People v. Saladino, G.R. No.

L-3634, 30 May 1951

In the night of June 23, 1948 Corporal Bartolo Saladino and Private Anastacia Alejo of
the Philippine Constabulary were in Paoay, Ilocos Norte. Together with policemen, they
had gone on patrol duty when suddenly their attention was caught by cries for help.
They went down and were approached by one Felix Pasion who reported he had been
robbed, one of the robbers being Luis Bernabe.

The next morning, Saladino and Alejo, accompanied by the policemen proceeded to the
house of Luis Bernabe in Barrio Samac of San Nicolas same province. Having found the
suspect, they brought him, for questioning, to the residence of Felix Pasion in Barrio
Singao same municipality.

To extract a confession, Saladino repeatedly boxed and kicked him in different parts of
the body. Bernabe continued denying his guilt. Victim persisted in his refusal and
Saladino continued the beatings until the victim lay motionless on the floor. “It seems he
is dead,” policeman Osman exclaimed but Saladino replied “No, he is only feigning
death” and presently stepped on Bernabe’s throat and chest. Then Saladino left him
alone for fifteen minutes, during which time Bernabe did not stir nor breathe. One man
took the victim’s pulse and confirmed that the victim was dead. Suddenly realizing his
predicament, Saladino ordered two civilians to carry Bernabe down and told his
subordinate Alejo: “shoot him now and we will say that he ran away”. Complying with
the corporal’s order Alejo shot Bernabe four times with his carbine, after the latter had
been laid down flat on his stomach about thirty meters away from the house. Three
days afterwards Bernabe was buried.

Issue whether or not the accused Alejo shall incur criminal liability? Or did he commit an
impossible crime (by shooting the victim who is already dead)?

The SC held that Yes. Bartolo Saladino and Anastacia Alejo shall incur criminal liability.
From the foregoing, the victim Bernabe died because of the violent mauling by Saladino,
Saladino must be declared guilty of assassination. Alejo does not appear to have
conspired with him, and is not liable either as principal or as accomplice of the murder.
But he is guilty as accessory after the fact for having performed acts tending to conceal
Saladino’s crime by making it appear that Bernabe had run away. SC noted that U.S. v.
Cuison 20 Phil. 433 is a relevant example. In that case, victim Facundo Balangac was shot
from behind by Private Valentin Fortuna in the cemetery of Barili, Cebu. “Some hours
afterwards, the defendant Cuison with several constabulary privates, among them
Valentin Fortuna, went by order of Lieutenant Poggi to the place where the body of the
deceased lay, and commanded the soldiers to spread out in skirmish like and discharge
their firearms into the air; then the defendant, with the private Fortunam, went to the
house of Epimaco Sosa to ask him for a dagger to place beside the body of a man whom
they had shot, thereby to give the appearance that the deceased had been carrying a
dagger.” This court declared the defendant Cuison guilty of accessory after the fact
saying: “But we do find criminal liability in the acts performed by Corporal Cuison, even
though he obeyed orders from his Lieutenant, Poggi; such liability consists in his having
intervened subsequently to the commission of the crime, by furnishing the means to
make it appear that the deceased was armed and that it was necessary to kill him on
account of his resistance to the constabulary man, who, to lend color to such pretended
resistance, discharged their firearms into the air, under the direction of Cuison, at the
place there where the corpse was lying; and also consists in his having tried to find a
dagger to place beside the deceased. Such acts must be characterized as concealment,
and since they are not only wrong but also unlawful, the defendant is not exempt from
liability, even though he acted in obedience to a command from his superior, because
such command was illegal and in conflict with law and justice. Therefore it can not be
alleged that obedience was due, or that it exempts the defendant from criminal
liability.”

Ruling Therefore, inasmuch as the penalty imposed on appellant Saladino accords with
the law, the judgment against him is affirmed, with costs. As to appellant Alejo the
appealed decision is revoked and one will be entered sentencing him to imprisonment
for not less than 3 years of prision correctional nor more than six years and two months,
of prision mayor; and in case of insolvency of Saladino to indemnify the heirs of the
deceased in the sum of P6000 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of his own
inability to pay. No costs against this appellant.

Shooting at dead man: Legal impossibility if intent is to kill him

but if intent is not to kill but to conceal the crime = accessory thus, this is not an
impossible crime