#79 ART 15 ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
INTOXICATION
G.R. No. 129256 November 17, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
JOEL PINCA y HUARDE, accused-appellant.
PANGANIBAN, J.:
RTC- Guilty of murder with treachery qualifying the crime with penalty of death.
CA- Affirmed the decision of the RTC, no aggravating circumstance, the proper penalty is reclusion
perpetua
SC- AFFIRMED THE DECISION WITH MODIFICATION, SHALL SERVE PENALTY OF RECLUSION
PERPETUA AND PAY THE HEIRS INDEMINITY EX DELICTO AS ACTUAL DAMAGES.
FACTS:
There are two version of the facts of the case, the version of the prosecution and the defense on the
night of the incident.
PROSECUTION:
 Afternoon of January 16, 1995, witness Gerry Abenir after disembarking from a passenger bus
which he rode from Tagbilaran City to Balilihan, Bohol, together with a friend, entered the
Madona's Bake Shop located at the public market of Balilihan, Bohol. Upon entering, Gerry
Abenir saw accused Joel Pinca [who] made a remark that somebody splashed [him with] liquor
[and that] if it were not for the presence of the shop owner, he would have inflicted injuries to
the person responsible.
 7:00 P.M. Gerry and the accused rode on a passenger motorcycle (habal-habal) driven by one
Wilfredo Lumantas on their way home to Del Carmen Weste and Dorol, Balilihan, Bohol. When
they were about to reach Gerry's place, they passed by the victim, Conrado Angcahan walking
on the road in an unsteady manner. The motorcycle stopped and both Gerry and the accused
disembarked. The accused told Gerry that he would wait for the victim for he was the person
who splashed [on] him liquor earlier in the afternoon. The accused got a piece of wood, waited
for the victim and once near, the accused suddenly and without warning, struck the victim
hitting the latter on the head rendering the victim unconscious and deprived of a chance to
defend himself.
 Gerry Abenir, who was gripped with fear, ran away towards his house and never reported the
matter to the police. However, at 5:00 o'clock in the morning of the next day, he started to
dress up to report the incident but police officer Victor Llano arrived and made an inquiry fo
[sic] the incident of which he (Gerry) obliged.
 The accused denied any participation. Gerry Abenir went home to his house but moments
later, two (2) police officers arrived and again they returned to the house of the accused, who
was no longer around. They proceeded to the police station and took down the written
statements of Gerry Abenir.
DEFENSE:
 Gerry Abenir together with a friend entered Madona's Bake Shop and ordered beer and then
offered to drink with them. While drinking, Conrado Angcahan approached Gerry Abenir and
asked for cigarettes. Gerry Abenir refused to give the victim causing the latter to murmur and
went away
 The accused and Gerry Abenir rode on a passenger motorcycle driven by Wilfredo Lumantas
and proceeded to their home. While on their way, they passed by the victim and Gerry
remarked that the said person Conrado Angcahan was the one who asked him cigarette. The
motorcycle stopped and both Gerry Abenir and the accused disembarked. Gerry Abenir called
the victim and once the victim got near to Gerry, the two boxed each other. Gerry ran and got a
piece of wood and used it in hitting the victim. The victim fell to the ground despite defending
himself using his forearm. While the victim was [on] the ground, Gerry Abenir struck the latter
hitting the head. He was told by Gerry not to talk.
 Police officer Llano arrived at his residence together with Gerry Abenir. Because Gerry made
signs not to talk, the accused did not give information to the police. After the police
investigation, he proceeded to Tagbilaran City to fetch his wife. While in Tagbilaran City, he
received an information that the police of Balilihan, Bohol were looking for him. He presented
himself to the police and he was placed in jail.
ISSUE:
WON Intoxication should be appreciated as mitigating circumstance?
HELD:
NO. Appellant belatedly pleads that intoxication should mitigate his penalty. He relies merely on the
prosecution's narration of facts which supposedly "indicate that the accused-appellant himself was
intoxicated at the moment of the attack," and "there was no evidence presented that [his] state of
intoxication was 'not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit said felony.
Ordinarily, intoxication may be considered either aggravating or mitigating, depending upon the
circumstances attending the commission of the crime. Intoxication has the effect of decreasing the
penalty, if it is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit the contemplated crime; on the other
hand, when it is habitual or intentional, it is considered an aggravating circumstance. 34 A person
pleading intoxication to mitigate penalty must present proof of having taken a quantity of alcoholic
beverage prior to the commission of the crime, sufficient to produce the effect of obfuscating reason. At
the same time, that person must show proof of not being a habitual drinker and not taking the alcoholic
drink with the intention to reinforce his resolve to commit the crime.
Appellant cannot simply rely on those statements of the prosecution. He himself must present
convincing proof of the nature and the effect of his intoxication. What appears undisputed in the
records, however, is that he had a glass of beer prior to the murder incident. Under normal
circumstances, a glass of beer is not so intoxicating as to diminish a man's rational capacity. It was not
proven at all that such amount of alcohol blurred his reason. This element is essential for intoxication to
be considered mitigating.
#80 ART 15 ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES Morales and killed him in the process. Thereafter, accompanied by the barangay captain,
INTOXICATION he went to the Town hall of Mangaldan, Pangasinan, and surrendered
 RABANILLO appealed the decision to this Court
[G.R. No. 130010. May 26, 1999]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VICENTE RABANILLO y ISSUE:
MAGALONG, Accused-Appellant.
WON the alternative circumstance of intoxication is present in the case?
DAVIDE, JR., C.J.,
HELD:

RTC- GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the felony of MURDER
SC- Appealed decision is AFFIRMED with the following modifications: Accused-appellant VICENTE
RABANILLO is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as principal, of the crime of homicide, and
not murder; and, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is hereby sentenced to suffer an
indeterminate penalty ranging from TEN (10) years of prision mayor as minimum to SEVENTEEN (17)
years and FOUR (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum
NO. While RABANILLO was presented to prove drunkenness among other extenuating circumstances,
he merely stated in his testimony that he joined his friends Domingo de Guzman and Elde Soriano in a
drinking session, but only for a short time. His friends started their drinking spree at about 11:00 a.m. of
that fateful day, and he was the one serving their "pulutan." It was about 12:00 noon that he joined
them. At past 12:00 noon, he helped his daughter-in-law in selling cooked foods. From 3:00 to 5:00
p.m., he was cleaning his house. The fact that he was able to resume his routine work belies his claim
that he was heavily drunk at the time he attacked the victim.

FACTS: The testimony of his daughter-in-law that RABANILLO had been drinking 4 x 4 Ginebra San Miguel
The undisputed facts[ are as follows: from 10:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.[29] is not sufficient to establish drunkenness. The remains no proof that
RABANILLO had taken such quantity of liquor as to impair his mental faculties. His own witness testified
 Aternoon of 9 August 1996, appellant RABANILLO; the victim Raul Morales (hereafter that he would drink liquor twice a week.[30] As pointed out by the OSG, this regularity of RABANILLO's
MORALES); prosecution witnesses Perfecto Suarez, Samuel Magalong, and Ramil Morales; intake must have increased his tolerance for alcohol to such an extent that he could not easily get
and several other persons were having a drinking spree at the store of Narcisa Morales, drunk.
mother of MORALES
To be mitigating, the accused's state of intoxication should be proved or established by sufficient
 At about 5:00 p.m., a certain Willy Vito, one of the participants in the drinking session, took a
evidence.[25] It should be such an intoxication that would diminish or impair the exercise of his willpower
bath at the artesian well nearby and jokingly doused Suarez with water. The latter tied to
or the capacity to know the injustice of his act. [26] The accused must then show that (1) at the time of the
retaliate but failed; he thus ran after the others and splashed them with water.
commission of the criminal act, he has taken such quantity of alcoholic drinks as to blur his reason and
 RABANILLO joined the game. He filled with water and tried to pour its content at someone, but
deprive him of a certain degree of self-control; and (2) such intoxication is not habitual or subsequent to
drenched MORALES instead. The latter reprimanded the former because water got into his
the plan to commit the felony.
ear. A heated argument between the two ensued and culminated into a fistfight. The two were
eventually pacified by cooler heads and were ushered to their respective houses, which were
just about 15 meters apart. The others milled around by the road.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES :
Evidence for the prosecution
TREACHERY, EVIDENT PREMEDITATION AND ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH—NO
 Half an hour after the fisticuff while MORALES, Suarez, and one Mauro Pascua were
having a conversion in the terrace of the house of MORALES, RABANILLO went out of his MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
house wielding a one-meter samurai. RABANILLO went straight to MORALES and hacked
PASSION AND OBFUSCATION AND VOLUNTARY SURRENDER---NO
him. Instinctively, the latter parried the blow, but he was hit on his right hand. When he
attempted to run away, he tripped and fell down to the ground. At this point, RABANILLO
hacked him two times more, hitting at his back and left shoulder. That same day,
MORALES drew his last breath.

Defense

 A while later appellant heard Raul Morales, then in the terrace of their house that is beside
appellant's house, shouting and challenging him to come out. Forthwith, appellant, irked
by the challenged, emerged from his house with a bolo on hand and attacked Raul
#81 ART 16-17 PRINCIPALS
G.R. No. 133527-28 December 13, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
JEANETTE (GINETTE) YANSON-DUMANCAS, POL. COL. NICOLAS TORRES, POL. INSP. ADONIS
ABETO, POL. OFFICER MARIO LAMIS Y FERNANDEZ, DOMINADOR GEROCHE Y MAHUSAY,
JAIME GARGALLANO, ROLANDO R. FERNANDEZ, EDWIN DIVINAGRACIA, TEODY DELGADO,
CESAR PECHA, CHARLES DUMANCAS (Acquitted), POL. OFFICER JOSE PAHAYUPAN
(Acquitted), VICENTE CANUDAY, JR. (Acquitted), accused, JEANETTE (GINETTE) YANSON-
DUMANCAS, POL. COL. NICOLAS TORRES, POL. INSP. ADONIS ABETO, POL. OFFICER MARIO
LAMIS Y FERNANDEZ, DOMINADOR GEROCHE Y MAHUSAY, JAIME GARGALLANO, ROLANDO
R. FERNANDEZ, EDWIN DIVINAGRACIA, TEODY DELGADO, CESAR PECHA, accused-
appellants.
MELO, J.
RTC- Acquitting Charles Dumancas and Police Officers Jose Pahayupan and Vicente Canuday, Jr. but
convucting the rest of the accused.
***13 accused- 3 acquitted, 10 convicted***
First 9 accused- GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT as Principals, suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and Cesar Pecha as Accessory to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of 2 years 4 months and
1 day of Prision Correcional as min as to 8 years and 1 day as Prision Mayor as max.
SC- accused-appellants JEANETTE YANSON-DUMANCAS and ADONIS ABETO are hereby
ACQUITTED and forthwith ordered released from detention unless there may be reason for their further
detention on other criminal cases. The case and appeal of NICOLAS TORRES is DISMISSED by
reason of his death. The convictions of all the other accused-appellants for each case filed are
AFFIRMED except for the modification that accused-appellant CESAR PECHA is sentenced for each
case to an indeterminate prison term of six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as
minimum up to eight (8) years of prision mayor, as maximum. Joint and several civil liability for the
accused-appellants found guilty as principals, is reduced to P50,000.00 for each case, as indemnity
forthe death of each victim, P50,000.00 for each case, by way moral damages, and P25,000.00 for
each case, by way of exemplary damages. The civil liability of accused-appellant Cesar Pecha is
maintained at one-tenth of the above amount.
FACTS:
 February 20, 1992 Jeanette Yanson Dumancas was swindled in a fake gold bar transaction
losing P352,000 to Danilo Lumangyao and his cohort.
 10:30 A.M. August 5, 1992 in the house of Rolando Fernandez Mario Lamis brought out the
plan to abduct Danilo Lumangyao and Rufino Gargar, Jr. because they swindled the
Dumancas family.
 The group of: a) Dominador Geroche b) Mario Lamis c) Rolando Fernandez d) Jaime
Gargallano e) Edwin Divinagracia f) Teody Delgado g) Moises Grandeza went to the office of
Col. Nicolas Torres at PNP Headquarters where they met the colonel who told them that if you
find these two people (referring to Lumangyao and Gargar) to bring and hide them at Dragon
Lodge Motel.
 8:30 A.M., August 6, 1992 State witness Moises Grandeza went to the house of Helen
Tortocion to invite Danilo Lumangyao and Rufino Gargar Jr. to "Tinolahan Eatery" at Shopping
Center Terminal but found only Gargar Jr., as Lumangyao went to the house of a certain
Bardot at BBB Avenue, this City.
 Moises Grandeza together with Gargar Jr. proceeded to the house of Bardot where they found
Lumangyao and thereafter the three of them went to "Tinolahan Eatery".
 The three arrived at "Tinulahan Eatery".Then a) Fernandez b) Geroche and c) Lamis entered
"Tinulahan" and handcuffed Lumangyao and Gargar. Lumangyao and Gargar were brought to
the Office of Jeanette at Ceres Compound on board red toyota land cruiser
 It was there that a) Divinagracia and, b) Fernandez manhandled Lumangyao and Gargar.
Jeanette then investigated the two victims on the whereabouts of the money that they swindled
from her and the two answered that it was already spent.
 It was then that Jeanette ordered Doming (Geroche) to take care of the two (Lumangyao and
Gargar).
 From Ceres Compound and while the group, together with the two victims, were already at
Dragon Lodge Motel, thereafter, a) Abeto b) Pahayupan, and c) Canuday arrived and
investigated the two victims regarding the whereabouts of the gold bar and the two replied that
it was with Helen Tortocion.
 4·:00 P.M. August 6, 1992 Moises Grandeza, Fernandez, and Geroche went to the office of
Col. Torres to inform him that Lumangyao and Gargar were already captured. So Col. Torres
ordered them to keep the two victims so that nobody would see them. After receiving this
instructions they went back to Dragon Lodge. Meanwhile, Geroche again interrogated the
victims on where the money was — if there was still any let and Geroche received the same
negative reply.
 Past 6:00 p.m. August 6, 1992 The group, with the two captives transferred to D'Hacienda
Motel. At D'Hacienda Motel, Jeanette and Charles Dumancas, together with Rose Ines arrived.
Jeanette and Rose Ines investigated the victims where they kept the money that they swindled
and the two gave the same reply that it was already gone. Jeanette then reiterated her order to
Geroche to take care of the two.
 The group transferred hotels twice before they returned to D'Hacienda Motel and it was there
that the plan was pursued to liquidate the two victims at 12:00 midnight.
 They searched the residence of Helen Tortocion for the gold dust and simulated gold bar per
search warrant 014-92 but the search was fruitless.The group, including the victims, partook of
supper which was charged to Roy Yanson.
 At 11:00 P.M. August 7, 1992 Geroche, Lamis, Fernandez, and Grandezarode on the red
Toyota Land Cruiser to conduct Geroche to his house. The victims were left behind. From his
house Geroche took an armalite rifle and the group then went back to D'Hacienda Motel.
 Lamis and Fernandez blindfolded and handcuffed Lumangyao and Gargar (Exh. "A" and "A-1")
and have them board a vehicle, They proceeded to Hda. Pedrosa in Brgy. Alijis. When they
arrived there the two victims were ordered to alight and sit by the side of the road. Geroche
then asked Moises Grandeza to hold the hands of Lumangyao and then Gargar behind their
backs. After that —
 Gargallano was the first to shoot. He shot Gargar at the back of his head using a baby
armalite. Then Geroche followed suit by shooting Lumangyao with a .45 cal. Pistol at his right
lower jaw.
 Thereafter, the two dead bodies were loaded on board the land cruiser and brought to Hda.
Siason where Pecha and Hilado buried them in the shallow grave they dug.
 In Sitio Cabalagnan were recovered Three (3) empty shells of armalite rifle and one .45 cal.
Empty shell In Hda. Siason were recovered the dead bodies of Rufino Gargar, Jr. and Danilo
Lumangyao. Both of the two victims hands were handcuffed
  The same group again went to see Col. Torres in his office and reported the extermination of 4.
the two and Col. Torres promptly gave the instruction that "you who are here inside, nobody
knows what you have done but you have to hide because the NBI are after you.
 The same group that liquidated Lumangyao and Gargar again went back to the office of Col.
Torres where they were asked by Col. Torres to escort him to Ceres Compound because he
would like to borrow money from Ricardo Yanson as Col. Torres said that he has huge debts
to pay. Col. Torres was able on this occasion, to meet Ricardo Yanson.
 August 13, 1992 Nenita Bello went to the office of Col. Torres to plead for his help in regard to
the death of her relatives Lumangyao and Gargar but was promptly turned down by Colonel
5.
Torres with the curt remark that her case was very difficult because it involves the "military"
and some "big times".
 The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Bacolod City also passed, on this day, Resolution No. 328,
series of 1992 urging the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to conduct an investigation on
the death of "salvage victims" Danilo Lumangyao and Rufino Gargar, Jr. as soon as possible
ISSUE:
Whether accused Yanson-Dumancas could be held liable of the crime as a principal by inducement.
6.
HELD
7.
Principal by Inducement
The record is entirely bereft of any evidence to show that Jeanette directly forced the participants
of the said meeting to come up with such plan, by either using irresistible force or causing
uncontrollable fear.
The only basis relied upon by the trial court in arriving at its conclusion that Jeanette is guilty of
the crime as principal by inducement, is the supposed “commands” or order given by her to
accused-appellant Dominador Geroche.
Likewise, there are 2 ways of directly inducing another to commit a crime, namely:
(i) by giving a price, or offering reward or promise, and
(ii) by using words of command.
The Court finds no evidence, as did the trial court, to show that Jeanette offered any
price, reward, or promise to the rest of accused-appellants should they abduct and later
kill the victims in this case.
By the foregoing standards, the remark of Jeanette to “take care of the two” does not constitute
the command required by law to justify a finding that she is guilty as a principal by inducement.
Furthermore, the utterance which was supposedly the act of inducement, should precede the
commission of the crime itself (People vs. Castillo, July 26, [1966]).

1. Article 17, Revised Penal Code, provides: 8. In the case at bar, the abduction, which is an essential element of the crime charged (kidnapping
for ransom with murder) has already taken place when Jeanette allegedly told accused-appellant
Geroche to “take care of the two.”
The following are considered principals:
Said utterance could, therefore, not have been the inducement to commit the crime charged in
(i) Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act; this case.
(ii) Those who directly force or induce others to commit it; and
(iii) Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without
which it would not have been accomplished. It was also duly proven by the witness that the intention of Jeanette was but to allow the law to its
course when she said that “Doming.
2. What the Court now has to examine is whether or not sufficient evidence was adduced by the
prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Jeanette indeed performed any of the
following acts: Yanson-Dumancas is hereby acquitted

(a) directly forcing the killers to commit the crime, or

(b) directly inducing them to commit the crime.

3. There are 2 ways of directly forcing another to commit a crime, namely:

(i) by using irresistible force, or

(ii) by causing uncontrollable fear. Upon review of the testimony of all the witnesses of the
prosecution, we find nothing to conclude that Jeanette used irresistible force or caused
uncontrollable fear upon the other accused-appellants.
(iii) bring these two to the PC or police and I will call Atty. Geocadin so that proper cases
could be filed against them.”
CASE # 82 ART. 16-17 PRINCIPALS
G.R. No. 99379 April 22, 1994
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
EDUARDO JORGE Y RAMIREZ, accused-appellant.
BELLOSILLO, J.:
RTC- guilty of murder and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua.
SC- the decision appealed from is REVERSED and accused-appellant EDUARDO JORGE Y RAMIREZ
is ACQUITTED of the crime charged.
FACTS:
 15 June 1989, an amended information was filed charging Eduardo Jorge, Romeo Lajera and
Remedios Bernales with murder for the killing of Francisco Palma with the aggravating
circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation. However, only Jorge was tried by the
court a quo because Lajera and Bernales managed to remain at large, although Bernales was
eventually arrested in August 1991 to face separate trial
The case of the government is woven mainly around the testimony of Patricio Ocenar, a barangay
tanod of Barangay Doña Imelda, Quezon:
 26 June 1990, at around nine-thirty in the evening, he was at the barangay hall. Then a person
informed him that Francisco Palma was being molested by three men. 3 Taking with him his
"knife-stick," 4 Ocenar proceeded to Paui Street pointed to by the informer. There, at a distance
of some ten arms length, 5 Ocenar saw Eduardo Jorge and Romeo Lajera holding the hands of
Palma and a woman 6 stabbing him on the left chest with a long instrument. Ocenar could not
tell exactly what kind of weapon was used. He shouted at them and all three ran away leaving
Palma behind to chase.
 Appellant Jorge, he denies any participation in the crime. He claims he was sleeping in his
house at the time of the killing and was only awakened when policemen, led by the widow,
forced him out of his house despite his protestations and profession of innocence, and brought
to the police station.
 Jorge now imputes eight errors to the trial court the salient points of which are: (a) in finding
the prosecution evidence sufficient to establish his guilt; (b) in giving full faith to the testimony
of Patricio Ocenar; (c) in finding him guilty of murder as principal without sufficient proof of
conspiracy among him and his co-accused; and, (d) in qualifying the killing to murder with
abuse of superior strength when such circumstance is not alleged in the Information.
ISSUE:
WON appellant is principal by direct participation, indispensable cooperation and accomplice in the
present case?
HELD:
PRINCIPAL BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION
NO. In order to convict appellant as a principal by direct participation in the case before us, it is
necessary that conspiracy among him and his co-accused be proved. No conspiracy here was
established. Conspiracy; like any other ingredient of the offense, must be proved as sufficient as the
crime itself through clear and convincing evidence, not only by mere conjectures. 9 Proof beyond
reasonable doubt is required to establish the presence of criminal conspiracy. 10 In fact, the appealed
decision does not mention, much less discuss, conspiracy.
Unity of purpose and unity in the execution of the unlawful objective are essential to establish the
existence of conspiracy. 11 In this case, no unity of purpose was shown. The only involvement of
appellant was his holding of the hand of Palma when he was stabbed by Bernales on the left chest.
There was no other evidence to show unity of design. The simultaneousness of the act of stabbing the
victim by Bernales with the holding of the hand of the same victim by appellant does not of itself
demonstrate concurrence of wills or unity of purpose and action.
While the holding of the hand of the victim could demonstrate unity of purpose, yet, it could also mean a
desire on the part of appellant to avoid a physical encounter between Palma and Bernales, a woman,
who was not known to appellant to be armed with a knife.
PRINCIPAL BY INDISPENDABLE COOPERATION
NO. To be a principal by indispensable cooperation, one must participate in the criminal resolution, a
conspiracy or unity in criminal purpose and cooperation in the commission of the offense by performing
another act without which it would not have been accomplished
ACCOMPLICE
NO. In order that a person may be considered an accomplice, the following requisites must concur: (a)
community of design, i.e., knowing that criminal design of the principal by direct participation, he
concurs with the latter in his purpose; (b) he cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or
simultaneous acts; and, (c) there must be a relation between the acts done by the principal and those
attributed to the person charged as accomplice.
The cooperation that the law punishes is the assistance knowingly or intentionally rendered, which
cannot exist without previous cognizance of the criminal act intended to be executed. 17 It is therefore
required in order to be liable either as a principal by indispensable cooperation, or as an accomplice,
that the accused must unite with the criminal design of the principal by direct participation. There is
indeed nothing on record to show that appellant knew that Bernales was going to stab Palma, thus
creating a doubt as to appellant's criminal intent.
CASE # 83 ART. 18 ACCOMPLICES
G.R. Nos. 102361-62 May 14, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
RUDY FRONDA, defendant-appellant.
BIDIN, J.:
RTC- accused Rudy Fronda, the Court finds him guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal by
indispensable cooperation for the crime of murder
Under cool reflection and fortified by the balm of clear judicial conscience, the Court enters a verdict of
acquittal in favor of the accused Reynaldo Agcaoili for the crime of murder as charged
SC- Appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt as ACCOMPLICE. Sentence to suffer 8 years and 1
day of prision mayor as max to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as min appealed
decision of the trial court is hereby MODIFIED to the extent above indicated and AFFIRMED in all other
aspects.
FACTS:
 At about 6:00 o'clock in the morning of June 11, 1986, the deceased Eduardo (Edwin) Balaan
And Esminio Balaan who are brothers, were take by seven (7) armed men in fatigue uniform
with long firearms, suspected to be NPA members, accompanied by accused Rudy Fronda
and Roderick Padua from the house of one Ferminio Balaan, at Barangay Cataratan,
Allacapan, Cagayan. The said Rudy Fronda and Roderick Padua are residents of the same
place. The armed men tied the hands of the deceased at their back lying down face downward,
in front of the house of Ferminio Balaan. The armed men together with Roderick Padua and
Rudy Fronda proceeded towards sitio Tulong, Cataratan, Allacapan, Cagayan passing through
the ricefields (taking along with them the Balaan brothers).
 Accused Rudy Fronda testified that on the night of June 10, 1986, he was taken by the NPA's
from his house, accompanied by Robert Peralta, alias Ka Jun and Roderick Padua, to look for
the Balaan brothers. They were around nine (9) NPA's with then. They found Edwin Balaan
and Esmineo Balaan, at the house of Ferminio Balaan, a brother. They tied their wrists/hands
and brought them to the mountain at Sitio Tulong, Cataratan, Allacapan, Cagayan. After that,
the NPA's instructed them to go home, but in the afternoon of the same day June 11, 1986,
Robert Peralta, alias Ka Jun, sent Elmer Martinez, Orlando Gonzales, George Peralta and
Librado Duran to get him and further he was ordered to get a spade and a crowbar. They were
ordered to dig a hole in the mountain, one (1) kilometer away from his house.
the trial court made a lengthy enumeration of established facts and circumstances which was made the
basis of the conviction of appellant, to wit :
 1) Appellant and Roderick Padua, and NPA member were the ones who pointed the house
where the brothers Balaan were to be found, 2) appellant and Roderick Padua accompanied
the members of the armed group to said house, and tied the victims' hands, 3) appellant was
handed a hunting knife by one of the armed men when they left the house, 4) appellant joined
the members of the armed group in bringing the victims to a forested area in the mountains, 5)
it was appellant who provided the spade and crowbar used in digging the hole where the
Balaan brothers were buried, 6) appellant was the one who pointed the location where the
victms' bodies buried, 7) appellant, for a period of more than three (3) years, failed to report the
incident to the authorities, and 8) appellant did not in any way object, when he was ordered to
tie the hands of the victims.
ISSUE:
1. WON accused-appellant could be convicted as a principal by indispensable cooperation
through circumstantial evidence?
2. WON accused-appellant could be convicted as an accomplice?
HELD:
1. NO. Records show that appellant's participation in the commission of the crime consisted of:
(1) leading the members of the armed group to the house where the victims were found; (2)
tying the victims' hands and (3) digging the grave where the victims were buried. However, it
has been established through the testimony of Alex Utrera, a former member of the NPA, that
appellant was only picked-up by the armed men for the purpose of pointing the residence of
the victims. The armed men never disclosed their purpose in looking for the brothers Balaan
who were former members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines nor did the armed men
inform appellant of their plan to abduct and kill the two brothers.
Furthermore, prosecution witnesses Freddie Arevalo and Gilbert Viernes testified that the
members of the armed group were accompanied by, aside from appellant, another barriomate,
Roderick Padua, known to be a member of the NPA (Tsn p. 8 & 76). Undoubtedly, ever without
appelant's participation, the assailants could have easily located the Balaan brothers thru the
assistance of Roderick Padua. Taking account of the number of the assailants alone, it is
apparen that the armed men could have nevertheless committed the crime easily without the
appellant abetting the commission thereof.
The acts performed by appellant are not, by themselves, indispensable to the killing of the
brothers Balaan. As aforesaid to be considered as a principal by indispensable cooperation,
there must be direct participation in the criminal design by another act without which the crime
could not have been committed. We note that the prosecution failed to present any evidence
tending to establish appellant's conspiracy with the evil designs of the members of the NPA
armed group. Neither was it established that appellant's acts were of such importance that the
crime would not have been committed without him or that he participated in the actual killing.
Under the circumstances, appellant cannot therefore be considered as a principal by
indispensable cooperation. The trial court, therefore, erred when it found appellant guilty as a
principal by indispensable cooperation.
2. YES. appellant's act of joining the armed men in going to the mountains, and his failure to
object to their unlawful orders, or show any reluctance in obeying the same, may be
considered as circumstances evincing his concurrence with the objectives of the malefactors
and had effectively supplied them with material and moral aid, thereby making him as an
accomplice. He cannot with candor, claim that he was unaware of the evil intentions of the
armed men which may have been the case had appellant merely guided the group to locate
the victims' abodes. On the contrary, appellant himself tied the victims' hands and even joined
the armed men in taking the victims to the hills. Appellant's complicity is made more manifest
by the fact that without any justifiable reason he failed to report the incident to the authorities
for a period of more than three (3) years.

Article 18 of the Revised Penal Code provides that an accomplice is one who, not being a
principal, "cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts". Under
this provision, a person is considered as an accomplice if his role in the perpetration of the
crime is of a minor character. To be convicted as such, it is necessary that he be aware to the
criminal intent of the principal and thereby cooperates knowingly or intentionally by supplying
material or moral aid for the efficacious execution of the crime.

It is well settled that if there is ample of criminal participation but a doubt exist as to the nature
of liability, courts should resolve to favor the milder form of responsibility, that of an
accomplice. (People vs. Doctolero, 193 SCRA 632, [1991] citing People vs. Torejas, 43 SCRA
158, [1972])
CASE #84 ART 20
PEOPLE VS ANTONIO
RTC
Antonio: Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder
Nieto and Cartalla: Guilty as accessories
FACTS:
On November 1, 1996. Antonio, Tuadles, and a certain Danny Debdani had agreed to meet at the club
for another poker session, their third night in a row. Debdani, however, failed to appear, so after waiting
for sometime, Antonio and Tuadles decided to play "pusoy dos". They continued playing until morning
and stopped at around 9:00 o’clock in the morning of November 2, 1996.
When it came time to tally their scores and collect the winnings from the loser, an argument arose.
It is at this point where the prosecution and the defense presented two very different scenarios.
The PROSECUTION alleged that Antonio pulled his gun from behind his back and shot Tuadles at very
close range, evidenced by the testimony of Jose Jimmy T. Bobis, a security guard who testified as to
how the shooting of Tuadles occurred.
On the other hand, the DEFENSE hinged its opposing arguments on the testimony of accused Antonio
himself, who testified that their argument was caused by Tuadles’ refusal to pay Antonio’s winnings. In
the middle of a heated altercation, Tuadles suddenly grabbed Antonio’s gun from atop a sidetable.
Fearing for his life, Antonio claimed that they grappled for possession of the gun, thereafter, a single
shot roared, Tuadles fell down to the floor, and Antonio cannot who had actually pulled the trigger.
Antonio alleged that the shooting was accidental, and his only motivation was to defend himself.
He also refuted the testimony of the prosecution’s eyewitness, averring that SG Bobis could not have
seen the actual shooting since he (Bobis) and co-accused SPO4 Juanito Nieto, who were alerted by
Antonio’s yells, reached the scene when Tuadles had already been shot and was lying on the floor.
While Tuadles lay bloodied and still, no one remembered to call an ambulance or check if he was still
alive.
The two security guards including the prosecution witness and SPO4 Nieto accompanied Antonio to his
house where he made phone calls and summoned his lawyer. Later Antonio, accompanied by Nieto,
surrendered himself and his gun to then San Juan Mayor Jinggoy Estrada at the San Juan Police
Force.
SG Bobis narrated the events and executed his statement at the police station before Aplellant Cartalla,
Jr., he said that he did not see the actual shooting since he was still ascending the stairs leading to the
second floor where the crime took place when he heard the gunshot.
Days later, in a second statement and in his testimony before the trial court, SG Bobis negated his
earlier statement, this time averring that he had indeed seen appellant Antonio pull his gun from behind,
and with neither warning nor provocation, aim the gun at the head of Tuadles and shoot the latter
pointblank.
On the otherhand, SPO1 Cartalla failed to produce the laser sight of the gun as evidence during trial.
RTC of Pasig City rendered judgment convicting Alberto Antonio for the crime of Murder of Arnulfo
Tuadles qualified with treachery. Accused Juanito Nieto and Honorio Cartalla were included as
accessories.
ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting Nieto and cartalla as accessories?
RULING:
The Revised Penal Code in Article 19 defines an accessory as one who has knowledge of the
commission of the crime, yet did not take part in its commission as principal or accomplice, but took part
in it subsequent to its commission by any of the three modes:
(1) profiting himself or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime;
(2) concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof in order to
prevent its discovery; and
(3) harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principals of the crime, provided the
accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or when the offender 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.
1. Nieto, 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 witnesses. 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 several hours.
A public officer who was present when the crime was committed abused his official function when he
failed to immediately arrest the offender and conduct a speedy investigation of the crime, but instead
left the scene of the crime together with the offender, thus assisiting the offender to escape. Being a
public officer, he is an accessory to the crime.
2. Thus, under the definition of an accessory under the Revised Penal Code and jurisprudence,
appellant Cartalla, Jr.'s omission does not make him liable as an accessory to the crime committed by
appellant Antonio.
At the time the laser sight was turned over to Cartalla, the crime or its corpus delicti had been
discovered. Hence, the loss of the laser sight could not have prevented the discovery of the crime. The
essential instrument of the crime, namely, a caliber .9 mm Beretta Model 92F with serial number BER-
041965-7 and black magazine had been preserved and presented as evidence.
Neither could Cartalla be said to have profited with the non-presentation of the laser sight as this was
not proved by the prosecution. Either way, concealing or profiting, there is no convicting motive for
Cartalla to have so committed. More so, as Cartalla was the investigating officer on the case.
It is submitted that the non-production of the laser sight by Cartalla did not make him an accessory to
the crime committed by Antonio, although he may be administratively liable for the loss of a part of the
evidence for the prosecution in this case.
Judgement affirmed with modifications.
CASE #85 ART 27
G.R. No. 130492 January 31, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
SALVADOR ARROJADO, accused-appellant.
MENDOZA, J.:
RTC- guilty of murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of 30 years of reclusion perpetua and to
pay the amounts of P60,000.00 as civil indemnity, P80,000.00 as moral damages, and the costs to the
heirs of the victim Mary Ann Arrojado
SC- AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant Salvador Arrojado is sentenced to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in its entire duration and to its full extent. Furthermore, he is
ordered to pay the heirs of the victim Mary Ann Arrojado the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity
and the further sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages and the costs.
FACTS:
In the early morning of June 1, 1996, accused-appellant went to the house cousin, Erlinda Arrojado
Magdaluyo, and reported that the victim had committed suicide.
In response, Erlinda, together with her husband Romulo Magdaluyo and her father Teodorico Arrojado,
went with accused-appellant to the house in Barangay Tanwue where they found the victim dead.
He said that the victim was the one who was constantly being scolded by her father who often found fault
with her.
When presented with the knife found on the victim's bed (Exh. C), accused-appellant admitted he was
familiar with the knife as he saw the victim using it in kitchen.1âwphi1.nêt
The RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and sentenced
him to imprisonment of 30 years of reclusion perpetua.
Issue:
Whether or not the trial court erred in imposing on accused-appellant the penalty of 30
years of reclusion perpetua
Held:
Yes.
In accordance with the ruling in People v. Lucas73 that the penalty of reclusion perpetua remains
indivisible notwithstanding the fixing of its duration from twenty (20) years and one (1) day to forty (40)
years,74 the trial court erred in imposing on accused-appellant the penalty of 30 years of reclusion
perpetua.

The victim, who was bloodied, was lying on her left side facing the bedroom door with her hands clasped In the with the ruling in Lucas, accused-appellant should suffer the entire extent of forty (40) years
together. On her bed was a rosary and a cruifix. Near her was a knife (Exh. C).7 of reclusion perpetua.75

Erlinda recognized it to be the knife kept in the kitchen.

Erlinda also noticed that the electric fan was turned on full blast, while all the windows were closed except
the window on the east side which was slightly open.
As he went to the other room, where the victim's father stayed, accused-appellant told Erlinda that he
was afraid he might be suspected as the one responsible for the victim's death. 8
Erlinda Arrojado Magdaluyo testified that the relationship between the victim and accused-appellant had
been strained as the victim constantly picked on accused-appellant even for the slighest mistake.
Another relative of accused-appellant and the victim, Thelma Arrojado, corroborated Erlinda's testimony.
Accused-appellant testified in his behalf. He told the court that on June 1, 1996, at around 6:00 a.m.,
Alberto Arrojado asked him for food, so accused-appellant went to the kitchen to find out if the victim had
already prepared breakfast. OTHER ISSUES AND RULING

When accused-appellant found that the victim was not in the kitchen, he proceeded to the victim's room.
From the doorway, he saw the victim lying on her bed, bloodied. Issue:

He thought that the victim had committed suicide because the victim had told him that she felt tied down
taking care of her father.
She in fact once remarked that "It would be better that my father and I commit suicide."
Accused-appellant said that the victim scolded him only once and that was for buying rotten cabbage. 17
Whether or not the victim was murdered by the accused-appellant
Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence can appreciated and would
elevate the penalty of murder from reclusion perpetua to death eventhough it was not alleged in
the said information.
Ruling: circumstances. This provision may be given retroactive effect in the light of the well settled rule that
“statutes regulating the procedure of the court will be construed as applicable to actions pending and
Yes. undetermined at the time of their passage. Procedural laws are retroactive in that sense and to that
In sum, the following circumstances point to accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the crime: extent.

1. Accused-appellant, the victim, and the latter’s father were the only ones living in the house in In this case, the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence was not alleged in the said
which the crime was committed in the evening of May 31, 1996. information the information, thus the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence cannot be
appreciated to raise the penalty to death.
2. No one from the outside can gain entry since all doors of the house were locked and the windows
had grills.
3. Accused-appellant had access to the victim’s bedroom because the bedroom doors were left
unlocked so that the victim could check on her father’s condition during the night. Accused-
appellant sleeps in the same bedroom as the victim’s father.
4. The murder weapon was a kitchen knife readily accessible to the occupants of the house . As the
Solicitor General observed, common sense dictates that if an outsider entered the house with the
intent to kill the victim, he would have brought his own weapon to ensure the execution of his
purpose
5. None of the victim’s belongings was missing or disturbed, indicating that the motive for the crime
was not gain but revenge.
6. Judging from the number and severity of the wounds (10 stab wounds, half of which were fatal),
the killer felt deep-seated resentment and anger toward the victim. Accused-appellant had admitted
those feelings to Erlinda Arrojado Magdaluyo and Thelma Arrojado.
7. Aside from accused-appellant, no one was known to harbor a grudge against the victim.
8. As the Solicitor General also pointed out, accused-appellant’s behavior in the morning of June
1, 1996 was inconsistent with someone who had just found his cousin and employer, a person he
claims to get along with, dead.[59] By his testimony, he did not even go inside the room to check on
her condition on the lame excuse that he was afraid. He also did not inform his neighbors about
the incident for the equally flimsy reason that he did not know them nor did he go to the police.
The supreme court held that the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence is present in this
case. For this aggravating circumstance to exist, it is essential to show that the confidence between the
parties must be immediate and personal such as would give the accused some advantage or make it
easier for him to commit the criminal act. The confidence must be a means of facilitating the commission
of the crime, the culprit taking advantage of the offended party’s belief that the former would not abuse
said confidence.[68] In this case, while the victim may have intimated her fear for her safety for which
reason she entrusted her jewelry and bank book to Erlinda Arrojado Magdaluyo, her fears were
subsequently allayed as shown by the fact that she took back her personal effects from
Erlinda.[69] Thinking that accused-appellant would not do her any harm, because he was after all her first
cousin, the victim allowed accused-appellant to sleep in the same room with her father and left the
bedroom doors unlocked.
No. Eventhough, the murder in this case took place after the effectivity of R.A. No. 7659 on
December 31, 1993 which increased the penalty for murder from reclusion temporal maximum to death
to reclusion perpetua to death. In view of the presence of the aggravating circumstance of abuse of
confidence and in accordance with Art. 63(1) of the Revised Penal Code, the trial court should have
imposed the penalty of death on accused-appellant.
However, The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure took effect on December 1, 2000,
requiring that every complaint or information state not only the qualifying but also the aggravating
CASE #86 ART 29 This conclusion is not altered even if the 115 grams found in Ms. Labriaga's possession, which was not
considered in the disposition of her appeal, were to be included in determining the amount of marijuana
PEOPLE V. RITA LABRIAGA AND JOEL LABRIAGA involved, as the total amount would still be less than 250 grams.

RTC
Rita Labriaga: Convicted of drug pushing and sentenced to life imprisonment
Joel labriaga: Convicted of illegal possession of amriajuana and sentenced to 6 years
and 1 day to 8 years and fined 6,000.00
FACTS:
Rita Labriaga was caught on January 28, 1988 selling two tea bags of marijuana in Daraga, Albay in a
buy-bust operation. Rita was also found in possession of 115 grams of marijuana.
The appropriate remedy of accused-appellant is to file a petition for habeas corpus considering that the
decision in this case is now final.
However, in accordance with our resolution in Angeles v. Bilibid Prison, and People v. Agustin, in which
we held that the rules on habeas corpus should be liberally applied in cases which are sufficient in
substance, we have decided to treat the motion in this case as a substantial compliance with the rules
on habeas corpus.
The accused-appellant Rita Labriaga, having served more than the maximum imposable penalty of
prision correccional, should be released.

She was charges for violation of R.A. No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs ActRegional
Trial Court of Legazpi City, Branch 10, convicted her of drug pushing and sentenced to life
imprisonment and fined P20,000.00.

Accused-appellant Rita Labriaga, through the Public Attorney's Office (PAO), filed this motion for
reconsideration with modification of sentence.

Accused-appellant prays for the retroactive application to her case of R.A. No. 7659 and for her
eventual release from confinement at the Correctional Institution for Women in Mandaluyong as a
consequence of the application of the new law to her case.

In her Motion for Reconsideration with Modification of Sentence, Rita Labriaga invokes the ruling in
People v. Simon, that if the quantity of marijuana involved is less than 250 grams, the penalty
imposable is prision correccional, that is, 6 months and 1 day to 6 years, Rita Labriaga contends that as
the quantity of marijuana involved in her case is only 2 tea bags and the amount of the marijuana in her
case would approximately be 1.9 grams only and therefore the penalty of life imprisonment originally
meted out to her should be reduced to prision correccional.

ISSUE:

WON labriaga should be released having served more than the maximum imposable penalty?

RULING:

The attached prison records of the accused-appellant (Annexes C and D) show that she has been
confined in the Correctional Institution for Women since March 20, 1990.

She has been credited in the service of her sentence with 1 year, 7 months and 2 days, the time she
spent under preventive imprisonment, and has actually served (as of August 17, 1995), inclusive of
good conduct time allowances, 6 years, 5 months and 1 day.

Considering the quantity of marijuana involved and the period of her incarceration, which is more than
the maximum penalty of prision correccional, the Court finds merit in the accused-appellant's motion.