano Nierra and Gaudencia Nierra did not go to the funeral parlor
to view the remains of Juliana.
▪ After Paciano and Gaudencia were charged with murder, there was a confrontation between the
said spouses and Aniceto Nierra in the house of their brother, Alonso, in the presence of their
other brother, Gerundio and which accusation8 by Aniceto Paciano did not answer.
▪ Moreover, Misa wrote a note9 to Paciano when they were confined in the city jail (translation):,
which clearly proves that Misa and Paciano were co- conspirators.

• Doblen and Rojas’ appeal

o Doblen and Rojas are guilty as accomplices

Doblen's alibi was that on the night of the killing, he was Alibi. Rojas’ alibi could have precluded him from having
stranded at Margos, Glan, South Cotabato. He returned to acted as lookout on that same beach.
General Santos City at ten o'clock in the morning of the
following day. He denied that he accompanied Misa to the
house of Paciano Nierra on July 4, 1969 and that he
delivered to Misa the package containing the murder
weapon.

Rojas' alibi was that on the night of the killing he slept in his
pumpboat at Lion's Beach, General Santos City.
Misa's confessions and testimony have no probative value
because there was no other evidence proving the alleged
conspiracy
Doblen was not a co-conspirator because he was not
present when Misa and the Nierra spouses discussed the
liquidation of Juliana Nierra and that when Doblen delivered
Rule does not apply to testimony given on the witness
stand where the defendants have the opportunity to cross-
examine the declarant
These contentions are not well-taken. The activities of
Doblen and Rojas indubitably show that they had

8 Paciano: Noy, why did you suspect us to be the killers of your wife?
Aniceto: Will you still deny when Gaspar Misa pointed to you that you were standing by the post and Paciano (Gaudencia) was also standing in a another post when
he (Misa) killed my wife. From now on I have no brother by the name of Pacing.
9 My companion Pacing (Paciano):

I am directly telling you and you could be sure that I will do my best that you will be free. Before the trial of (in) court, I would like that you give me the sum of P600
even if you give the cash advance of P 500 before Sunday. OK and you give the same thru the hole.
Your companion,
(Sgd.) Gaspar Misa
Believe me that I will free you and burn this immediately. (Exit 1)
7 | VAMS
the package to Misa, he (Doblen) did not know that it community of design with the Nierra spouses and Misa in
contained the murder weapon. the assassination of Juliana Nierra.

As to Rojas, it is contended that he was not present at the

said conference between Misa and the Nierra spouses.

o ITCAB
▪ Doblen's role was that of having introduced Misa to the Nierra spouses and delivering the murder
weapon to Misa. He was not present at the scene of the crime.
▪ On the other hand, Rojas acted as lookout and received fifty pesos for his work.
o As co-conspirators they should be punished as co-principals. However, since their participation was not
absolutely indispensable to the consummation of the murder, the rule that the court should favor the
milder form of liability may be applied to them.
• Aggravating circumstances
o Treachery (qualifies the murder)
o Premeditation (aggravates murder)
o Price or reward (aggravates murder)
o Relationship (additional aggravating circumstance as to Nierras)
o Nocturnity (absorbed in treachery)
o Abuse of superiority (absorbed in treachery)
o Ignominy10
o Recidivism (offset Misa's plea of guilty)
• Penalty
o Death, solidary liable for indemnity of 12K – Paciano Nierra, and Misa
o Reclusion perpetua (on Gaudencia Nierra, commuted for lack of the requisite ten votes) and solidarily
liable for indemnity of 12K
o Indeterminate penalty of 10 of prision mayor medium as minimum to 17 years of reclusion temporal
medium as maximum; solidarily liable with the principals an indemnity of 6K (as their quota) to the heirs of
Juliana; subsidiarily liable to the extent of 6K for the principals' civil liability – Doblen and Rojas

DISPOSITION: Lower court’s judgment as to Misa and P. Nierra AFFIRMED; death sentence to G. Nierra commuted to
reclusion perpetua but civil liability imposed upon her is AFFIRMED; Doblen and Rojas are convicted as accomplices etc.

10
The manner in which Misa liquidated Juliana Nierra added shame, disgrace or obloquy to the material injury caused by
the crime. Juliana was squatting and defecating when Misa shot him. Her husband, Aniceto Nierra, on hearing the
gunshot and the ensuing commotion, went down from the house and saw his prostrate wife with blood oozing from her
mouth and nose. Her panty was pulled down, her dress was raised up to her waist, and her genital organ was exposed.
The postmortem examination disclosed that Juliana sustained a gunshot wound in the tongue. The bullet passed through
the buccal cavity down to the spinal column where the slug was extracted.