Round Seven Cases Full Text (Alternative Circumstances and Persons Criminally Liable)

7/24/2019 Round Seven Cases Full Text (Alternative Circumstances and Persons Criminally Liable)

1/46

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

ManilaEN BANC

G.R. Nos. 124303-05 February 10, 199

PEOP!E OF T"E P"#!#PP#NES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.$!E%$N&RO $TOP ' ($!#,( accused-appellant.P$NG$N#)$N, J.:

The trial court sentenced the appellant to death, holding that his coon-la! relationship !iththe victi"s grandother aggravated the penalt#. $e hold, ho!ever, that %ec. && of RA '()*prescribes the capital penalt# in rape, onl# +!hen the victi is under eighteen & #ears ofage and the offender is a parent, ascendant, s tep-parent, guardian, relative b# consanguinit#or affinit# !ithin the third civil degree, or the coon-la! spouse of the parent of the victi,+and not b# reason of an# other /inship. 0n the other hand, +relationship+ as an alternativeaggravating circustance under Art. &) of the Revised Penal Code encopasses onl# +thespouse, ascendant, descendant, legitiate, natural or adopted brother or sister, and relativeb# affinit# in the sae degrees.+ 0utside these enueration"s and consistent !ith the doctrinethat criinal la!s ust be liberall# construed in favor of the accused, no other relationship,/inship or association bet!een the offender and the victi a# aggravate the iposablepenalt# for the crie coitted. The fact, then, that the offended part# is the granddaughteror descendant of appellant"s live-in partner cannot 1ustif# the iposition of death upon therapist.

The CaseThis is a cobined appeal fro, and an autoatic revie! of, the 2oint 3ecision of theRegional Trial Court, Branch &4, of 0roc Cit#, finding Appellant Ale1andro Atop, alias+Ali,+guilt# be#ond reasonable doubt of three 5 counts of rape and sentencing hi to t!o 4ters of reclusion perpetuafor the first t!o counts, and to death for the third.0n April 4&, &**), Provincial Prosecutor 6 Rosario 3. Beleta filed four separate inforations 1against accused-appellant charging hi !ith rape on three separate occasions 7 on 0ctober*, &**4, soetie in &**5 and on 3eceber 4(, &**8 7 as !ell as !ith attepted rape on3eceber 5&, &**8. The inforations charging rape, e9cept for the date of coission andthe age of the victi, siilarl# allege the follo!ing:That on or about the *th da# of 0ctober, &**4, at %itio Tabunan, Brg#. %ta. Rosa,Municipalit# of Matag-ob, Province of ;e#te, Philippines, and !ithin the 1urisdiction of this, unla!full# and feloniousl# have carnal /no!ledge of the herein offendedpart# RE?6NA ?@A6N, && #ears old, the accused is the live-in partner of her grandother!ith !ho she is living !ith =sic>, against her !ill and !ithout her consent, !ith the use of a/nife, ashed her breast, ebraced, /issed and inserted his penis over the victi"s genitalorgan to accoplish his le!d design, to her daage and pre1udice.

3uring his arraignent, appellant, assisted b# Counsel de Oficio$enceslao anilla of thePublic Attorne#"s 0ffice, pleaded not guilt#.2Thereafter, the cases !ere tried 1ointl#. 6n his3ecision,3the trial 1udge4disposed of the cases as follo!s:&. 6n Criinal Case No. 8(4'- finding the accused Ale1andro Atop ?@6;TD be#ondreasonable doubt of RAPE defined and penalied under Article 55) of the Revised PenalCode. Appreciating the aggravating circustances of relationship and nighttie !ith noitigating circustance to offset an# of the t!o, this court iposes upon the saidA;E2AN3R0 AT0P the sentence of RECLUSION PERPETUAand to indenif# Regina

?uafin the su of T


2/46

!hen the first rape !as coitted to her and at that tie her grandother !as then attendinga deliver# since her grandother !as a +hilot+. $hen her grandother returned hoe she toldher !hat the accused did to he r but her grandother, again, refused to believe her. %he alsoreeber =sic> of another incident !herein she !as raped again b# the accused Ale1androAtop. 6t !as in the #ear &**5 but she could not recall the onth !hen it !as coitted. 0nl#she and the accused !ere then at their house at Baranga# %anta Rosa, Matag-ob, ;e#te asher grandother !as at %an icente attending to a deliver#. Again, she told her grandotherabout the heinous acts that the accused did to her but her ;ola refused to believe her.

0n 3eceber 4(, &**8, the accused again raped her. %he could not as/ for help because herouth !as gagged b# the accused. Aside fro gagging her, the accused carried a /nife !hichhe placed at his side.0n 3eceber 5&, &**8, !hile she together !ith her Aunt ?loria Montealto and her t!o 4nieces Rubilen and 2ubilen Atop !ere about to go to sleep, she noticed that the accused !asloo/ing for her. @pon seeing her the accused rushed to!ards her and !as about to la# on topof her. %he /ic/ed hi. After that, the accused caressed and touched his nieces but his niecesalso /ic/ed hi. Thereafter, the accused stopped olesting her and his nieces and !ent tosleep instead. 6n the follo!ing orning, 2anuar# &, &**), she !ent to the barrio to go toschool. %he then forgot that there !ere no classes. %he !as not able to get a ride to!ards theschool, so she !ent directl# to the house of her grandfather Facarias ?eva. $hile she !as atthe house of her ;olo ?eva, the accused arrived and iediatel# entered the house of hergrandfather. The accused !as et b# Rubilen Atop !ho !as about to bo9 hi but the#iediatel# !ent out of the house and the accused follo!ed the. The accused !anted tobring her bac/ to their house but she refused. %o, the accused pulled her. The accused /epton holding her until the# reached the !aiting shed !ere the accused sashed her to theconcrete !all.%he reported the incidents of rape that happened in &**4, &**5 and &**8 onl# in 2anuar#&**). 6t too/ her so long to report the said incidents because she !as afraid. The accusedthreatened to /ill her should she tell an#bod# about that incidents. %he !as accopanied b#her Aunts e 3ecio and Rosenda Andales in reporting the said incidents to the police.


3/46

!h# Regina ?uafin filed a case against hi because the said private coplainant !ascoached b# her aunt !ho !anted hi and his !ife Trinidad to be separated.0n cross e9aination, he testified also that he !as told b# his cousin Nicolas alencia thather =sic> !ife Trinidad !as prevented b# her children fro visiting hi in 1ail upon her arrivalfro Manila.10

Ruling of the Trial CourtThe court a uoevaluated the testion# of the offended part# in this anner:. . . this court observed both the coplainant and the accused !hen both !ere on the !itness

stand. The tears that spontaneousl# flo!ed fro the private coplainant"s e#es and the sobsthat punctuated coplainant"s testion# !hen as/ed about her e9perience !ith the accusedeloGuentl# conve#ed the hurt, the pain, and the anguish the private coplainant has sufferedand lived !ith during all the #ears. $hen she told the court that she !as raped b# the accusedshe said it all !ith candor. The i9ed e9pression of sadness and anger sho!n in the privatecoplainant"s face during her testion# convinced this court that she !as telling the truth.This court then found nothing in the evidence !hich !ould indicate in an# !a# that the saidRegina ?uafin !as otivated in narrating to the court her ordeal other than her Guest for1ustice. The defense"s clai that Regina !as coached b# her aunts to fabricate her rape stor#in order to force their other Trinidad Me1os to separate fro the accused is nothing but aere speculation =upon> !hich this court found no probative value. This court then gives thetestion# of the private offended part# full faith and credit. 11

The trial court also ruled that the circustances of nighttie and relationship aggravated allthe three incidents of rape, but that there !as no sufficient evidence proving a ttepted rapeon 3eceber 5&, &**8. Considering that the last rape occurred after the effectivit# of RA'()*, the death penalt# la!, the court eted out the capital punishent to accused-appellant.Issues6n his appeal12before us, appellant assigns the follo!ing errors:13

6. The trial court erred in appreciating the circustances of nighttie and relationship asaggravating the penalt# iposable for the rape allegedl# coitted on 0ctober *, &**4, in&**5 and on 3eceber 4(, &**8.66. The trial court erred in finding accused guilt# be#ond reasonable doubt of the criescharged.

The Court's RulingThe appeal is partl# eritorious. $e find that the alleged aggravating circustances !ere notdul# proved.!irst Issue: Nightti"e and RelationshipThe tie-settled rule is that nocturnit#, as an aggravating circustance, ust have beendeliberatel# sought b# the offender to facilitate the crie or prevent its discover# or evade hiscapture or facilitate his escape.14The culprit ust have purposel# ta/en advantage of thecover of night as an indispensable factor to attain his criinal purpose. 15

$e find erit in Appellant Atop"s contention, to !hich the solic itor general agrees, that theprosecution failed to prove that nighttie !as deliberatel# sought b# appellant to facilitate thisdastardl# acts. 6n fact, the prosecution failed to sho! that appellant consuated his carnaldesigns at night, e9cept onl# for the 3eceber 4(, &**8 incident !hich the victi saidoccurred at &&: p..1*Much less is there an# evidence substantiating the trial court"sconclusion that appellant intentionall# sought the dar/ness to advance his criinal e9ploits.

Neither can !e appreciate relationship as an aggravating circustance The scope ofrelationship as defined b# la! encopasses & the spouseH 4 an ascendantH 5 adescendantH 8 a legitiate, natural or adopted brother or sisterH or ) a relative b# affinit# inthe sae degree.1+Relationship b# affinit# refers to a relation b# virtue of a legal bond suchas arriage. Relatives b# affinit# therefore are those coonl# referred to as +in-la!s,+ orstepfather, stepother, stepchild and the li/eH in contrast to relatives b# consanguinit# or bloodrelatives encopassed under the second, third and fourth enueration above. The la! cannotbe stretched to include persons attached b# coon-la! relations.


4/46

I And did #ou tell the iscal the truth of !hat had this accused done to #ouJA Des, a"a.I And !hat !as that stateent #ou have given to the iscalJA 6 told the iscal the truth because the accused !as alread# arrested.I And !hat !as the truthJA The truth that it !as his penis that !as inserted to # vagina.I his penis into #our vaginaJA Man# ties a"a but 6 can reeber onl# three 5 to four 8 ties.

I And the first tie that =sic> !as on 0ctober *, &**4JA Des, a"a.I $hen !as the second tie he inserted his penis into #our vaginaJA 6n the #ear &**5.I And the third tieJA 0n 3eceber 4(, &**8.22

ro the testion# of Regina, the cries evidentl# coitted b# appellant on the aforestateddates !ere consuated rapes, not erel# acts of lasciviousness. 6nitiall#, she hesitated tocopletel# divulge her ravishent b# appellant because of his threats to /ill her should shetell an#bod# of his assaults. 23$ith his arrest and detention, she ustered the courage tofinall# and copletel# reveal her ebarrassing stor#.No siple barrio lass !ould so candidl# adit before the public that a an !ho had lived ascoon-la! husband to her grandother had inserted his penis in her vagina for so an#ties in the past. 6t is unthin/able that coplainant, a #oung lad# of fifteen #ears, !ould allo!her private parts to be e9ained and !ould !ithstand the rigors of a public trial 7 along !iththe shae, huiliation and dishonor of e9posing her o!n ortif#ing defileent 7 if she !asnot in fact ravished. A careful e9aination of her testion# does not reveal an# hint ofprevarication. Rather, her straightfor!ard and uneGuivocal stateents, during both her directand her cross-e9ainations, sho! indelible badges of truth. As the trial 1udge /eenl#observed, +The tears the spontaneousl# flo!ed fro the private coplainant"s e#es and thesobs that punctuated =her> testion# !hen as/ed about her e9perience !ith the accusedeloGuentl# conve#ed the hurt, the pain, and the anguish the private coplainant has sufferedand lived !ith during all the #ears. $hen she told the court that she !as raped b# theaccused, she said it all !ith candor. The i9ed e9pression of sadness and anger sho!n in theprivate coplainant"s face during her testion# convinced this court that she !as telling thetruth.+24$e find it apt to sa# once again that !hen a !oan, especiall # a inor, sa#s that shehas been raped, she sa#s in effect all that is necessar# to sho! that the crie !as coitted. 25

Appellant"s contention that private coplainant !as erel# induced b# her aunts !ho hadob1ected to his relationship !ith their other, Trinidad Me1os, is a trite defense that iscopletel# undeserving of credit. 6t is unnatural and unbelievable for Regina"s aunts toconcoct a stor# of rape of their o!n ver# #oung niece, that !ould bring shae and scandal notonl# to her but to the entire fail#, especiall# to their other. There could have been so an#!a#s to alienate appellant fro their other, so an# cries to ipute to hi !ithoutdragging the fail#"s honor into it. The preposterousness of appellant"s assertion becoesore obvious in light of the fact that this case !as instituted onl# after ten & #ears of hisillegitiate union !ith Regina"s g randother. 6f Regina"s aunts trul# !anted the to

discontinue such relationship, the long !ait is ine9plicable.

ConseGuentl#, in the face of private coplainant"s positive and uneGuivocal testion#,appellant"s plain denial of the accusations against hi cannot prevail. 2*6t is !ell-settled thatdenial, if unsubstantiated b# clear and convincing evidence, is a negative self-servingassertion !hich deserves no !eight in la!. 2+The recognied rule is that testionies of rapevictis !ho are #oung and iature are each !orth# of full credence. 2

Tie and again, !e have also held that !hen the Guestion deals !ith the credibilit# of!itnesses and their testionies, the trial court"s observations and conclusions deserve greatrespect and are often accorded finalit#, unless there appears in the record soe fact or

circustance of !eight !hich the lo!er court a# have overloo/ed, isunderstood orisappreciated and !hich, if properl# considered, !ould alter the results of the case.29Thetrial 1udge has the valuable edge of observing the !itness" deportent and anner oftestif#ing, her +furtive glance, blush of conscious shae, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone,calness, sigh, or the scant or full realiation of an oath+ 307 all of !hich are useful aids foran accurate deterination of a !itness" honest# and sincerit#. After a thorough revie! of allthe evidence on record, the Court finds no reason to reverse the trial court"s findings on theguilt of appellant.Penalties I"posa%leor the rape incidents on 0ctober *, &**4 and soetie in &**5, the court a uocorrectl#iposed the penalt# of reclusion perpetuafor each of the t!o criinal acts. The third rapeincident, ho!ever, occurred after the effectivit# of RA '()*, the la! !hich iposed the deathpenalt# on certain heinous cries. @nder this aendator# la!, the penalt# for rape coitted!ith the use of a deadl# !eapon is reclusion perpetuato death.31This provision is applicablein the instant case, since private coplainant !as threatened !ith a /nife !hen appellantconsuated his beastl# acts on her. 32

6n cases !here the penalt# prescribed is coposed of t!o indivisible penalties and there isneither an aggravating nor a itigating circustance in the coission of the fe lon#, thelesser penalt# should be applied.33%ince there !as no odif#ing circustance even in thethird rape, the penalt# therefor should be reclusion perpetua, not the graver penalt# of deathas iposed b# the court a uo. As earlier e9plained, the attendant relationships enueratedunder %ec. && of RA '()* do not appl# either.Consistent !ith prevailing 1urisprudence,34!e increase the civil indenit# iposed uponappellant b# the trial court to P),. for each count of rape. The Court notes that, forappellant"s third conviction, the trial court ordered hi to indenif# the victi in the aount ofP5, +as oral daages.+ Civil indenit# under Art. & 35 of the Revised Penal Code isseparate and distinct fro oral daages under Arts. 44&' and 44&* of the Civil Code. 3*

Conforabl#, Appellant Atop should indenif# Regina ?uafin in the total aount of P&),for the three counts of rape 7 separatel# fro pa#ent of oral daages !hich !e find1ustified under the circustances. The oral sufferings of private coplainants !ere obviousduring the court proceedings !here, as observed b# the trial 1udge and also noted in thetranscripts, she spontaneousl# cried and sobbed and sho!ed a i9ed e9pression of sadness,pain and anger.

$


5/46

found ?@6;TD b# the trial court, and is ordered to PAD Regina ?uafin indenit# in the aountof P&), plus oral daages of P),.%0 0R3ERE3.

Nar$asa& C'('& Regalado& Da$ide& (r'& Ro"ero& )ellosillo& *elo& Puno& Vitug& +apunan&*endo,a& !rancisco& *artine,& -uisu"%ing and Purisi"a& (('& concur'

Foooes& Rollo, pp. &-&)H records, pp. &-).4 Records, p. 58.5 Rollo, pp. 45-55.8 2udge rancisco


6/46


ManilaT


7/46

C. Abeto, other police officers icente Canuda#, 2r., 2ose Paha#upan, Mario ;ais, civilianpolice agents Rolando R. ernande, Ed!in 3ivinagracia, Teod# 3elgado, 2aie?argallano, also ta/ing advantage of their respective positions, and 3oinador ?eroche,concurring and affiring in the said criinal design, !ith the use of otor vehicle abduct,/idnap and detain one 3AN6;0 ;@MAN?DA0 and shortl# thereafter at around && o"cloc/ inthe evening of August ', &**5 &**4, failing in their aforesaid coon purpose to e9tortone# and in furtherance of said conspirac#, !ith evident preeditation and treacher#nocturnit# and the use of otor vehicle, did then and there shot and /ill the said victi, !hilebeing handcuffed and blindfolded, that accused CE%AR PEC


8/46

8756 A'*'& August 3& 1..4%tate !itness Moises ?randea !ent to the house of


9/46

ro his house ?eroche too/ an aralite rifle and the group then !ent bac/ to 3"


10/46

5. Those !ho cooperate in the coission of the offense b# another act !ithout !hich it!ould not have been accoplished.$hat the Court no! has to e9aine is !hether or not sufficient evidence !as adduced b# theprosecution to prove be#ond reasonable doubt that 2eanette indeed perfored an# of thefollo!ing acts: a directl#forcingthe /illers to coit the crie, or b directl# inducing theto coit the crie.There are 4 !a#s of directl# forcing another to coit a crie, nael#: i b# using irresistibleforce, or ii b# causing uncontrollable fear. @pon revie! of the testion# of all the !itnessesof the prosecution, !e find nothing to conclude that 2eanette used irresistible force or causeduncontrollable fear upon the other accused-appellants. ro the factual findings of the trialcourt, it is patent that the plan to abduct and liGuidate the victis !as hatched on August ),&**4 &:5 A.M. !ithout 2eanette"s involveent or participation !hatsoever p. 44, Rollo.The record is entirel# bereft of an# evidence to sho! that 2eanette directl# forced theparticipants of the said eeting to coe up !ith such plan, b# either using irresistible force orcausing uncontrollable fear. The onl# basis relied upon b# the trial court in arriving at itsconclusion that 2eanette is guilt# of the crie as principal b# induceent, is the supposed+coands+ or order given b# her to accused-appellant 3oinador ?eroche on t!ooccasions one inside the Ceres Copound: p. 4), Rollo, and the other in 3" finds apt application, to !it:6n criinal la!, the Guantu of evidence for conviction is that !hich produces oral certaint#in an unpre1udiced ind that the accused is guilt# be#ond reasonable doubt, But, if thee$idence is suscepti%le of t@o interpretations,one consistent @ith the innocence of theaccused and the other consistent @ith his guilt,the accused "ust %e acuitted.p. 5)

B. Police Inspector Adonis A%eto$ith respect to accused-appellant Abeto, !e Guote !ith approval the observations of the%olicitor ?eneral as follo!s:Police 6nspector Adonis C. Abeto"s appeal is eritorious. Be it reebered that Abeto"s onl#participation !as to serve the search !arrant on


11/46

A subseGuent search of Tortocion"s house led b# 0fficer ABET0 #ielded no fa/e gold bar.Mean!hile, in the evening of August ', &**4, 0fficers ABET0, CAN@3AD, 2R., andPA the Court hadoccasion to reiterate the ruling that findings of fact of the trial court pertaining to the credibilit#of !itnesses coand great respect since it had the opportunit# to observe their deeanor!hile the# testified in court. The briefs of accused-appellants ;ais, et al. are replete !ithgeneralities and legal principles relating to the issue, but are utterl# !anting in relevantparticulars !hich a# be the basis to rule that indeed, the trial court erred in lending fullcredence to the testion# of !itness ?randea on the atter. As held in People $s.Ra"ire,4(( %CRA 55) =&**'>, unless the trial 1udge plainl# overloo/ed certain facts of substance andvalue !hich, if considered, ight affect the result of the case, his assessent on credibilit#ust be respected.6n an attept to buttress the contention that !itness ?randea"s testion# should not havebeen given credence b# the court a uo, accused-appellants referred to supposedinconsistencies bet!een ?randea"s s!orn stateents before investigators $is0;0$ishistestion# in court pp. 58*-5)*, RolloH and &8()-&8(, Rollo. The Court, ho!ever, is notipressed. This !ill not be the first occasion for us to hold that discrepancies bet!een thestateents of the affiant in his affidavit and those ade b# hi on the !itness stand do notnecessaril# discredit hi since e0parteaffidavits are generall# incoplete 7 affidavits aregenerall# subordinated in iportance to open court declarations People vs. Padao, 4('%CRA (8 =&**'>. A contradiction bet!een a !itness" affidavit and his testion# in open courta# alost be e9plained b# the fact that, being ta/en e parte, an affidavit is often incoplete

and inaccurate, soeties fro partial suggestions, and soeties fro the !ant ofsuggestions and inGuiries %ualpong vs. Court of Appeals, 4( %CRA '(8 =&**'>.?randea"s perceived failure to ention an#thing in his 5 affidavits pertaining to the supposedeetings !here the criinal plot !as hatched, does not necessaril# render his testion# incourt un!orth# of credit.6n his brief, accused-appellant ?eroche cites ?randea"s failure to identif# one of their co-accused, Charles 3uancas, in open court, and the variance on the alleged instructions givenb# 2eanette, and the failure b# ?randea to ention the supposed eetings in his previousaffidavits, as grounds to totall# disregard ?randea"s entire testion# for being un!orth# ofcredence pp. &8(&-&8(*, Rollo. 6ndirectl#, accused-appellant ?eroche !ants this Court toappl# the a9ifalsus in uno,falsus in o"ni%us. 6n this regard, !e held in People $s.Pacis&5 %CRA )8 =&*8>:


12/46

The a9i of falsus in uno falsus in o"ni%us&ho!ever, is not a positive rule of la!. Neitheris it an infle9ible one of universal application. 6f a part of a !itness" testion# is found true, itcannot be disregarded entirel#. The testion# of a !itness a# be believed in part anddisbelieved in part.p. )8(Also in People $s.Li )un (uan&' %CRA *58 =&*((> !e ruled:. . . 6n this connection it ust be borne in ind that the principlefalsus in uno falsus ino"ni%usis not an absolute one, and that it is perfectl# reasonable to believe the testion# ofa !itness !ith respect to soe facts and disbelieve it !ith respect to other facts. 6n People $s.+eller, 8( 0.?. No. ', pp. 5444-5445, the follo!ing !as Guoted !ith approval b# the Court ofAppeals fro & Moore on acts, p. 45:&. Testion# a# be partl# c redited and partl# re1ected. 7 Trier of facts are not bound tobelieve all that an# !itness has saidH the# a# accept soe portions of his testion# andre1ect other portions, according to !hat sees to the, upon other facts and circustances tobe the truth . . . Even !hen !itnesses are found to have deliberatel# falsified in soe aterialparticulars, the 1ur# are not reGuired to re1ect the !hole of their uncorroborated testion#, buta# credit such portions as the# dee !orth# of belief.p. *8)The grounds relied upon b# accused-appellant ?eroche do not, therefore, constitute cogentreasons to discredit the testion# of e#e!itness ?randea in its entiret#.As regards accused-appellant ?eroche"s defense of alibi, it is settled that alibi cannot prevailover positive identification People vs. ?ara, 4'& %CRA )&' =&**'>. Being eas# to fabricateand difficult to disprove, alibi cannot prevail over and is !orthless in the face of the positiveidentification of the accused-appellant People vs. 3atun, 4'4 %CRA 5 =&**'>. Besides, therecord is bereft of strong and convincing evidence that accused-appellant could not have beenat the scene of the crie because the certification proffered in support thereof stated that he!as in Mt. Calandog onl# afterthe coission of the crie. And, as aptl# stated b# the%olicitor ?eneral in the People"s brief, +the trial court e9pressed puleent !h# thissupposed fact !as not entioned in his 2ul# 5, &**5 affidavit . . . The first ipulse of aninnocent an !hen accused of a !rongdoing is to e9press his innocence at the firstopportune tie. The People can onl# conclude that ?eroche"s defense of alibi is but anafterthought+ p. &'45, Rollo.As to accused-appellant Cesar Pecha"s case, the Court finds it difficult to believe that he had

no /no!ledge that the 4 victis he !as bur#ing !ere victis of violence. The deceased !eresurel# bloodied fro their gunshot !ounds and !ere in fact still handcuffed !hen e9huedfro their shallo! grave. 6t becoes alost ipossible for accused-appellant Pecha not to atleast, entertain doubts as to the absence of foul pla# in this case.


13/46


Manila6R%T 366%60N

G.R. No. 115351 Mar 2+, 199

PEOP!E OF T"E P"#!#PP#NES, plaintiff-appellee, :s.&$N#E! M$!UEN&$ alias(&ONG;O(< G#! )UENO< R$U! MON&$G$ alias()O)ONG(< a8 RO&R#GO!EG$RTO, ause8, &$N#E! M$!UE&$ a8 RO&R#GO !EG$RTO, ause8-a==e>>as.

P$NG$N#)$N, J.:

Conspirac# andor direct participation in a crie a# be proven b# circustantial evidence. and given b# the /idnap victi"s !ife, including the sub1ect otorc#cle !hichhas been paid for b# the victi"s ranso one#H E9h. +E+ !ith the do!n pa#ent as peragreeent advanced b# the couple Resus for a total cost price of P8(,*). E9h. ++ andto pa# the costs.

6ediatel# after proulgation of this decision, so as not to render the sentence iposedineffectual !ith respect to accused Rodrigo ;egarto, aliasRud#, the bail bond posted for hisprovisional release is hereb# cancelled and said accused ordered coitted to the custod# ofthe Provincial $arden of %urigao del %ur at Tandag, %urigao del %ur, preparator# to theservice of his sentence.6n the service of this sentence, all the accused are ordered iediatel# turned over to thecustod# of the 3irector, Bureau of Corrections, at Muntinlupa, Metro Manila, pursuant to theandate of %upree Court Circular No. 8-*4-A dated April 4, &**4.inall#, let =an> alias!arrant of arrest issue against accused ?il Bueno for distribution to thedifferent investigative and la!-enforceent agencies of the ?overnent for their possiblee9ecution and return, and hereb# consigning this case, !ith respect to said ?6; B@EN0, tothe ARC


14/46

6n vie! of the penalt# iposed, ;egarto, Maluenda and Mondaga interposed this appealdirectl# before this Court.( onl# produce P&,.. Mondaga told 3r.Resus to reserve the aount for he =!ould> get it the follo!ing orning. !aiting =for>her at %%6A, %t. Christine. 3r. Resus !ent !ith ;egarto at %%6A, %t. Christine !here the#et Mondaga, !ho 1oined the at the car after !hich the three proceeded to a desertedplace. Mondaga then handed to 3r. Resus the note !ritten b# Engr. Resus !here it !as!ritten the P4,. ranso. =sic> 3r. Resus told Mondaga that she =could> onl# produceP&,. Mondaga agreed to the P&,. on the additional condition that he =!ould>no longer return the otorc#cle of ;egarto and ins tead to give to ;egarto the aount ofP),. as pa#ent for the otorc#cle. Mondaga also instructed ;egarto to deliver theaount of P&,. and the original license of the otorc#cle. 3r. Resus and ;egarto then!ent bac/ to the clinic leaving Mondaga behind.At around &:5 p.. of August 4&, &**4, 3r. Resus, together !ith Nora ?ubantes, !ent to

;ianga to secure one# fro the relatives of 3r. Resus. %ince 3r. Resus" cousins !ere out ofto!n, the t!o proceeded to %an rancisco, Agusan del %ur to see 3r. Presentacion Manatad,the a#or of %an rancisco. 3r. Resus infored Ma#or Manatad about the incident and as/edthe a#or to give her an aount of P&),. in return for a PNB Chec/ 3r. Resus =!ould>issue. Ma#or Manatad gave her the aount after 3r. Resus issued PNB Chec/ No. (4&55-A2 in the aount of P&),. E9h. B. 3r. Resus gave the one# to Nora ?ubantes !iththe instruction to give the sae to ;egarto. @pon reaching 3iatogon, Nora ?ubantes gave theone# to her husband !ith the instruction to give the one# to ;egarto. ;egartoac/no!ledged receiving the one# fro Mr. ?ubantes on August 44, &**4.0n August 44, &**4, Mondaga arrived at the hut !here Engr. Resus !as and told that = sic> thelatter that he !ould be released but that he =!ould> coe bac/ to get the balance of theP5,. in three onths. 6n the afternoon of August 44, &**4, Engr. Resus and Maria

Abne !ere released. The t!o !ere driven b# ;egarto in Engr. Resus="> car.


15/46

Mondaga, Maluenda and ;egarto !ere later arrested b# the police.

Version of the DefenseAppellant ;egarto, the Resus couple"s forer part-tie driver, denies an# criinal involveentin the /idnapping. be

/illed, including hiself. i%id. this incident about and ;egarto !astold iediatel# to shut up. i%id, p. 4( ;egarto as/ed her of her decision but !as told to shutup again. i%id.3r. Resus rode !ith hi in the ol/s!agen car to!ards the area near the isheries %chool at%t. Catherine, ;ianga, %urigao del %ur. i%id. At soe point Mondaga 1oined the in the car.3r. Resus allo!ed Mondaga to sit at the bac/ !hile she sat in front seat beside ;egarto. The#tal/ed about the one#, and 3r. Resus pleaded that she =could> onl# produce P&,..i%id, p. 4' Mondaga agreed, provided the otorc#cle of ;egarto be included. i%id. ;egarto,at this point, intervened and told 3r. Resus not to include in the negotiation his otorc#clebecause the installent !as not #et full# paid. i%id. 3r. Resus then told hi to +1ust give his

otorc#cle.+ i%id Then, Mondaga told 3r. Resus that ;egarto !ould be the one !ho =!ould>bring the one# to Alegria. to bepaid as partial pa#ent for his otorc#cle. i%id$hen he filed his leave of his =sic> absence, he tal/ed to his %uperintendent irgilioernande and others !ho told hi he should have filed his leave of absence ahead becausenobod# !as detailed at the depot, i%id, p. 4* but he told the that, there !as an eergenc#because Engr. Resus !as held hostage and he =!ould> deli ver the one#. i%id.0n his !a# to Alegria, he et 3r. Resus together !ith her nephe! riding a police car i%id. but he ans!ered, he brought along !ith hiP&,.. i%id. 3r. Resus told hi to bring also the P5(,. and another P&8,.

!hich !as about to be given b# 3r. Resus. i%id.


16/46

!ould bring onl# P&,. because that !as !hat the# =had> agreed upon. i%id 6fMondaga ob1ects =sic> he =!ould> 1ust coe bac/. i%id. This !as confired b# 3r. Resus"nephe! i%id.;egarto proceeded to Alegria and subseGuentl# delivered the one# to Mondaga, !hichresulted =in> the release of Engr. Resus, together !ith Maria Abne. i%id, p. 5 Engr. Resusand Maria Abne !ere brought bac/ to ;ianga, !here the# et 3r. Resus. Ma#or ;a#no of;ianga coented that if not for #our driver and Maria Abne, Engr. Resus =!ould> not berescued. i%id. Engr. Resus and 3r. Resus reained at ;ianga, !hile he and Maria Abneproceeded to 3iatagon. i%id.0n %epteber &, &**4, ;egarto and Maria Abne !ere brought to the unicipal building toact as !itnesses for Engr. and 3r. Resus. i%id, p. 5& atunnel in Mahilo and offered Maluenda a fift#-fift# proposition to gold ine the tunnel.Maluenda, !ho =!as> a farer and at the sae tie a gold iner, agreed to the proposition.0n August 4&, &**4 at around ': o"cloc/ in the orning, Maluenda together !ith Mondagaproceeded to %itio Mahilo. @pon reaching ?arden, Tabis, %urigao del %ur, Mondaga triedto give Maluenda a pistol and grenade but Maluenda Guestioned Mondaga"s purpose forbringing the sae since the# !ere 1ust loo/ing for gold inside the tunnel. Mondaga in turn toldMaluenda to 1ust follo! !hat he =ordered> so that nothing !ill happen to hi, and thatMondaga =!ould> not hesitate to /ill a person, so Maluenda erel# follo!ed Mondaga as he!as afraid.Arriving at Mahilo, Mondaga and Maluenda proceeded to a hut !here the latter sa! Engr.

Resus and soe other persons. Mondaga ordered Maluenda to sta# in the hut and feed thesepersons. Maluenda in turn retorted that their agreeent !as to ine for gold, but Mondagatold hi +to 1ust follo! # order so that nothing !ill happen to #ou, or else 6 !ill blast #ourhead and /ill #our fail#.+ 6nside the hut, Maluenda and Engr. Resus tal/ed and planned toescape.The ne9t da# at around 4: in the afternoon, Maluenda, together !ith Engr. Resus, left but!hen the# reached Alegria, the# et Mondaga. Mondaga approached Engr. Resus, held hishand and said, do not be afraid because #ou can go hoe. Mondaga also told Maluenda notto report the atter to the authorities other!ise, the# =!ould> all be /illed.Maluenda denied that he !as at the clinic of 3ra. Resus on August &*, &**4. urtherore, hedenied having received an# one# fro Mondaga. T%N, Noveber 48, &**5, pp. )-)*

Ruling of the Trial Court

The trial court convicted ;egarto, Maluenda and Mondaga, holding that the# successfull#perpetrated a clear case of /idnapping. 6t gave coplete credence to the testion# of theprosecution !itnesses !ho it deeed unGuestionabl# reliable, sincere and candid. Thelo!er court held that Mondaga !as the asterind of the /idnapping. $hile Appellant ;egartoportra#ed hiself as a good %aaritan to the Resus couple, the trial court stated that he !asa !olf in sheep"s clothing and described his testion# as evasive, false and shallo!.The court a uo: +=A>s to ho! accused Raul Mondaga cae out to /no! that the Resus couplecould pa# ranso, the finger of suspicion points to ;egarto as source.+&&;egarto failed tosatisfactoril# e9plain !h# he did not testif# against Mondaga in the criinal case forcarnapping involving his otorc#cle. said /idnapping.+6 7 The lo!er court erred in holding, +that he has all the opportunit# to report such criinalschee to the police or ilitar# authorities, if he !anted to and his failure to do so plainl#indicated his part in the criinal planH and his actuations fro the outset in a criinal plan !asput to an =sic> effect, up to his rule =sic> in hand carr#ing the ranso one# !hich he turnedover to Mondaga at the ountain hideout !hich he /no! = sic> invetabl#, sho!s his active

participation as a co-principal b# =indispensable> cooperation.


17/46

7 The lo!er court erred in not giving credence to the testion# of Rodrigo ;egarto.6 7 The lo!er court erred in convicting the accused-appellant as co-principal of the crie of/idnapping for ranso defined and penalied under the last par. of Art. 4(' of the RevisedPenal Code as charged in the inforation and =in sentencing hi> to suffer the penalt# ofreclusion perpetua, !ith all the accessor# penalties provided b# la!.66 7 The lo!er court erred in ordering the confiscation of appellant"s otorc#cle.6n the %uppleental Brief, ;egarto"s other counsel adds the follo!ing issues:&5

6. The participation of ;egarto !as not proven be#ond reasonable doubt.66. ;egarto !as convicted on ere suspicion of one prosecution !itnesses.666. ;egarto =had> no otive in /idnapping Engr. Resus.6. ;o!er court erred in holding that ;egarto =!as> a co-principal b# indispensablecooperation.. The lo!er court erred in ordering the confiscation of the otorc#cle of ;egarto.or his part, Maluenda subits the follo!ing as his lone assignent of error: &8

The trial court erred in finding the accused guilt# of the crie charged despite the fact that hisguilt !as not proven be#ond reasonable doubt.or clarit# and order, the Court !ill separatel# discuss the participation of the appellants andthe probative value of the evidence presented against each of the.

The Court's RulingThe appeal is partiall# eritorious as regards ;egarto !ho, in the light of the evidence

presented, should be held liable onl# as an accessor#. 6n contrast, Maluenda"s convictiondeserves affiration, as his culpabilit# in the /idnapping !as clearl# proven.Legartos Culpa%ilit#Sufficienc# of Circu"stantial E$idenceThe solicitor general argues for the affiration of ;egarto"s conviction on the ground that thetrial court"s assessent of the credibilit# of the prosecution !itnesses is generall# accordedgreat respect on appeal.


18/46

Engineer Resus erel# said that he sa! ;egarto heading bac/ to 3iatagon.


19/46

reasonable doubt. 0ther!ise, the accused ust be set free in accordance !ith the rule thatconflicts in and insufficienc# of evidence ust be resolved in favor of the theor# of innocencerather than the theor# of guilt. 4'

(ae Circustances Do %otConclusivel" (ho) Conspirac"Although the trial court did not pass upon conspirac# as a source of ;egarto"s culpabilit#, !edee it proper to do so, since it !as alleged in the 6nforation. 6n theor#, conspirac# e9ists!hen t!o or ore persons coe to an agreeent concerning the coission of a felon# anddecide to coit it.40nce established, the act of one becoes the act of all. urther,conspirac# ust be sho!n to e9ist as clearl# as the coission of the offense itself, althoughdirect proof is not essential.4*Prior agreeent or assent to the crie is usuall# inferred frothe acts of the accused sho!ing concerted action, coon design and ob1ective, actualcooperation, concurrence of sentients, or counit# of interest. 56n ost cases, li/e theone at bar, proof of conspirac# is freGuentl# ade b# evidence of a chain of circustancesonl#.5&But such proof ust al!a#s be established b# evidence that satisfies the reGuireentof proof be#ond reasonable doubt.54

6n ;egarto"s case, conspirac# !as not at all established b# the prosecution. The failiarit#bet!een ;egarto and Mondaga is insufficient proof, as conspirac# transcendscopanionship.55Moreover, Mondaga"s act of eeting ;egarto on the road to Andanan doesnot sho! conspirac#, because a erel# casual or unintended eeting, li/e passive presence,is not proof of conspirac#.58%iilarl# insufficient as circustantial evidence to prove

conspirac# !ere Mondaga"s deand for the use of ;egarto"s otorc#cle, ;egarto"s collectingthe ranso one# and delivering part of it, and ;egarto"s collecting the ranso one# anddelivering part of it, and ;egarto"s failure to testif# against Mondaga due to either refusal orneglect. $e stress that conspirac# ust be founded on facts, not on ere inferences andcon1ectures.5)$ithout an allegation of an# overt act sho!ing counit# !ith the /idnappers,inferences do not adeGuatel# establish participation in a criinal conspirac#.5(

Legartos Cri"inal Lia%ilit#3espite its belief that ;egarto !as not a co-principal or a co-conspirator, this Court cannotcopletel# free hi fro criinal liabilit#. Established b# the prosecution are the follo!ing: &he reported the +loss+ of the otorc#cle to the police authorities despite the fact that it hadbeen given to Mondaga as part of the ransoH 4 he had received P5(, for itH 5 he paidthe balance of the purchase price of the otorc#cle !ith the said one#H and 8 he claied,

regained and retained its possession.;egarto a# not have had a direct hand in the /idnapping, but he received part of the ransoand used it to pa# off his arrears in his otorc#cle loan. Thus, having /no!ledge of the/idnapping for ranso and !ithout having directl# participated therein, he too/ part in thecrie su%seuentto its coission b# profiting fro its effects.5' #our residence, !hat happened, if an#J$6TNE%%:A: $hen 6 arrived at our house, the id!ife on dut# told us that !e =had> visitors, sir.9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9I: $ho !ere #our visitorsJA:AliasBobong ?onaga but his true nae, after interrogation b# the police !hich 6happened to /no! later, is Raul Mondaga, sir. And the other one is 3ong/o# but afterinterrogation b# the police, the# told e that the true nae is 3aniel MaluendaH then alias+Ale9+ !hose identit# is still un/no!n because he is not #et arrested. These !ere the three 5people in # residence at that tie, sir.9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

I: $hat happened, after introducing theselves to #ouJ9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9A: This Raul Mondaga dre! his revolver and also his grenade read# to be blo!n-up andintroduced hiself to us that NPA Coander ather %ion =had> instructed the to solicitfunds for the victis in the recent Melali, Agusan del %ur, ilitar#-NPA encounter, sir.The /idnap victi also testified that he conducted Maluenda and his copanions to Alegria inhis car the follo!ing da#:88

I: $hen #ou arrived =at> Andanan, !hat happenedJ$6TNE%%:A: As !e passed along Andana, 6 et Rud# ;egarto on the !a# going bac/ to 3iatagon = sic>,!ith his t!o 4 passengers alread# alighted fro his otorc#cle and !aiting for us atAndanan and then too/ a ride !ith us on our !a# to Barobo, sir.

I: $ho !ere #our passengers then !hen #ou reached BaroboJ


20/46

A: Paul Mondaga, Maluenda and aliasAle9, sir.Maluenda also guarded the victi at the far hut in Alegna. 8)

I: PR0%. CA;6F0$here did #ou goJA: EN?R. RE%@%$e !ent to the ountain and hi/ed for alost t!o 4 hours bet!een the boundar# of ?ardenand Alegria, sir.9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9I: $hile #ou !ere there, !hat happened ne9t, if an#JA: Raul Mondaga told e that he =had> forgotten soething, he =had> to go bac/ and 6 =had> tosta# there because the cap of the NPA still further a!a# and that !e =had> to pass the nightin that NPA hut, sir.I: $ho !ere #our copanions in that placeJA: 3aniel Maluenda and Ale9 plus another reinforceent, ?il Bueno, sir.9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9I: 6n the follo!ing orning, August 4&, &**4, !hat happened ne9tJ9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9A: $hen Raul Mondaga arrived !ith a note fro # !ife and that !as the tie !hen the#started to grind e, sir.9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9ATTD. A;6F0:

I: After the accused Raul Mondaga too/ the note fro #ou, !hat happened ne9tJ9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9$6TNE%%:A: 6 !aited at the farhut !here 6 !as guarded b# the three 5 persons, sir.I: $ho !ere guarding #ou at that tieJA: 3aniel Maluenda, Ale9 and ?il Bueno !ere guarding e at that tie, sir.Engineer Resus" testion# that Maluenda guarded the /idnappers" hideout !as corroboratedb# Abne, the houseaid, as follo!s:8(

I: $here !ere #ou bound for !ith #our copanions, Rud# ;egarto and Bobong ?onagaJA: To the forest !here Engr. Resus !as /ept or held, sir.9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9I: 3id #ou see Engr. ResusJ

A: Des, sir.9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9I: And !hat happened, after thatJA: Bobong ?onaga and Rud# ;egarto !ent bac/ to Alegria, sir.9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9I: $hat about #ou, !here !ere #ouJA: 6 and Engr. Resus !ere left in theforest =sic> !ith the guards,Alias3ong/o# and Ale9, si r.I: And !here did #ou spend #our night on August 4&, &**4JA: 6n the forest, sir.9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9I: And !ho !as one of the guardsJA:Alias3ong/o#,AliasAle9 andAlias?il, sir.

Although onl# Mondaga verball# e9torted one# and deanded ranso fro the Resuscouple, it is evident that the /idnapping !as coitted !ith Maluenda"s participation. Be#ondreasonable doubt, Maluenda"s actions e9hibited a counit# of interest and a concurrence ofsentient !ith Mondaga. ConseGuentl# inevitable as the# relate to Maluenda are the follo!ingholdings of the trial court:8'

. . . %ipl# stated, the !itnesses for the prosecution, in contrast to that =of> the defense, are, inthe Court"s, assessent, unGuestionabl# reliable, sincere and candor =sic> in their testionies!hich =!ere> ver# logical and credible.9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9and, as bet!een the affirative testion# of the prosecution !itnesses and that of thenegative versions of the defense, the forer =!as> ore stronger = sic>. The accuseds =sic>resorted to unfounded denials.9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9To suarie, the Court finds that a clear case of /idnapping for ranso =had> beensuccessfull# coitted b# all the accuseds =sic> charged in the inforation, !ho are all privateindividualsH that the victi of that heinous crie =!as> Engr. Miguel E. ResusH that ransoone# !as actuall# paid in consideration of his release on the third da# that he !as forcibl#deprived of his libert#H . . . .Accused Raul Mondaga, aliasBobong ?onaga, and Accused 3aniel Maluenda aliasCoander 3ong/o# have both been positivel# identified as aong the activeperpetrators. . . .

6nsofar as Maluenda is concerned, !e find applicable the !ell-entrenched rule that the factualfindings of the trial court are binding on the appellatecourt.86n this light, our earlier holding negating the trial court"s assessent of thecircustantial evidence pertains onl# to Appellant ;egarto, not to Appellant Maluenda.

$


21/46

' Rollo, pp. &45-&48. This case !as deeed subitted for decision on 0ctober 4*, &**( uponthe subission of the Appellee"s Brief. The filing of a repl# brief !as deeed !aived. Rollo, pp. &5(-&8'. References to the T%Ns !ere oitted.* %uppleental Brief for Appellant ;egarto prepared b# the Misa ;a! 0ffice, as representedb# Att#s. Claudine 0. Montenegro and 2oaGuin ;. Misa, pp. 5-&H rollo, pp. &((-&'5. Att#.Roeo C. Buenaflor filed the ain Appellant"s Brief for ;egarto.& Rollo, pp. 44(g-44(h. Appellant Maluenda"s Brief !as signed b# Att#s. E9altacion ;.Carlos, Arceli Adan-Rubin, Aelia C. ?architorena and 2err# . 6ba# of the Public Attorne#"s0ffice.

&& Rollo, p. 4&.&4 Rollo, pp. )5-)8.&5 Rollo, p. &').&8 Rollo, p. 44(-b.&) +%ec. 8. Circu"stantial e$idence& @hen sufficient. 7 Circustantial evidence is sufficientfor conviction if:a There is ore than one circustanceHb The facts fro !hich the inferences are derived are provenH andc The cobination of all circustances is such as to produce a conviction be#ondreasonable doubt.+ People vs. Ragon, ?.R. No. &)*5, Noveber &, &**', pp. -*H Peoplevs. erano, 4(8 %CRA )8(, ))8, Noveber 4&, &**(H and People vs. Maliit, 4(8 %CRA &(',&', Noveber &8, &**(.

&( T%N, March &(, &**5, pp. *-&&.&' People vs. Parel, 4(& %CRA '4, '5(, %epteber &(, &**(, per Bellosillo, (.& T%N, March &', &**5, p. )&.&* Rollo, p. 5&.4 T%N, March &(, &**5, pp. 48-4).4& T%N, March &', &**5, pp. )(-)'H and T%N, Noveber 45, &**5, p. 4'.44 I%id., pp. (4 O '.45 Rollo, p. 4&.48 People vs. Ragon, ?.R. No. &)*5, Noveber &, &**', p. -*H People vs. erano, 4(8%CRA )8(, ))8, Noveber 4&, &**(H and People vs. Maliit, 4(85 %CRA &(', &',Noveber &8, &**(.4) People vs. Casingal, 485 %CRA 5', 88, March 4*, &**), p. 88H and People vs. Abitona,

48 %CRA 55), 58, 2anuar# 4, &**).4( People vs. erano, supra, p. ))8H People vs. 3ulatre, 2r., 48 %CRA &', &4-&4&,%epteber ', &**).4' People vs. ?odo#, 4) %CRA ('(, '4'-'4, 3eceber (, &**).4 People vs. Abarri, 484 %CRA 5*, 8), March &, &**)H People vs . Ca#anan, 48) %CRA ((,'' 2une &(, &**).4* People vs. %alodaga, 48' %CRA *, &(, August ', &**)H People vs. 3ulatre, 2r., supra, p.&&*.5 People vs. Miranda#, 484 %CRA (4, (4', March 45, &**)H People vs. Torres, 48' %CRA4&4, 4&'-4&, August &&, &**)H People vs. Aso#, 4)& %CRA (4, (*, 3eceber 4*, &**)HPeople vs. Tai, 488 %CRA &, 44, Ma# 4, &**)H People vs. Copil, 488 %CRA &5), &8), Ma#&), &**)H People vs. 3e ;eon, 48) %CRA )5, )8(-)8', 2ul# 5, &**).

5& People vs. Miranda#, supra.

54 People vs. 0rehuela, 454 %CRA 4, *5, April 4*, &**8H People vs. illagonalo, 45 %CRA4&), 45-45&, Noveber &, &**8H onacier vs. %andiganba#an, 45 %CRA ()), (*),3eceber ), &**8.55 People vs. Padrones, &* %CRA 8*(, )(-)', %epteber &5, &** per %ariento, (.58 People vs. da. de Iui 1ano, 44 %CRA ((, '&, March &', &**5H People vs. Buntan, %r. 44&%CRA 84&, 85, April &4, &**5H People vs. ?arcia, 4&) %CRA 58*, 5(&, Noveber 8, &**4.5) People vs.


22/46


ManilaT


23/46

ta/ing the other P&,. fro his business profits. 4Abe1uela also closed his account !ithBanco ilipino b# surrendering his passboo/ and !ithdra!ing the balance of his deposit.Thereafter, the ban/"s accountant and interest boo//eeper discovered a discrepanc# bet!eenthe interest reconciliation balance and the subsidiar# ledger balance. The interest boo//eepercould not locate the posting reconciliation and the proof reconciliation.


24/46

urtherore, the court ta/es 1udicial notice of the practice of ban/s in allo!ing an#bod# todeposit in an account even !ithout the o!ner"s passboo/, as long as the account nuber is/no!n. Thus, even !ithout Abe1uela"s passboo/, the false deposits could still have beenposted b# Balo in the savings account ledger of Abe1uela. After all, the ledger is the record ofthe ban/ reflecting the transactions of the depositor, !hile the passboo/ is the record of thedepositor. More often than not, it is the ledger !hich is ore accurate and up-to-date. This isthe reason !h# depositors have their passboo/s updated for unrecorded transactions li/einterests, chec/s deposited be#ond clearance cut-off tie and ban/ charges.6n the instant case, the evidence of the prosecution clearl# points at Balo as the one !ho had

posted the bogus deposits in Abe1uela"s ledger.


25/46

the facts in Sa"son $' Court of Appeals&5 Phil. 4'' =&*)&. 6n %ason, the Court held theaccused guilt# of +estafa through falsification of coercial docuents b# rec/lessnegligence.+ T!o 4 out of ten & ebers of the Court dissented: Re#es, 2.B.;., 2. andConcepcion, 2. As far as 6 can deterine, ho!ever, Sa"sonhas not been overruled,e9pressl# or ipliedl#. @pon the other hand, the doctrine in Sa"son!as e9plicitl# follo!ed inPeople $' Rodis, et al. &) Phil. &4*8 =&*)*>, !here the Court held that the accused could beheld liable for the crie of +alversation of public funds through falsification of a publicdocuent b# rec/less negligence.+ Much the sae doctrine has been applied in both earlierand subseGuent cases: U'S' $' *alesa et al' &8 Phil. 8( =&**> alsification of docuents

through rec/less negligenceH People $' )lancas)( Phil. & =&*5&& @npublishedalsification of public docuent through rec/less negligenceH People $' LeopandoC.A. 5(0.?. 4*5' &*5 alsification of public docuent through rec/less negligenceH Sarep $'Sandigan%a#an&'' %CRA 88 =&**> alsification of public docuent through rec/lessiprudence.inall#, it ight be noted that the ponencia e9plic itl# found Abe1uela to have acted !ithrec/less negligence:... although Abe1uela !as una!are of the criinal !or/ings in the ind of Balo, henevertheless un!ittingl# contributed to their eventual consuation%# reclessl# entrustinghis pass%oo to )alo and %# signing the @ithdra@al slips' A%eGuela failed to eercise prudenceand care. Therefore, he ust be held civill# accountable. Ephasis supplied

Foooes& Criinal Case No. 54'4.4 T%N, p. ', 2ul# 4(, &*5.5 T%N, p. &', 2ul# 4(, &*5H p. ), August &', &*5.8 T%N, pp. 5-8, ( and 48, 2ul# 4(, &*5.) 0riginal Record, pp. &-&.( I%id, pp. *8 and &(.' 0riginal Record, pp. 4'-4. 0riginal Record, pp. 45)-45(.* 0riginal Record, pp. 4*(-54.& 0riginal Record, pp. 8-8&.&& Rollo, pp. &&-&4).

&4 Rollo, p. &'.&5 Rollo, p. &58.&8 People vs. ;ingad, )& 0.?. p. (&*&H Ephasis supplied.&) People vs. Balili, No. ;-&888, August ),&*((,&' %CRA *4, *H Ephasis supplied.&( ?aerlan vs, Court of Appeals, et al. ?.R. No. )''(, Noveber (, &**, &'* %CRA 4.&' Rule &&&, %ec. 4 c& Padilla vs. Court of Appeals, No. ;-5****, Ma# 5&, &*8, &4* %CRA )), citing PNB vs.Catipon, * Phil. 4( and 3e ?uan vs. Alvia, *( Phil. )).&* ?.R. Nos. '*&&-4). 3eceber &&, &*', &)( %CRA 54), 55.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

G.R. No. !-3002 May 3>, 192

T"E PEOP!E OF T"E P"#!#PP#NES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.CRESENC#O &O)!E, ET $! 8e@e8as, CRESENC#O &O)!E, S#MEON &O)!E a8

$NTON#O ROM$AU#N, defendants-appellants.&E C$STRO, J.:

This case refers to a ban/ robber# coitted in band, !ith ultiple hoicide, ultiplefrustrated hoicide and assault upon agents of persons in authorit#, on 2une &8, &*((, inNavotas, Rial. 0nl# five of ten accused !ere brought to trial, the other five naed onl# as+2ohn 3oes+ in the inforation having reained at large. T!o of the five accused !ho stoodtrial, Mateo Raga and Celso AGuino !ere acGuitted, !hile the trial court, the Court of first6nstance of Rial, iposed the death penalt# on the appellants herein, Cresencio 3oble,%ieon 3oble and Antonio RoaGuin The decision of the trial court is no! before @s forrevie! for having iposed the death penalt#.

Both the de ficio counsel for appellants and the then %olicitor ?eneral,


26/46

the care of Melvin 3oingo and the other one under the care of Ale1andro %an 2uan. Ataround &4:5 a.. of 2une &8, &*((, Cesar Re#es, assistant cashier of the ban/, !as near thecage of 3oingo !hen t!o en entered the ban/ as/ing that their one# be changed.3oingo refused, sa#ing that the# had no sall denoinations. %uddenl#, three en ared!ith long guns barged in and f ired at the ceiling and the !all of the ban/. The# ordered theeplo#ees to lie do!n, face do!n!ard and then deanded the /e# to the vault. $hen Re#esans!ered that the# do not have the /e#, the ared en aied their guns at the vault and firedupon it until its doors !ere opened. The# entered the vault and found that the# could not getan#thing as the copartents inside the said vault !ere loc/ed. Not being able to get

an#thing fro the vault, the ared en !ent to the t!o teller cages and too/ !hatever the#could la# their hands on. Not long after!ards, the en left, carr#ing !ith the the su ofP&,85*.*).2ust beside the ban/ !as a police outpost. 0n the night in Guestion, Pat. Nicolas Antonio !asin the outpost, together !ith %gt. Aguilos, Pats. Pangan, Burgos, Rosal 0capo and Cpl.Evangelists. !ere on dut# !atching the fish landing. %uddenl#, Antonio said, at around &:5a.., he heard a burst !hich he believed cae fro a Thopson.


27/46

% 7 $ala po, hindi /o sila sinasa!a# at hindi a/o /ui/ibo bastat a/o a# na/i/inig laang.&4. T 7 Bu/od sa narinig ong agnana/a! sa bang/o na usapan, ano pa ang iba ongga narinigJ% 7 %inabi nito !itness pointing to the picture of Rodolfo 3ion at ni 2ose Rondina na+MA;AL6N? L@ARTA T0, PER0 MA%DA30N? MAPAN?AN6B, AT LA6;AN?AN AD


28/46

non-eplo#ent of an# coercive eans !ith !hich to force the into revealing the naes oftheir copanions in the robber#, again negating the clai of torture and violence.6t is, li/e!ise, to be noted that appellants RoaGuin and Cresencio virtuall# confired theire9tra-1udicial stateents !hen the# testified in court. B# all the proofs as cited, persuasiveenough to sho! the voluntariness of their custodial stateents plus the positive denial of %gt.;acson, the onl# one naed aong the alleged torturers, that an# violence !as practiced b#the investigators, specificall#, the alleged deliver# of fist blo!s on Cresencio. pp. 5, (, ', &,t.s.n., 0ctober 4', &*(' the alleged involuntariness of the e9tra-1udicial stateents is full#discredited.

6t is hinted that the /illing of suspect Rodolfo 3ion !hile allegedl# attepting to escape couldhave instilled fear in the inds of the appellants !hich affected their freedo of !ill in givingtheir o!n stateents p. &4, Appellant"s Brief. This is a far-fetched arguent to proveinvoluntariness in the giving of the stateents, the /illing having ta/en place after theirinterrogation. 6n his suppleental stateent dated 2ul# ), &*(( E9hibits -4, p. 4, Record ofE9hibits, RoaGuin pointed to the person of Rodolfo 3ion.


29/46

copanions.


30/46


Manila%EC0N3 366%60N

G.R. No. 343* February +, 1991

PEOP!E OF T"E P"#!#PP#NES,plaintiff-appellee,vs.!U&O#CO C. &OCTO!ERO alias(ECO,( CONR$&O C. &OCTO!ERO alias(CON&R#NG,( a8 #RG#!#O C. &OCTO!ERO alias(ERGE!,(accused-appellants.

The Solicitor =eneral for plaintiff0appellee'Her"ogenes S' Decano for accused0appellants'

REG$!$&O, J.:Accused-appellants ;udovico 3octolero and his brothers, Conrado and irgilio 3octolero,charged !ith and convicted in the then Court of irst 6nstance, Branch 66, Pangasinan, of thecrie of ultiple urder and unspecified ph#sical in1uries, appealed fro the decision of thecourt a uothe decretal portion of !hich reads:$


31/46

P&4,.H the heirs of the deceased ;olita de ?uan 0viedo, in the su of P&4,.Hand the heirs of the deceased Marcelo 3octolero, in the su of P&4,.H and to pa# three-fourths 58 of the costs. The accused Antonio 3octolero is acGuitted, !ith one-fourth &8cost de oficio. &

The inforation filed against appellants alleges that the crie !as coitted as follo!s:That on or about the th da# of Noveber, &*', in barrio Binda#, unicipalit# of %an abian,province of Pangasinan, Philippines, and !ithin the 1urisdiction of this


32/46

door. Then he ran a!a#.


33/46

occurred #ears ago and she !as, at the tie she testified, on good ters !ith appellants assho!n b# the follo!ing testion# of ;udovico 3octolero hiself:I And even before Paciencia %agun 3iao# testified as one of the prosecution !itness sic#our relationship !ith her !as haronious and rather ver# closed sic being #our cousinJA Des, sir.I As a atter of fact, !henever she goes to %an abian to visit her relatives she did not fail tosee #ou in #our houseJA Des, sir soeties she slept in # house. &5

As to Maria %agun, !e agree !ith the court a uo!hen it held that +Maria %agun !ife of

Marcial %agun pointed to the three accused. ;udovico, Conrado and irgilio, all surnaed3octolero, as the persons !ho !ent up her house that night of Noveber , &*'. $hileMaria %agun a# have a grudge against the accused ;udovico 3octolero b# reason of thatprevious incident at the crossing #et, no reason or otive is sho!n !h# Maria %agun shouldalso iplicate Conrado and irgilio 3octolero in the coission of the crie.+ &8

$hen there is nothing in the records !hich !ould sho! a otive or reason on the part of the!itnesses to falsel# iplicate the accused, identification should be given full credit. &)

And !hen there is no evidence and nothing to indicate that the principal !itness for theprosecution !as oved b# iproper otives, the presuption is that he !as not so oved,and his testion# is entitled to full faith and credit. &(

6n an attept to disprove the findings of the trial court, appellant points to certaininconsistencies that allegedl# render the testionies of the prosecution !itnesses incredible.

These inconsistencies, ho!ever, are not so substantial as to destro# their credibilit#. Ascorrectl# e9plained b# the People, the seeing contradictions and inor inconsistencies in thetestionies of the prosecution !itness pointed out b# the appellants in their brief are ereinconseGuential variations on the part of each observer in relating his o!n observation of thesae incident. Contradictions and inconsistencies of !itnesses in regard to the details of anincident far fro deonstrating falsehood constitute evidence of good faith. Not all persons!ho !itness an incident are ipressed b# it in the sae anner and it is but natural that saide#e!itnesses should disagree on inor details. &'

6n fact, inconsistences and contradictions in the testion# of the prosecution !itnesses !hichrefer to inor details cannot destro# the credibilit# of the prosecution !itnesses. &And !herethe prosecution !itnesses !ere able to positivel# identif# the appellants as the authors of thecrie and the testionies !ere, on the !hole, consistent oil aterial points, the contradictions

becoe insignificant.&*

Nor can appellant successfull# assail the testion# of %gt. 3elfin RonGuillo !ho conducted theinvestigation hiself and personall# e9ained the scenes of the ultiple /illings. Credence isaccorded to the testionies of prosecution !itnesses !ho are la! enforcers for it is presuedthat the# have regularl# perfored their duties in the absence of convincing proof to thecontrar#. Appellants have not sho!n that this prosecution !itness !as otivated b# aniproper otive other than that of accoplishing his ission. 4

%gt. RonGuillo established that the reports !hich !ere received at the police departent of%an abian, Pangasinan shortl# after the cries !ere coitted !ere to the effect that the3octoleros !ere involved.


34/46

of appellants therefor is for less serious ph#sical in1uries punished !ith arresto "a#orunderArticle 4() of the Revised Penal Code. There being no odif#ing circustances, a penalt# oft!ent# 4 da#s of arresto "enorshould be iposed for said offense on appellant Conrado3octolero as an accoplice.The death of appellant irgilio 3octolero during the pendenc# of this appeal terinated onl#his criinal liabilit# but not his civil liabilit#. 4'

Also, !hile the death indenit# has been increased to P),. under current case la!, thesae should not appl# to ;udovico 3octolero, he having heretofore !ithdra!n his appeal andthe 1udgent rendered b# the trial court having long since becoe final and e9ecutor# !ith

respect to hi.

$


35/46

!ho !ere subseGuentl# identified during the trial as Lenneth lorendo and Eler Castro. Thecrie !as allegedl# coitted as follo!s:That on or about the th da# of 2une, &**4, in Iueon Cit#, Philippines, the said accused,conspiring =and> confederating =!ith> and helping . . . t!o 4 other persons, did then and there!ilfull#, unla!full# and feloniousl# !ith intent to /ill, !ith evident preeditation, treacher# anduse of superior strength, attac/, assault and eplo# personal violence upon the person of oneRE3ER6CL CAP@;0N? # 36F0N, b# then and there shooting hi !ith the use of a .44 cal.!ith trade ar/ +Paspar Aras+ bearing %N-4*(* !ith five ) pieces of caliber 44 aoinside, hitting hi bet!een his e#es and stri/ing hi !ith the use of a baseball bat in the

outh, thereb# inflicting upon hi serious and ortal !ounds !hich !ere the direct andiediate cause of his untiel# death, to the daage and pre1udice of the heirs of the saidrederic/ Capulong # 3ion.4

0n 2ul# *, &**4, Assistant Cit# Prosecutor Enrico P. Bringas filed a Motion to Aend the6nforation to include the use of a .54 caliber firear in the /illing of rederic/ Capulong. Thetrial court granted the Motion, and the Aended 6nforation no! reads as follo!s:That on or about the th da# of 2une, &**4, in Iueon Cit#, Philippines, the said accused,conspiring =and> confederating =!ith> and helping . . . t!o 4 other persons, did then and there!ilfull#, unla!full# and feloniousl# !ith intent to /ill, !ith evident preeditation, treacher# anduse of superior strength, attac/, assault and eplo# personal violence upon the person of oneRE3ER6CL CAP@;0N? # 36F0N, b# then and there shooting hi !ith the use of a .44 cal.!ith trade ar/ +Paspar Aras+ bearing %N-4*(* !ith five ) pieces of caliber 44 ao

inside and a .54 cal.firear" of still undeter"ined "ae , hitting hi bet!een his e#es andstri/ing hi !ith the use of a baseball bat in the outh, thereb# inflicting upon hi serious andortal !ounds !hich !ere the direct and iediate cause of his untiel# death, to thedaage and pre1udice of the heirs of the said rederic/ Capulong # 3ion. 5

0n their arraignent, Appellant Ed!in 3e era8and Roderic/ ?arcia)pleaded not guilt#. Theother t!o accused !ere at large. Trial in due course proceeded onl# against 3e era and?arcia. Thereafter, the trial court rendered the assailed 3ecision, the dispos itive portion of!hich reads:$


36/46

for Guestioning. group !hich perpetrated the crie,and iplicated Roderic/ ?arcia. the crie. the incident.

?arcia consented.At %tation ), %P05 ?uspid intervie!ed appellant and ?arcia. 6n the course of the intervie!,?arcia revealed the place !here he hid a .44 caliber gun, blac/ t-shirt and blac/ cap.According to ?arcia, lorendo as/ed the to !ear blac/ t-shirts. $ith the revelation, %P05?uspid, %P04 Rivera, %P05 ?acute and %P05 Castro, together !ith the suspects, !ent bac/to the subdivision and proceeded to a grass# portion near the boundar# of ilinvest 66 and %anMateo, Rial. The place !as near a cree/ and about ) eters a!a# fro the residence of?arcia T%N, pp. *-&8, %epteber 5, &**5. Trul#, the policeen recovered a .44 caliberrevolver, blac/ t-shirt and blac/ cap T%N, pp. &4-&5, August 48, &**5.$hile there, %P05?uspid and %P04 Rivera prepared a s/etch of the crie scene to reflect the e9planations andans!ers given b# appellant and ?arcia in response to their Guestions. As identif#ing ar/s,%P05 ?acute placed his initials +0?+ acron# for his first nae and fail# nae bet!een

the handle and c#linder of the gun, and on the nec/ of the t-shirt, as !ell as in the inner liningof the blac/ cap.ro the crie site, the policeen and the suspects returned to %tation ) !here %P05?uspid as/ed the if the# !ere !illing to give their !ritten stateents, to !hich the#assented. ConseGuentl#, the# !ere brought to the 6ntegrated Bar of the Philippines, IueonCit# Chapter, at Mala/as %treet, 3ilian, Iueon Cit#. The# !ere then introduced to Att#.Confesor %ansano, the =c>hairan of the ree ;egal Aid of the 6BP. Also, present at that tie!ere appellant"s relatives, including his other and sisters, and other la!#ers of the 6BP.%P05 ?uspid inGuired fro the if the# !ould agree to be assisted b# Att#. %ansano, +acopetent la!#er.+ The# replied in the affirative. Thereafter, the t!o conferred !ith Att#.%ansano.Att#. %ansano, a rebuttal !itness of the prosecution, testified that upon arrival of the suspects

=i>n his office, he reGuested the policeen, as a atter of polic#, to step outside the building inorder to assure that no pressure !ould be e9erted on the suspects even b# their erepresence T%N, p. (, Noveber (, &**(. After the# left, Att#. %ansano intervie!ed thesuspects for about t!ent# inutes, in foring the of their rights under the constitution andinGuiring fro the if the# indeed !anted to give voluntar# stateents. To the Guer#, thesuspects ans!ered positivel#. The# also affired their earlier declaration that the# !ere !illingto be assisted b# the 6BP i%id, pp. -*.


37/46

Ed!in de era aditted that, as of 2une , &**4, he and Lenneth lorendo !ere alread#close friends for about a #ear, soeties sleeping in the latter"s house at No. &( LaiasRoad, Iueon Cit#. house that orning and to bring Eler along. Lennethentioned that he, his girlfriend, and 3eo, !ho !ere then !ith hi, !ould be goingsoe!here first. 3eo, or Roderic/ ?arcia, !as another friend of Lenneth"s.

Ed!in and Eler later !ent to and arrived at Lenneth"s house at &&: a. Lenneth, hisgirlfriend, and 3eo !ere alread# ta/ing lunch, and invited the t!o to lunch. After lunch,Lenneth as/ed Ed!in to go !ith hi to ilinvest !ithout telling !h#. 6t !as 3eo !hoentioned to Ed!in that Lenneth !as going to see a friend. Ed!in !as not a!are if Lennethhad also as/ed the others to go !ith hi to ilinvest, but the four of the 7 Lenneth, Ed!in,Eler, and 3eo 7 later proceeded to ilinvest =i>n Lenneth"s car. Ed!in sat at the bac/ seat.The tie !as past &4: noon.Lenneth drove his car. @pon reaching ilinvest, Lenneth stopped at a house and the four ofthe alighted in front of the house. Ed!in did not /no! !hose house it !as. Lenneth andEler told Ed!in and 3eo to !ait near the car because the# !ere going to see a friend. Atthat point in tie, Ed!in /ne! the person=,> !ho Lenneth and Eler !ent to see=,> b# nae,never having et hi personall# before then. ro his conversation !ith 3eo, Ed!in found

out that the house !as !here 3eo sta#ed.Then, Ed!in heard the voices of Lenneth and his friend and the# appeared to be arguing +. . .. parang nagtatalo sila+ The voices cae fro soe t!ent#-t!o 44 eters a!a#. Not beforelong, Ed!in also heard a gunshot !hich cae fro !here Lenneth and Eler had gone to.


38/46

666T


39/46

persons cae to an agreeent, 4 that the agreeent concerned the coission of a crie,and 5 that the e9ecution of the felon# =!as> decided upon.+ &E9cept in the case of theasterind of a crie, it ust also be sho!n that the accused perfored an overt act infurtherance of the conspirac#.&*The Court has held that in ost instances, direct proof of aprevious agreeent need not be established, for conspirac# a# be deduced fro the acts ofthe accused pointing to a 1oint purpose, concerted action and counit# of interest.4

0n the other hand, the Revised Penal Code defines accoplices as +those persons !ho, notbeing included in Article &',4&cooperate in the e9ecution of the offense b# previous orsiultaneous acts.+44The Court has held that an accoplice is +one !ho /no!s the criinal

design of the principal and cooperates /no!ingl# or intentionall# there!ith b# an act !hich,even if not rendered, the crie !ould be coitted 1ust the sae.+ 45To hold a person liableas an accoplice, t!o eleents ust be present: & the +counit#+ of criinal designH thatis, /no!ing the criinal design of the principal b# direct participation, he concurs !ith thelatter in his purposeH+ and 4 the perforance of previous or siultaneous acts that are notindispensable to the coission of the crie.48

The distinction bet!een the t!o concepts needs to be underscored, in vie! of its effect onappellant"s penalt#. 0nce conspirac# is proven, the liabilit# is collective and not individual. Theact of one of the is deeed the act of all.4)6n the case of an accoplice, the liabilit# is onedegree lo!er than that of a principal.Conspirators and accoplices have one thing in coon: the# /no! and agree !ith thecriinal design. Conspirators, ho!ever, /no! the criinal intention because the# theselves

have decided upon such course of action. Accoplices coe to /no! about it after theprincipals have reached the decision, and onl# then do the# agree to cooperate in itse9ecution. Conspirators decide that a crie should be coittedH accoplices erel# concurin it. Accoplices do not decide !hether the crie should be coittedH the# erel# assentto the plan and cooperate in it s accoplishent. Conspirators are the authors of a crieHaccoplices are erel# their instruents !ho perfor acts not essential to the perpetration ofthe offense.Thus, in People $. Castro,4(the Court convicted Rufino Cinco, together !ith t!o others, as aprincipal, although he had acted erel# as a loo/out. The Court held that +their concertedaction in going ared and together to their victi"s house, and there, !hile one sta#ed as aloo/out, the other t!o entered and shot the a#or and his !ife, leaving again togetherafter!ards, adits no other rational e9planation but conspirac#.+ 6t a# be noted further that

Cinco e9ecuted a %!orn %tateent that the three of the, together !ith soe others, hadplanned to /ill the victi on the proise of a P), re!ard.6n People $. Ta@at et al.,4'the loo/out, Nestor Ro1o, !as convicted as a principal forconspiring !ith t!o others. The Court ruled that the conspirac# !as sho!n b# their conductbefore, during and after the coission of the crie. The Court also noted that, upon theirarrest, the# disclosed that the# had intended to rob the victi"s store and that the# did so inaccordance !ith their plan. 6n that case, it !as clear that all three of the, including theloo/out, !ere the authors of the crie.6n People $. Loreno,4the %upree Court convicted all the accused as principals becausethe# had acted in band. 6n acting as a loo/out, 2i# Marantal !as ared at the tie li/e theother conspirators, and he gave his copanions effective eans and encourageent tocoit the crie of robber# and rape.

@pon the other hand in People $. Cor%es,4*the Court noted that Manuel ergel /ne! of thecriinal design to coit a robber#, and that he cooperated !ith the robbers b# driving thevehicle to and fro the crie scene. 6n convicting hi as an accoplice and not as aconspirator, the Court observed that he !as erel# approached b# one of the robbers !ho!as tas/ed to loo/ for a geta!a# vehicle. the actual /illers b# casting stones at the victi, and

distracting his attention.+ The Court ruled that the# !ere accoplices and not co-conspirators,+=i>n the absence of clear proof that the /illing !as in fact envisaged b# the.+6n People $. Suare, et al.,5&$ilfredo ;ara erel# introduced the gang of Re#es to %uare !hointended to perpetrate the crie !ith the help of the said group. 6n ruling that he !as erel#an accoplice, the Court noted that there !as no evidence sho!ing that he +too/ part in theplanning or e9ecution of the crie, or an# proof indicating that he profited fro the fruits of thecrie, or of acts indicative of confederac# on his part.+6n People $. )alili,54the Court convicted appellant as an accoplice, holding that +in going!ith the, /no!ing their criinal intention, and in sta#ing outside of the house !ith the !hilethe others !ent inside the store to rob and /ill, =he> effectivel# supplied the criinals !ithaterial and oral aid, a/ing hi guilt# as an accopliance.+ The Court noted that there!as no evidence that he +had consp ired !ith the alefactors, nor that he actuall# participated

in the coission of the crie.+6n People $. Do%le,55the Court held that Cresencio 3oble did not becoe a conspirator !henhe loo/ed for a banca that !as eventuall# used b# the robbers. Ruled the Court: +Neither!ould it appear that 2oe 6ntsi/ !anted to draft Crescencio into his band of alefactors that!ould coit the robber# ore than 2ust as/ing his help to loo/ for a banca. 2oe 6ntsi/ hadenough en, all !ith ars and !eapons to perpetrate the crie, the coission of !hichneeded planning and en to e9ecute the plan !ith full utual confidence of each other, !hich=!as> not sho!n !ith respect to appellants b# the !a# the# !ere as/ed to loo/ and provide fora banca 1ust a fe! hours before the actual robber#.+6n the present case, Appellant 3e era ne@that Lenneth lorendo had intended to /illCapulong at the tie, and he cooperated !ith the latter. But he hiself did not participate inthe decision to /ill CapulongH that decision !as ade b# lorendo and the others.


40/46

after the decision to /ill !as alread# afait acco"pli. Thus, in several cases, the Court hasheld:=;>ac/ of coplete evidence of conspirac#, that creates the doubt !hether the# had acted asprincipals or accoplices in the perpetration of the offense, ipels this Court to resolve in theirfavor the Guestion, b# holding . . . that the# !ere guilt# of the +ilder for of responsibilit#,+i.e., guilt# as ere accoplices.5)

(econ# IssueBA#issi-ilit" of +tra/u#icial (tateentE9tra1udicial confessions ust confor to constitutional reGuireents. %ection &4, Article 666 of

the Constitution, provides:& An# person under investigation for the coission of an offense shall have the right to beinfored of his right to reain si lent and to have copetent and independent counselpreferabl# of his o!n choice. 6f the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he ust beprovided !ith one. These rights cannot be !aived e9cept in !riting and in the presence ofcounsel.9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 95 An# confession or adission obtained in violation of this or section &' hereof shall beinadissible in evidence against hi.6f the confession eets these reGuireents, +it is subseGuentl# tested for voluntariness, i.e., ifit !as given freel# 7 !ithout coercion, intiidation, induceent, or false proisesH andcredibilit#, i.e., if it !as consistent !ith the noral e9perience of an/ind.+5(

Appellant clais that his e9tra1udicial stateent !as inadissible, because it !as not ade inthe presence of counsel. Although Att#. Confesor %ansano of the Iueon Cit# 6BP ;egal AidCoittee purportedl# assisted hi and his co-accused in the e9ecution of their e9tra1udicial%tateents, appellant asserts that the la!#er !as in his office, not !ith the, at the tie.Appellant adds that he !as tortured.Appellant"s clais ust be re1ected. Att#. %ansano testified that he did not leave the at an#tie.I: Dou !ere involved in the interrogation fro the ver# startJA: Des, fro the beginning to the end of the intervie! until the bo#s signed their stateents.I: 3id #ou recall having at an# tie left #our office to attend to soe official attersJA: 6 never left the office to attend to an#thing.I: 6s that the usual anner b# !hich #ou assist persons referred to #ou b# the police insofar

as custodial investigation is concernedJA: 6t is our polic# that !hen !e assist =in> that capacit#, !e =!ant> to see to it that the rights ofthe accused or suspects are properl# =protected> during the course of the entire interrogation. 5'

6n fact, Att#. %ansano even chec/ed to see if there !ere torture ar/s on Appellant 3e era,and ?arcia and intervie!ed the t!o to a/e sure that the# understood !hat the# !ere doing.I: $hat !as #our purpose in as/ing the police officers to leave the rooJA: M# purpose in as/ing the police officers to step out of the building !as to assure #self thatno pressure could be e9erted on the t!o bo#s b# the presence of the police officers during #personal intervie!. Before !e allo! an# police officers to ta/e the stateents of peoplebrought before us=,> !e see to it =that> !e intervie! the persons personall# out of hearing andsight of an# police officer.I: After the police officers left the roo, copletel# left the roo=,> #ou !ere able to intervie!

the t!o accused nael# Mr. de era and Mr. ?arciaJ

A: Des, 6 spent about &) to 4 inutes intervie!ing the bo#s.I: $hat !as the nature of #our initial intervie! !ith these t!o accusedJA: 6 as/ed the bo#s Roderic/ and Ed!in if it =!as> true that the# =!ere> going to give their o!nstateents to the policeJI: And !hat did the# sa#JA: The# said #es, sir.I: $hat !as #our reaction to thatJA: Routinel#=,> 6 infored the about their rights under the constitution.9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

I: in an# court of the Phil., 6 !as satisfied that nobod# coerced the, that the# !ere neverthreatened b# an#bod# uch less b# the police officers to give these stateents. Casuall# 6as/ed the t!o bo#s to raise their upper clothes.9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9I: $hat !as #our purpose in reGuiring these persons to sho! #ou or reove their upperclothingJA: 6 !anted to assure #self that there !ere no telltale signs of torture or bodil# harcoitted on the=> prior to their =being brought> to the office. 6n spite of their =personal>assurances . . . , verbal assurance that the# !ere never hurt. 5

The right to counsel is enshrined in the Constitution in order to address, aong others, the

use of duress and undue influence in the e9ecution of e9tra1udicial confessions.5*

6n thepresent case, the Court is satisfied that Att#. %ansano sufficientl# fulfilled the ob1ective of thisconstitutional andate. Moreover, appellant"s allegations of torture ust be disregarded forbeing unsubstantiated. To hold other!ise is to stateents at the ere facilitate the retractionof solenl# ade stateents of the ere allegation of torture, !ithout an# proof !hatsoever.$hen an e9tra1udicial stateent satisfies the reGuireents of the Constitution, it constitutesevidence of a high order, because of the strong presuption that no person of noral ind!ould deliberatel# and /no!ingl# confess to a crie unless propted b# truth andconscience.8The defense has the burden of proving that it !as e9tracted b# eans of force,duress or proise of re!ard.8&Appellant failed to overcoe the over!heling prosecutionevidence to the contrar#.%ec. 5, Rule &55 of the Rules of Court, provides that +=a>n e9tra1udicial confession ade b# an

accused shall not be sufficient ground for conviction, unless corroborated b# evidence ofcorpus delicti.+ 6n the present case, the prosecution presented other evidence to prove the t!oeleents of corpus delicti: a a certain result has been proven 7 for e9aple, a an hasdiedH and b soe person is criinall# responsible.846t is indubitable that a crie has beencoitted, and that the other pieces of prosecution evidence clearl# sho! that appellant hadconspired !ith the other accused to coit the crie.


41/46

6n ruling that the crie coitted !as urder, the trial court found that the /illing !asattended b# treacher#, evident preeditation and abuse of superior strength. 0ne of these!as enough to Gualif# the crie as urderH the t!o others constituted generic aggravatingcircustances. The lo!er court e9plained that the evidence established evident preeditation,for lorendo"s group acted !ith deliberate forethought and tenacious persistence in theaccoplishent of the criinal design. Treacher# !as also proven, because the attac/ !asplanned and perfored in such a !a# as to guarantee the e9ecution of the criinal design!ithout ris/ to the group. There !as also abuse of superior strength, because the attac/erstoo/ advantage of their superiorit# in nubers and !eapons.

$e disagree !ith the court a uoin appreciating t!o generic aggravating circustances,because treacher# absorbs abuse of superior strength. 88


42/46

&5People v. Magallano, 4(( %CRA 5), 5&8, 2anuar# &(, &**'H People v. Albao, 4' %CRA&4*, March (, &**H People v. 0bello, 48 %CRA '*, 2anuar# &8, &**H People v. %ualpong,48 %CRA 8(8, 2anuar# 4, &**H People v. Tiple, 45' %CRA )4, %epteber 4(, &**8HPeople vs. 0rehuela, 454 %CRA 4, *5, April 4*, &**8H People v. illagonalo, 45 %CRA4&), 45-45&, Noveber &, &**8H onacier v. %andiganba#an, 45 %CRA ()), (*),3eceber ), &**8.&8People v. Capos, 44 %CRA 5', 0ctober 5, &**&H People v. %aavedra, &8* %CRA (&HMa# &, &*'H People v. Madera, )' %CRA 58*, Ma# 5&, &*'8.&)%!orn %tateent of Ed!in 3e era, p. 4H records, p.&.

&(I%id., pp. *-&.&'Art. . See alsoPeople v. Abarri, 484 %CRA 5*, 8), March &, &**)H People v. Ca#anan. 48)%CRA ((, '', 2une &(, &**).&Re#es, The Revised Penal Code, &4th ed., p. &55.&*People v. 3e Ro9as, 48& %CRA 5(*, ebruar# &), &**).4People v. Ca!aling, 4*5 %CRA 4(', 5(, 2ul# 4, &**H People v. Andres, ?R No. &44'5),%epteber 4), &**H People v. %ualpong, 48 %CRA 8(8, 2anuar# 4, &**H People v.;eangsiri, 4)4 %CRA 4&5, 2anuar# 48, &**(H People v. %alison 2r., 4)5 %CRA '), ebruar#4, &**(H People v. 0bunar, 4() %CRA )8', 3eceber &(, &**(.4&Art. &' of the Revised Penal Code reads:Art. &'. Principals. 7 The follo!ing are considered principals:&. Those !ho ta/e a direct part in the e9ecution of the actH

4. Those !ho directl# force or induce others to coit itH5. Those !ho cooperate in the coission of the offense b# another act !ithout !hich it!ould not have been accoplished.44Art. &, Revised Penal Code.45People v. Corbes, 4' %CRA 8(), 8'4, March 4(, &**', per Bellosillo, 2.H citingPeople v.;ingad, * Phil. ), &4, Noveber 4*, &*))H People v. ronda, 444 %CRA '&, Ma# &8, &**5HPeople v. Custodio, 8' %CRA 4*, 0ctober 5, &*'4.48Re#es, Revised Penal Code, &4th ed, p. )&). See alsoAGuino, The Revised Penal Code,&

Documents

Round Seven Cases Full Text (Alternative Circumstances and Persons Criminally Liable)