[G.R. No. 155046.

June 26, 2006]

GERALDO BENJAMIN AVENGOZA v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Third Division
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUNE 26, 2006.
G.R. No. 155046 (Geraldo Benjamin Avengoza v. The People of the Philippines)
Before the Court is a petition for review [1] assailing the 27 October 2000 Decision[2] and the 14 August
2002 Resolution[3] of the Sandiganbayan, Third Division, in Criminal Case No. 20655. The Sandiganbayan
convicted Police Inspector Geraldo Benjamin Avengoza ("petitioner") as accessory in the crime of Murder.
cralaw

cralaw

cralaw

In the evening of 5 June 1992, petitioner, SPO1 Isagani Torrefranca ("Torrefranca") and PO2 Diosdado
Catacutan ("Catacutan") took into their custody Mamerto Victosa ("Victosa"), a detainee at Leon B. Postigo
Police Station in Zamboanga Del Norte. Victosa was under investigation for the alleged theft of a .38 caliber
revolver issued to Torrefranca. Petitioner, Torrefranca and Catacutan were supposed to bring Victosa to the
PNP[4] Police Station in Camp Hamac, Sicayab, Dipolog City where they were assigned. However, the
following morning, Victosa was found dead with his hands tied behind his back and with three bullet wounds
on his chest.
cralaw

Petitioner, Torrefranca and Catacutan were charged with Murder. After trial, the Sandiganbayan rendered its
27 October 2000 Decision. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, Judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. Accused ISAGANI TORREFRANCA y BAYANG is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as
principal in the crime of Murder and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with the
accessory penalties imposed by law, and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased MAMERTO VICTOSA in the
amount of FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS, with costs.
2. Accused GERARDO [sic] BENJAMIN AVENGOZA is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as
an accessory in the crime of Murder and is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging
from two (2) years ten (10) months and twenty (20) days of pricion [sic] correccionalas minimum to four
(4) years two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as maximum, with costs. Full credit for the
period of his preventive imprisonment is hereby ordered pursuant to Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code.
3. For lack of sufficient evidence, accused DIOSDADO CATACUTAN y ESPARAGOSA is hereby
ACQUITTED and the bond posted for his provisional liberty is ordered lifted.
SO ORDERED.[5]

cralaw

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground that Torrefranca never escaped. Hence, he could
not have harbored, concealed or assisted in Torrefranca's escape that would make him liable as an accessory
to the crime of Murder. In its 14 August 2002 Resolution, the Sandiganbayan denied petitioner's motion for
lack of merit.
Hence, the petition before this Court.
The sole issue is whether petitioner is liable as an accessory to the crime of Murder committed by
Torrefranca.

The petition has no merit.

Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
ART. 19. Accessories. - Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and
without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its
commission in any of the following manners:
1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime;
2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in order to
prevent its discovery;
3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principal of the crime, provided the accessory
acts with abuse of his public functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide,
murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some
other crime.
In this case, it cannot be denied that petitioner knew that Torrefranca shot Victosa. Catacutan testified that
when he returned to the vehicle, he heard petitioner shouting at Torrefranca and asking him why he shot
Victosa.[6] Petitioner was Torrefranca's superior officer. The Court agrees with the Sandiganbayan that
petitioner has the duty to disarm and arrest Torrefranca right at the scene of the crime. Yet, when
Torrefranca said "Takbo na tayo" ("Let's run"), petitioner agreed with him. After Torrefranca said "Takbo na
tayo," Catacutan asked petitioner what his order was. Petitioner just said "let's go." [7]
cralaw

cralaw

Even if petitioner believed Torrefranca's allegation that Victosa tried to escape, it is still petitioner's duty to
report the incident upon their arrival at their headquarters. Instead, petitioner instructed Catacutan not to
tell anyone what happened.[8]
cralaw

In People v. Antonio, the Court convicted SPO4 Nieto as an accessory for failing to arrest the accused after
the crime was committed in his presence. The Court ruled:
Appellant Nieto's actuations immediately after the commission of the crime demonstrate his liability as an
accessory. Being a police officer in the active service, he had the duty to arrest appellant Antonio after the
latter committed a crime in his presence, and which he himself witnessed. Unfortunately, he failed to do
what was incumbent upon him to do. Instead, he rode with the offender to the latter's house where they
stayed for more than five (5) hours.[9]
cralaw

Petitioner alleges that Torrefranca himself testified that when they reached the headquarters after the
incident, they were about to report the incident but the superintendent was asleep. Hence, they just
reported the incident the following day. However, there was nothing in the records that would show that
petitioner and Torrefranca reported the incident. Instead, as held by the Sandiganbayan, the incident was
discovered when Victosa's body was found and when Catacutan admitted what happened after he was asked
by petitioner's superior officer.
Petitioner, citing US v. Callapag[10] and US v. Caballeros, et al.[11] argues that mere silence of the
commission of a crime is not an offense under the Revised Penal Code. In this case, petitioner was not
merely silent. He failed to disarm and arrest Torrefranca. He did not report the incident to the authorities.
He instructed Catacutan not to tell anyone about the incident. The Sandiganbayan correctly ruled that
petitioner's acts had the effect and purpose of concealing the principal of the crime. Petitioner is liable as an
accessory to the crime of murder under Article 19(3) of the Revised Penal Code.
cralaw

cralaw

WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the 27 October 2000 Decision and 14 August 2002 Resolution of the
Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 20655.

SO ORDERED.