Ambagan v.

People
Topic: Criminal Law
Subtopic: Principal by Inducement

DOCTRINE: A testimony that an accused made a statement which allegedly initiated the shootout,
such testimony not being entirely credible, cannot sustain the conviction of said accused as
principal by inducement.

FACTS: A shooting incident between the party of Santos and the party of Ambagan occurred. In
holding petitioner Ambagan criminally liable for double homicide as principal by inducement, the
Sandiganbayan gave credence to Ronnel Bawalan’s testimony that it was petitioner Ambagan’s
words (“Sige, yan pala ang gusto mo. Mga kasama banatan na ninyo yan.”) which impelled his men
to aim and shoot at the victims.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner can be held guilty for double homicide as principal by
inducement?

HELD: NO. The requisites for the conviction of a person as principal by inducement are (1) that the
inducement be made with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime and (2) that such
inducement be the determining cause of the commission by the material executor. The
Sandiganbayan would have been correct if the statement was indeed made by the petitioner
immediately before the shooting incident. However, there are substantial inconsistencies in the
testimonies of star prosecution witnesses Patam and Ronnel Bawalan, which refer not only to
minor details but even to facts constituting important aspects of the case, seriously eroding the
weight of the evidence of the prosecution, and casting reasonable doubt on the culpability of
petitioner.

RATIO:
1. Only Ronnel Bawalan allegedly heard petitioner make the utterance. Between the two star
witnesses, Patam was in closer proximity to Ambagan and was thus in a better position to
know whether the statement was indeed made by the latter. However, Patam made no such
testimony despite the several opportunities he could have done so.
2. The testimony of Ronnel Bawalan is not entirely credible, as (1) Ronnel testified that he saw
petitioner engage Santos in a verbal altercation in the middle of the street, but thereafter
claimed he did not see petitioner’s whereabouts when the shooting began, (2) if the facts
were as Ronnel stated, petitioner would have been caught in the middle of the crossfire he
himself allegedly ordered, (3) both petitioner and Patam testify that petitioner wanted to go
back (as Patam was taking him into the house of Javier) during the exchange of gunshots – if
Ronnel was correct in saying that petitioner initiated the shootout, it would not make sense
why petitioner would want to go back to the shootout he started, (4) if petitioner wanted to
start the shootout, he would have drawn his own pistol, (5) if it is true that, per Ronnel, only
Santos from his group was armed, that meant Santos was able to shoot down 3 of
petitioner’s men before he fell himself, (6) Ronnel first claimed that he personally witnessed
the deaths of the other individuals in the shootout (Causaren and Jamon) but reversed
himself during trial and claimed that he learned of such deaths from other sources, and (7)
Ronnel is biased against petitioner, as deceased Santos is his cousin-in-law and deceased
Domingo is his brother.