PEOPLE VS.

DELA CERNA Serapio Maquiling followed him and shot the

latter at the back, killing him a few meters
21 SCRA 569 (1967)
away from Demetrio's house. Appellant
Nature: An appeal from a decision of the Sulpicio de la Cerna then got back the
Court of First Instance of Cotabato finding the carbine, climbed up the house and fired once
accused guilty for double murder. more at Rafael, who was now lying down on
the floor, killing him finally. Thereafter, the
FACTS: Early in the morning of February 3,
cadaver of Casiano Cabizares was tied to a
1958, Rafael Cabizares, accompanied by his
bamboo pole, carried by accused Ramon
wife, Hospicia, his brothers Margarito and
Alquizar and one Wilfredo Malias (at large)
Romualdo, and his sons Gumercindo, Marcelo,
and placed near the burned house of Sulpicio
Casiano, Juan and Lamberto, left Barrio
de la Cerna, as some of the accused followed
Cebuano headed for the poblacion of Tupi,
while the rest proceeded to Rafael's house.
Cotabato, bringing five sacks of corn loaded
on a bull cart to be milled in Tupi, Juan, ISSUE: Whether the five appellants are all
Marcelo and Lamberto, who were all minors, guilty as principals?
were then going to school. Upon approaching
Held: The five appellants guilty as co-
a hilly part, they had to stop since the
principals in the murder of Rafael Cabizares.
carabao could not pull the bull cart uphill.
Rafael then requested his two brothers and The positive identification of the
his son Gumercindo to accompany him up the several prosecution witnesses must prevail
hill and carry on their backs the sacks of corn. over the alibis proffered by these appellants.
With Rafael leading, the four proceeded uphill. Their presence and active participation in the
meeting in Abapo's house make them actual
As the four approached Sulpicio de la
conspirators in the killing of Rafael. They were
Cerna's house oiltop of the hill and were about
also present and zealously participating in the
to put down the sacks of corn, appellant
execution of their criminal design, giving a
Sulpicio, who was in the house, fired at and
carbine magazine and instructionns to
hit Rafael, who fell down. Sulpicio then
appellant Rotor, threatening Rafael and giving
ordered his companions to burn his house so
encouragement to Sulpicio to shoot at the
that they would have an excuse. Meanwhile,
latter. They were among those who laid siege
Casiano, Gumercindo, Marcelo and Romualdo
to Demetrio's house and left together with the
brought the wounded Rafael Cabizares to the
others after finally accomplishing their
house of the latter's father, Demetrio, 100
criminal deeds as agreed upon. Appellants
meters away. Felisa Bastismo, Rafael's
Bautista and Matchoca, are therefore also
mother, Ursula Cabizares and Segundino
liable as co-principals in Rafael's murder.
Cabizares were there at the time.
Regarding motive, it was proved that both
After the group reached the house, were among those involved in the land
Rafael's wounds were washed with hot water conflict with Rafael Cabizares and were
and then he was brought inside the third room among the respondents in the case before the
of the house. Subsequently, appellant Sulpicio Agrarian Court
and the other accused arrived at the
The aggravating circumstance of
premises, armed with firearms, bolos and
treachery, applicable against appellant
canes. They stoned the house and thrust their
Sulpicio de la Cerna only, is offset by his
bolos thru the bamboo walls and flooring.
voluntary surrender after the incident. This
Finding that there were women inside the
mitigating circumstance however cannot
house, the accused ordered them to get out
benefit the remaining appellant who did not
or else they would be killed also. As Felisa
voluntary surrender. For all the appellants,
Bastismo and Ursula Cabizares alighted from
therefore, the penalty for Rafael Cabizares'
the besieged house, Marcelo Cabizares
murder must be imposed in the medium
followed them, and although held by accused
period. For the killing of Casiano Cabizares
Conrado Pardillo and boxed by Serapio
appellant Sulpicio de la Cerna must be
Maquiling, he was able to escape to the
acquitted.
nearby forest.
Serapio Maquiling then climbed up the
window of the kitchen, and with the carbine Abejuela v. People
which he got from appellant Sulpicio de la
August 19, 1991
Cerna, shot at Rafael Cabizares who was
sitting in the third room. At this moment, Who incurs criminal liability Accomplice
Casiano Cabizares jumped down from the
Fernan, J:
house thru the kitchen door and ran away.
Facts:
This is a case of estafa.
Abejuela became close friends with
Balo, a Banco Filipino employee.
Abejuela has an account with Banco
Filipino.
Balo borrowed Abejuelas passbook
with Banco Filipino and used it to
deposit and withdraw money, even
amounting to almost 200k. He told
Abejuela that what he was depositing
were from the insurance proceeds of
his grandfather but that as a Banco
Filipino employee he could not open
his own account and so had to use
Abejuelas.
It was found that Balo used his being
an employee of the bank to post false
deposits. Abejuela did not know of this
and when he started getting
suspicious, he actually even closed his
account with Banco Filipino to prevent
Balo from continuing. Both Balo and
Abejuela were charged with Estafa.
During pendency of the case, Balo was
purportedly killed by the NPA. The
trials continued for Abejuela.
RTC ruled that Abejuela is an
accomplice to the crime. CA affirmed
the rtc decision.
Issue:
Whether or not Abejuela is an
accomplice to the crime of estafa.
Ratio:
NO HE IS NOT.
o After carefully weighing the
arguments of both parties as
well as taking into
consideration the evidence on
record, we are inclined to
believe that petitioner Abejuela
was completely unaware of the
malevolent scheme of Balo.
From Balo's own admissions, it
was he who deceived Abejuela
through sweet talk, assurances,
drinking sprees and parties and
cajoled him into giving in to his
requests. Furthermore, during
that time, nobody would have
questioned Balo's source of
money and since he had a
perfect alibi, i.e. the insurance
proceeds of his later father.
When Balo showed Abejuela
some checks purporting to be
his father's insurance proceeds,
Abejuela was hoodwinked into
believing that Balo indeed had
money. Balo's request to borrow
Abejuela's passbook in order to
facilitate the encashment of the
checks seemed reasonable
enough, considering that they
were close friends and
"compadres".
On being an accomplice:
o Knowledge of the criminal
intent of the principal in
this case, (Glicerio Balo, Jr.)
is essential in order that
petitioner Abejuela can be
convicted as an accomplice
in the crime of estafa thru
falsification of commercial
document. To be convicted as
an accomplice, there must be
cooperation in the execution of
the offense by previous or
simultaneous acts. However,
the cooperation which the
law punishes is the
assistance rendered
knowingly or intentionally,
which assistance cannot be said
to exist without the prior
cognizance of the offense
intended to be committed.
In a number of cases decided by the
court, it has been held that knowledge
of the criminal intention of the
principal is indispensable in order to
hold a person liable as an accomplice.
It has been satisfactorily
established that Banco Filipino suffered
damage. Although abejuela was
unaware of the criminal workings of
Balo, he nevertheless contributed to
their eventual consummation by
recklessly entrusting his passbook
to Balo and by signing the withdrawal
slips. He failed to exercise prudence
and care. Therefore he must be held
civilly accountable.
Ruling: Abejuela is acquitted.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-
appellee, vs. Pat. RICARTE MADALI and
ANNIE MORTEL MADALI, defendants-
appellants.
Criminal Law; Evidence; Credibility of
witnesses; Matters of credibility are ordinarily
addressed to the discretion and discernment
of the trial court which is presumed to have
observed the demeanor of the witnesses at
the stand.Matters of credibility are ordinarily
addressed to the discretion and discernment
of the trial court which is presumed to have
observed the demeanor of the witnesses at
the stand. While the ponente of the decision
below was able to hear only the testimony of
accused Ricarte Madali, the Court sees no
reason for not giving sufficient weight to his
factual findings considering that he took pains
in thoroughly studying the case even to the
extent of conducting an ocular inspection of
the scene of the crimes and hearing part of
the cross-examination of Madali thereat.
Same; Same; Murder; Self-defense; For self-
defense to prosper, it must be positively
shown that there was a previous unlawful and
unprovoked attack that placed the
defendant's life in danger and forced him to
inflict more or less severe wounds upon his
assailant employing therefore reasonable
means to resist the said attack.The defense
is anchored on the justifying circumstance of
self-defense. In order that such plea can
prosper, it must be positively shown that
there was a previous unlawful and
unprovoked attack that placed the
defendant's life in danger and forced him to
inflict more or less severe wounds upon his
assailant, employing therefor reasonable
means to resist the said attack.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Defense
miserably failed to pass said test.The
defense miserably failed to pass said test. Its
allegation that the Madali residence was
hurled with stones before Madali confronted
the Gasang group, was not credibly
established. No one was able to positively
identify the stone-throwers. Not even Madali
and his wife, Annie. There is no proof that the
stones found in the Madali yard were indeed
the stones thrown at their house. It is
interesting to note that even defense witness
Antonio Morales, a fellow policeman of Madali,
testified that he did not have personal
knowledge on where the stones were
discovered because he was only informed by
Galang (another policeman) "who in turn was
only told by Ricarte that the latter was
stoned."
Same; Same; Same; Same; Madali's means of
resisting them was unreasonable under the
circumstances.Granting that Agustin Reloj
and Felix and Cipriano Gasang were armed
with clubs and a knife, Madali's means of
resisting them was unreasonable under the
circumstance. Having known that an
interloper was inside his yard, Madali, being a
policeman, should have first fired a warning
shot to deter said intruder from executing
whatever vicious plans he had, As it were, he
fired directly at his victims and all four shots
hit their targets.
Same; Same; Same; Lower court correct in
characterizing the felonious assault on
Agustin Reloj as frustrated murder.The
lower court is correct in characterizing the
felonious assault on Agustin Reloj as
frustrated murder. While Agustin Reloj was hit
only below his right hip, Madali's act of
shooting was plainly attended by an intent to
kill. This is evidenced by the revealing
statements of Madali while accosting Agustin
Reloj some fifteen (15) meters from Madali's
house, thus: "So you are here, you devil, now
you are finished. he have been waiting for
you. he have been waiting for you for three
night already." The statements "now you are
finished" and "I have been waiting for you for
three nights already" sufficiently show that
Madali not only intended to do away with
Agustin Reloj but also that the crime had been
premeditated.
Same; Same; Same; No doubt that Madali
committed murder when he shot Felix Gasang
twice in the body.There is likewise no doubt
that Madali committed murder when he shot
Felix Gasang twice in the body. Treachery
qualified the killing to murder punishable
under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.
There was treachery because of the
suddenness of the attack. Felix was raising his
hands, and saying that he would not fight
back when Madali feloniously fired at him
twice. Annie Madali's uttering "Here comes
another" before Madali shot Felix may not be
considered sufficient warning so as to rule out
suddenness of the attack. However, no
generic aggravating circumstance has been
sufficiency proven.
Same; Same; Same; Court agrees with the
trial court that with respect to the killing of
Apriano Gasang and the wounding of Merlinda
Gasang, the crime committed was the
complex crime of murder with frustrated
murder inasmuch as a single shot hit them
both.We agree with the trial court that with
respect to the killing of Cipriano Gasang and
the wounding of Merlinda Gasang, the crime
committed was the complex crime of murder
with frustrated murder inasmuch as a single
shot hit them both. It is immaterial that
Merlinda Gasang was wounded on the leg and
not on a vital part of her body. What is of
primordial consideration is the fact that the
criminal act which killed Cipriano also caused
Merlinda's injury. As in the killing of Felix,
treachery qualified the killing of Cipriano to
murder because of the suddenness of the
attack.
Same; Same; Conspiracy; Court finds that
proof beyond reasonable doubt has not been
established as to the existence of conspiracy
between the Madali Spouses.Nevertheless,
the Court finds that proof beyond reasonable
doubt has not been established as to the
existence of conspiracy between the Madali
spouses. While direct proof is not essential to
prove conspiracy as it may be shown by acts
and circumstances from which may logically
be inferred the existence of a common design
among the accused to commit the offense(s)
charged, the evidence to prove the same
must be positive and convincing considering
that conspiracy is a facile devise by which an
accused may be ensnared and kept within the
penal fold.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Ricarte Madali
could have nevertheless accomplished his
criminal acts without Annie's cooperation and
assistance.Annie's participation in the
shooting of the victims consisted of beaming
her flashlight at them and warning her
husband of the presence of other persons in
the vicinity. By beaming her flashlight at a
victim, Annie assisted her husband in taking a
good aim. However, such assistance merely
facilitated the commission of the felonious
acts of shooting. Considering that, according
to both of the Madali spouses, "it was not so
dark nor too bright" that night or that
"brightness and darkness were equally of the
same intensity." Ricarte Madali could have
nevertheless accomplished his criminal acts
without Annie's cooperation and assistance.
Same; Same; Motive; Proof of motive
unnecessary where there is clear
identification of the accuses.Proof of motive
is unnecessary where there is a clear
identification of the accused. More so in this
case where the principal accused does not
deny having fired the fatal shots,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-
appellee, vs. ALFREDO CAGALINGAN y
ROMINA, JOVITO CAGALINGAN y ROMINA
and VICTOR ROMINA, JR. y VELANCIO,
defendants-appellants.
Criminal Law; Self-Defense; Elements of
Unlawful Agression; Case at bar.A review of
the evidence, however, fails to lend credence
to the appellants' claim that there was
unlawful aggression on the part of the
deceased. Lory Bunabon categorically stated
that the deceased Joemar Desor and the
appellant Jovito Cagalingan were laughing and
joking as they were grappling for the
possession of the basket of crabs which
Joemar Desor wanted to get from Jovito
Cagalingan. For unlawful aggression to be
present, there must be a real danger to life or
personal safety. Here, there was no danger to
the life of Jovito Cagalingan as they (Jovito
and Joemar) were in a frolicsome mood.
Same; Same; Evidence; Defense of alibi
cannot prevail over his positive identification.
As for the alibi of Victor Romina, Jr. that he
was inside the Ryan Cinema at the time of the
commission of the crime, suffice it to state
that the said moviehouse is only about 100 to
150 meters away from the scene of the crime
and the said appellant has not shown that it
was physically impossible for him to be at the
scene of the crime at the time it was
committed. Besides, his alibi cannot prevail
over his positive identification by Lory
Bunabon,
Same; Same; Conspiracy; A person who
assaults a victim already fatally wounded by
another is an accomplice; Case at bar.We
find, however, that Jovito Cagalingan and
Victor Romina, Jr. are only accomplices in the
crime since their participations therein were
not absolutely indispensable in the
commission of the crime. Lory Bunabon
declared that Jovito Cagalingan stabbed the
deceased Joemar Desor after Alfredo
Cagalingan had stabbed the deceased at the
back, while Victor Romina, Jr. stabbed the said
deceased while the latter was already lying
prostrate on the ground. While the acts of
Jovito Cagalingan and Victor Romina, Jr. show
a community of design with the principal,
Alfredo Cagalingan, who inflicted the fatal
wound, and they (Jovito and Victor)
cooperated in hastening the victim's death,
the said appellants' acts were not absolutely
indispensable in the commission of the crime.
A person who assaults a victim already fatally
wounded by another is only regarded as an
accomplice. People vs. Cagalingan, 188 SCRA
313, G.R. No. 79168 August 3, 1990