People vs Montealegre

G.R. No. L-67948

May 31, 1988

Facts:
Edmundo Abadilla was eating in a resto when he detected the smell of
marijuana smoke coming from a nearby table. Intending to call a policeman, he
quietly went outside and saw Pfc. Renato Camantigue. Camantigue joined
Abadilla in the resto and they both smelled the marijuana smoke from the table
of Vicente Capalad and Napoleon Montealegre. Camantigue collared the 2 & said
Nagmamarijuana kayo, ano? He forced them up, holding 1 in each hand but
Capalad pulled out a knife & started stabbing Camantigue at the back. Camantigue
let go of Montealegre to get his gun but Montealegre restrained Camantigues
hand to prevent the latter from defending himself. They grappled & fell on the
floor. Capalac fled and Camantigue pursued him firing some shots. Then he
stopped and asked to be brought to a hospital. Capalac was found slumped in the
street, with a bullet to his chest. Both he and Camantigue died the next day.
Montealegre on the other hand, escaped through the confusion. He was later
apprehended.
Issue/Held:
WON Montealegre was rightly considered a co-principal
corroborated with Capalad in the killing of the police officer.

for

having

YES. The two acted in concert, with Capalad actually stabbing Camantigue 7
times and Montealegre holding on to victims hands to prevent him from drawing
the pistol and defending himseld, as Abadilla had testified. While it is true that
Montealegre did not himself commit the act of stabbing, he was nonetheless equally
guilty thereof for having prevented Camantigue for resisting the attack against him.
Montealegre was a principal by indispensable cooperation under A17(3), RPC.
The requisites of this provision
Participating in the criminal resolution, i.e., theres either anterior
conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose & intention immediately before the
commission of the crime charged; &
o
Cooperation in the commission of the offense by performing another act
w/o w/c it would not have been accomplished.
But although there was no evidence of prior agreement between Capalad &
Montealegre, their subsequent acts should prove the presence of such
conspiracy. The Court has consistently upheld such view in previous cases
(People v. Laganson, People v. Cercano, People v. Garcia Cabarse, Dacanay v.
o

People). Montealegre was correctly convicted of the complex crime of murder,

qualified by treachery, w/ assault upon a person of authority.