THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CRESENCIO DOBLE, ET AL defendants, CRESENCIO DOBLE, SIMEON DOBLE and ANTONIO ROMAQUIN,defendants-appellants. FACTS: Late in the night of June 13, 1966, 10 men, almost all heavily armed with pistols, carbines and Thompsons, left the shores of Manila in a motor banca & proceeded to Navotas, Rizal to rob the beach-bank Prudential Bank & Trust Co. Said bank had an unusual banking hours, open from midnight till 8AM. Once docked in Navotas and taking advantage of the darkness of the night, 8 men disembarked from the banca and proceeded to their mission. Once inside, they started firing at the banks ceiling, walls & door of the vault. The 8 men then returned to the waiting motor banca with P10,439.95 & sped away. As a result of the shooting, many people got killed & injured. Among those who got killed were agents of the law. Only 5 of the 10 men were brought to trial, the rest still remain at large. 2 of the 5 accused were acquitted. It is only Cresencio Doble, Simeon Doble and Antonio Romaquin appealing in the charge of bank robbery committed in band, with multiple homicide, multiple frustrated homicide and assault upon agents of persons in authority. ISSUE: WON the three accused can be considered as accomplices of the crime. HELD: First, as to appellant Simeon, evidence shows that the malefactors met in his house to discuss the plan to rob the bank. This circumstance alone doesnt conclude his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The facts do not show that he performed any act tending to the perpetration of the robbery, nor that he took a direct part therein or induced other persons to commit, or that he cooperated in its consummation by some act without which it would not have been committed. At most, his act amounted to joining in a conspiracy which is not punishable. Simeon then was not a principal both by agreement and encouragement for his non-participation in the commission of the crime. Nor was it clearly proven that he had received any part/fruits of the looted money as to make him an accessory. As recommended by SolGen, Simeon Doble is entitled to acquittal with no sufficient evidence to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Next, as regards Romaquin & Cresencio, the malefactors who waited in the banca, both contend that their extra-judicial statements upon which their conviction was principally made to rest, are inadmissible for having been allegedly obtained by
force and intimidation, torture and maltreatment, and in violation of basic
constitutional rights to counsel and against self-incrimination. However, it must be noted that they didnt present any medical cert to attest to the injuries allegedly inflicted. More so that their testimonies match each others. And it should also be noted that Celso Aquinos testimony, as one of the accused, admitted that no violence was inflicted on him to procure his statement. This is evidence enough that the appellants could not have been dealt with differently as their co-accused Aquino who was allowed to give his statement freely. The extra-judicial statements of the appellants are convincing to show that their liability is less than that of a co-principal by conspiracy or by actual participation. Cresencio was merely in-charge of the banca and had no knowledge of the concrete plan and execution of the crime. The mastermind obviously did not extend confidence in him as he was only asked to provide a banca just a few hours before the commission of the crime. Nor was Romaquin considered a principle malefactor as there was a gun pointed at him by Cresencio to prevent him from fleeing away from the scene, evident to show that he never joined in the criminal purpose and that his acts were not voluntary. An accomplice is one who, not being principal as defined in Art 17 RPC, cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts. There must be a community of unlawful purpose between the principal and accomplice and assistance knowingly and intentionally given to supply material and moral aid in the consummation of the offense. In this case, the appellants cooperation is like that of a driver of a car used for abduction which makes the driver a mere accomplice. But it isnt established by evidence that in the meeting held in the house of Simeon that they all agreed to kill and not just rob. The finding that appellants are liable as mere accomplices may appear too lenient but evidence fails to establish their conspiracy with the real malefactors who actually robbed the bank and killed several people. RULING: Wherefore, Cresencio & Romaquin are guilty beyond reasonable doubt as accomplices for the crime of robbery in band. The penalty imposable upon appellants is prision mayor min. The commission of the crime was aggravating by nighttime & the use of a motorized banca. There being no MC, both appellants should be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of prision correccional from 5 years, 4 months, 21 days to 8 years of prision mayor as maximum.