G.R. No.

L-30028 May 3l, 1982

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.