You are on page 1of 20

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, internal hemorrhage caused by seven stab wounds affecting the

vs. heart, lungs, liver, stomach, pancreas, and diaphragm.10 The


NAPOLEON MONTEALEGRE, defendant-appellant. weapon used was 6" in length and about 2 to 2.5 cm. in width and
the blood found on it was analyzed as human.11 The stabbing
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. incident was narrated in detail at the trial by Abadilla, 12 who was
corroborated by Generoso San Juan. 13
Citizens Legal Assistance Office for defendant-appellant.
On direct examination, Abadilla testified that Montealegre
prevented Camantigue from drawing his pistol while he was being
stabbed by Capalad, demonstrating with the aid of court personnel
the relative positions of the three during the incident. 14
CRUZ, J.:
On cross-examination, he reiterated his previous declaration even
It is a settled rule in this jurisdiction that the conviction of the more emphatically, thus:
accused, who is constitutionally presumed innocent, depends upon
the strength of the prosecution and not the weakness of the
Q. When accused Montealegre held the hand of Pfc.
defense. Unfortunately for the accused in this case, his prosecution
Camantigue upon drawing his gun, what happened to
for murder with assault upon a person in authority, undoubtedly
Camantigue?
already strong, was made even stronger by the defense itself.

A. He could not move, sir. He could not make any defense


As the trial court * which convicted him saw it, the crime imputed
because he was being held by Montealegre and he was being
to Napoleon Montealegre was committed as follows:
stabbed at the back. 15

At about 11:30 in the evening of March 11, 1983, while Edmundo


He replied as follows to questions on re-direct to stress the
Abadilia was eating at the Meding's Restaurant in Cavite City, he
participation of the accused-appellant —
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 in his car whom he hailed to report the matter. Q. When accused Capalad started stabbing Pfc. Camantigue at
After parking his vehicle, Camantigue joined Abadilla in the the back, accused Montealegre was being held by Pfc.
restaurant and soon thereafter the two smelled marijuana smoke Camantigue at that time?
from the table occupied by Vicente Capalad and the accused-
appellant. Camantigue then approached the two and collared both A. Yes, sir.
of them, saying "Nagmamarijuana kayo, ano?' Forcing them up, he
asked the waitress ff she knew them but the waitress said she did Q And in fact Montealegre was very close to the right of
not. 1 Then the mayhem began. Camantigue at that time?

While Camantigue was holding the two, Montealegre with this right A. Yes sir.
hand and Capalad with his left hand, Capalad suddenly and
surreptitiously pulled out a knife from a scabbard tucked in the right
Q And Montealegre was aware that Capalad was stabbing Pfc.
side of his waist and started stabbed Camantigue in the
Camantigue?
back. 2 Camantigue let loose Montealegre to draw the gun from his
holster but Montealegre, thus released, restrained Camantigue's
hand to prevent the latter from defending himself Montealegre A. Yes, sir, he knew. 16
used both his hands for his purpose 3 as Capalad continued stabbing
the Victim. 4 While they were thus grappling, the three fen to the In answer to clarificatory questions from the court, he declared:
floor and Capalad, freed from Camantigue's grip, rose and
scampered toward the door. Camantigue fired and, continuing the The accused-appellant, testifying on his behalf, only succeeded in
pursuit outside, fired again. 5 Capalad fled into a dark alley. confinning his own guilt. He claimed he ran away before the
Camantigue abandoned the chase and asked to be brought to a stabbing but his testimony, consisting of denials, evasions,
hospital. Capalad was later found slumped in the alley with a bullet contradictions, claims of ignorance and forgetfulness and
wound in Ms chest. Neither Camantigue nor Capalad survived, both protestations of innocence, does not have the ring of truth. The
expiring the following day. 6 following excerpts are reflective of the kind of defense he offered to
exculpate himself from the charge established against him by the
The accused-appellant, for his part, escaped during the prosecution.
confusion. 7 Having been informed of the incident, Capt. Cipriano
Gilera of the Cavite police immediately organized a team that went xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
to look for him that very night. 8 They did not find him in his house
then but he was apprehended in the morning of March 12,1983, on
board a vehicle bound for Baclaran. He gave his name as Alegre but It is simply unbelievable that the accused-appellant did not know
later admitted he was the fugitive being sought. 9 what was happening on that evening of March 11, 1983. As one of
the principal figures of the stabbing incident, he could not have not
known, nor could he later not remember, that startling event that
Dr. Regalado Sosa, reporting on the autopsy of the Camantigue's even more onlookers could not forget. The evidence has established
body, testified that death was caused by shock due to massive that the accused-appellant was directly and personally involved and
was in fact one of the two persons held by the victim when he was We agree that there is no evidence to show a previous plan to
stabbed. Yet Montealegre would now insist, quite incredibly, that kill Regino Bautista. The whole incident happened because
he was unaware of what had transpired that night. the accused came upon Bautista and Mallabo fishing within or
near the fishpond enclosure of Carlo Aquino which was under
If it is true, as he says, that he ran away before the stabbing, there the care of Vicente Cercano.
would have been less likelihood of Capalad's attack as Camantigue's
attention would have been fully concentrated on his lone captive. But for a collective responsibility among the herein accused
Moreover, there would have been nothing to restrain the to be established, it is not necessary or essential that there be
policeman from drawing his pistol and defending himself against a previous plan or agreement to commit the assault; it is
Capalad if the accused-appellant had, by his own account, already sufficient that at the time of the aggression all the accused by
escaped before the stabbing. their acts manifested a common intent or desire to attack
Bautista and Mallabo, so that the act of one accused became
It is also worth noting that, instead of reporting to the authorities, the act of all. 30
what the accused-appellant did was attempt to hide, only to be
found the following morning on board a bus bound for outside xxx xxx xxx
Cavite City. When apprehended, he first gave a false name before
he finally admitted his Identity, thus beginning the mesh of If it be proved that two or more persons aimed by their acts
contradictions, admissions and denials, in which he would enshare towards accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each
himself. doing a part so that their acts, though apparently
independent, were in fact connected and cooperative,
The Court accepts the evidence established by the prosecution that indicating a closeness of personal association and
at the time of the stabbing, the victim was in uniform and, concurrence of sentiment, a conspiracy may be inferred
therefore, could easily be recognized as a person in authority. though no actual meeting among them to concert is proven.
Several witnesses testified as to his attire when he was killed. 26 And A conspiracy only be entered into after the commencement
even assuming that the victim was in civilian clothes on that tragic of overt acts leading to the consummation of the crime. 31
night, the record shows that no less than the accused-appellant
himself, replying to questions put to him by the prosecution, As for the second requirement, the Court has held that:
declared twice that he knew the victim to be a policeman. 27
There can be no question that appellant's act in holding the
The accused-appellant was correctly considered a co-principal for victim from behind when the latter was stabbed by his
having collaborated with Capalad in the killing of the police officer. collaborated Victor Buduan, was a positive act towards the
The two acted in concert, with Capalad actually stabbing realization of a common criminal intent, although the intent
Camantigue seven times and the accused-appellant holding on to can be classified as instantaneous. It can be safely assumed
the victim's hands to prevent him from drawing his pistol and that had not appellant held both arms of the victim from
defending himself. While it is true that the accused- appellant did behind, the latter could have partied the thrust or even run
not himself commit the act of stabbing, he was nonetheless equally away from his assailant. By immobilizing the two hands of the
guilty thereof for having prevented Camantigue from resisting the victim from behind, and although there was no anterior
attack against him. The accused-appellant was a principal by conspiracy , the two cousins showed unity of criminal purpose
indispensable cooperation under Article 17, par. 3, of the Revised and intent immediateIy before the actual stabbing. 32
Penal Code.
xxx xxx xxx
As correctly interpreted, the requisites of this provision are: "(1)
participating in the criminal resolution, that is, there is either
It has been sufficiently established that appellant Cabiles
anterior conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose and intention
seized the running decedent in such a manner that the latter
immediately before the commission of the crime charged; and (2)
could not even move or tum around. This enabled the
cooperation in the commission of the offense by performing
pursuing Labis, who was armed with a drawn bolo and was
another act without which it would not have been accomplished.
barely five meters away from the decedent, to finally
overtake him and stab him at the back with hardly any risk at
The prosecution contends that although there was no evidence all. Cabiles therefore performed another act-holding the
correspondence of a prior agreement between Capalad and decedent—without which the crime would not have been
Montealegre, their subsequent acts should prove the presence of accomplished. This makes him a principal by indispensable
such conspiracy. The Court sustains this view, which conforms to cooperation. 33
our consistent holding on this matter:
The above requisites having been established, the accused-
Conspiracy need not be established by direct proof as it can appellant was correctly convicted of the complex crime of murder,
be inferred from the acts of the appellants. It is enough that, as qualified by treachery, with assault upon a person in authority.
at the time the offense was committed, participants had the Accordingly, he must suffer the penalty imposed upon him, to wit,
same purpose and were united in its execution; as may be reclusion perpetua, there being no aggravating and mitigating
inferred from the attendant circiumstances. 29 circumstances, plus the civil indemnity, which is hereby increased to
P30,000.00, and the actual, mectical and fimeral expenses in the
xxx xxx xxx sum of P37,380.00 as proved at the trial.
Pfc. Renato Camantigue was only 34 years old when he died in line The trial court considered treachery as the qualifying circumstance
of duty while enforcing the law against the abuse of dangerous in view of the "suddenness" of the attack, leaving the victim
drugs. He was struck down with no less than seven vicious stabs by "completely unaware of the intentions and actuations of Francisco
a man who, by his own admission, was at the time of the incident Mediona because, at the time, [the victim, Pastor Escala] was
"burned" on marijuana. The kiner also eventually succumbed, and conversing with Rogelio Fernandez and was thus unable to defend
that made the second life needlessly lost to the wickedness of drug himself and prevent the attack on him by Francisco
addiction. There was another Iife also ruined, this time of the 28 Mediona."4
year-old accused-appellant himself, although, fortunately for him,
his loss is not irretrievable nor is his future forever foreclosed. In The evidence for the prosecution as developed by the testimonies
the somber shadows of the prison bars, as he ponders the wrong he of its witnesses is summarized in the Brief for the Appellee as
has done, he may yet find his ultimate redemption in rehabilitation follows:
and remorse.
Sometime in February 1990, Rogelio Fernando, a tricycle
WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is AFFIRMED as above driver and Francisco Mediona, a Metro Aide, had an
modified, without any pronouncement as to costs. It is so ordered. altercation resulting in one chasing the other (TSN, May
28, 1990, pp. 15-16, 22). However, before the incident
could worsen, Rogelio Fernando and Francisco Mediona
settled their differences before the Barangay Chairman of
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, their place in Tondo, Manila, in the presence of the
vs. mother of Rogelio Fernando and a Barangay Tanod and
RODOLFO FEDERICO Y MEDIONA, accused-appellant. sealed it by shaking hands (Ibid., pp. 15, 22-23). Rogelio
Fernando believed then that was the end of his
differences with Francisco Mediona (Ibid.). He was wrong.

On March 17, 1990, between 8:00 and 8:30 p.m., Rogelio


Fernando, Pastor Escala, one Artemon and a certain Jun,
DAVIDE, JR., J.: all of whom were tricycle drivers, were in front of the
bakery owned by Benedicto Escala, the father of Pastor
The accused-appellant was charged with murder in Criminal Case Escala, located at No. 212 Magsaysay Street, corner
No. 90-82576-SCC of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Liwayway Street, Don Bosco, Tondo, Manila, conversing
Branch 49, under an information the accusatory portion of which about tricycle sidecars, while Marcelo Gallardo was
reads as follows: seated as he used to in front of his house located eight (8)
meters away from Escala's bakery across the street,
That on or about March 17, 1990, in the City of Manila, passing the time (tsn, May 28, 1990, pp. 5-7, 21-22, 24,
Philippines, the said accused conspiring and confederating 26-27, 30-33, 35-36, 38-41, 44). The place was illuminated
together with others whose true names, real identities by a lighted electric post about seven (7) to eight (8)
and present whereabouts are still unknown and helping meters from the bakery (Ibid., pp. 26-27, 35-36). Although
one another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and passenger jeepneys and other vehicles plied Magsaysay
feloniously with intent to kill, and by means of treachery Street, however, there were no vehicles passing at the
and evident premeditation, attack, assault and use time (Ibid., p. 38).
personal violence upon one Pastor Neil Escala y de
Guzman by then and there stabbing him several times on At that precise moment Marcelo Gallardo saw appellant
the different parts of his body with a knife, thereby Rodolfo Federico and the latter's cousins Francisco
inflicting upon the said Pastor Neil Escala y de Guzman Mediona and Ruben Mediona emerge from an alley
mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate across the street going towards the direction of the
cause of his death thereafter. bakery; then change their direction and go to a house
nearby (Ibid., pp. 35, 40-43). Not long after, appellant and
Contrary to law.1 his two cousins reappeared at Magsaysay Street and
proceeded towards the bakery (Ibid.). Francisco Mediona
was holding with his right hand a bladed knife similar to
He was also charged with frustrated murder in Criminal Case No.
that used by butchers (Ibid., pp. 32, 44-45). At a distance
90-82577 for stabbing on the same occasion Rogelio Fernando.
of about six (6) to seven (7) meters from the lighted
These two cases were not, however, consolidated despite a motion
electric post, the trio momentarily stopped. Then
for that purpose. 2
Francisco Mediona, still armed with a knife, proceeded
towards the bakery where Rogelio Fernando, Pastor
After trial on the merits of the first case, the trial court, in a decision Escala, Artemon and Jun were still conversing; while
promulgated on 7 December 1990,3 found the accused-appellant Ruben Mediona and appellant Rodolfo Federico, who
guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of murder both stayed behind, pulled out from their pockets slings
and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with with darts and aimed the same towards the bakery,
all the accessory penalties provided by law, and to pay the heirs of where Rogelio Fernando's group was (Ibid., pp. 31, 35-36,
the victim P16,980.00 as actual damages and P50,000.00 as 45, 48, 50). Francisco Mediona bought bread from the
indemnity for moral damages. bakery (Ibid., pp. 7, 17). After buying bread, Francisco
Mediona suddenly and without any warning stabbed
Rogelio Fernando on the left side of the body, who was
caught by surprise and was hit between the armpit and (d) when Francisco was receiving the bread, he suddenly stabbed
left breast, and at the same time uttered "malas mo, Rogelio Fernando on the left side of his body, and after the latter
pare" (Ibid., pp. 7-8, 16-17, 32). Rogelio Fernando felt managed to escape, Francisco turned to Pastor Escala and stabbed
pains in his body and instinctively fled from the scene him several times while the accused-appellant and Ruben continued
before Francisco Mediona could finish him off (Ibid., p. to aim their slings and darts at the bakery; (e) after stabbing Escala,
18). He ran towards Magsaysay Street, but his path was Francisco challenged every one in the area to a fight and since
blocked by Ruben Mediona and appellant, who aimed nobody dared to accept the challenge, he left the scene together
their slings and darts at him (Ibid., p. 8-11). So he turned with the accused-appellant and Ruben Mediona.
towards Herbosa Street, Tondo, Manila, to avoid being hit
by the darts of appellant and Ruben Mediona (Ibid., p. The trial court concluded that by their acts, the accused-appellant
11). There, he met some friends who brought him to the and his cousins Francisco and Ruben showed a common objective,
Tondo Medical Center for medical treatment (Ibid., pp. that of killing Rogelio Fernando and Pastor Escala, and each of them
11-12). performed separate parts aimed at and to attain the same
objective. Such acts were concerted and cooperative in point of
Meanwhile, immediately after he stabbed Rogelio time and sequence, indicating concurrence of sentiments, sympathy
Fernando, Francisco Mediona instantly turned to Pastor and determination.
Escala, held him by the hair, and stabbed him with his
bladed knife (Ibid., pp. 33-34, 51). Pastor Escala fell down In this appeal, the accused-appellant wants us to acquit him
on his back to the pavement and again Francisco Mediona because the trial court:
stabbed him (Ibid.). Marcelo Gallardo saw Francisco
Mediona stabbing Pastor Escala four (4) times on different
ERRED IN CONVICTING [HIM] BEYOND REASONABLE
parts of the body (Ibid.). After stabbing Pastor Escala,
DOUBT. . . AS PRINCIPAL OF THE CRIME OF MURDER
Francisco Mediona defiantly hurled a challenge on anyone
DESPITE THE FACT THAT HE HAD NOT CONSPIRED OR
in the vicinity to a fight but nobody took up his challenge
COOPERATED WITH THE ASSAILANT IN STABBING THE
(Ibid.). Thereupon, Francisco Mediona fled with the
VICTIM TO DEATH.
appellant and Ruben Mediona (Ibid.).

He does not, therefore, question the findings of the trial court that
Pastor Escala was rushed to the Mary Johnston Hospital
the crime committed for the killing of Escala is murder. The only
where he was pronounced dead on arrival by Dr. G. Uy,
issue presented to us is whether there was conspiracy between the
the hospital's surgeon-on-duty.5
accused-appellant and his cousin Francisco Mediona, the person
who actually stabbed Escala. If there was, the accused-appellant
The autopsy conducted on Pastor Escala's body revealed that it admits that he would be equally liable with Francisco; otherwise,
bore six stab wounds which caused his death.6 the latter alone should suffer the consequences for the criminal act.

The accused-appellant denied any participation in the commission Our own scrutiny of the records and evaluation of the evidence for
of the crime and interposed alibi to strengthen such denial. the prosecution fail to convince us with moral certainty that the
According to him, at 6:00 p.m. of 17 March 1990, he was in the accused-appellant had conspired with his cousins Francisco
house of his cousin Elsa Mediona along Magsaysay Street, Tondo, Mediona and Ruben Mediona to kill Pastor Escala.
Manila, which is about twenty arms-length from the bakery. Shortly
before 9:00 p.m. that evening, he noticed a commotion outside
The basis for the trial court's conviction of the accused-appellant
Elsa's house and heard someone shouting, "May saksakan, may
was the existence of a conspiracy between him, Ruben Mediona,
saksakan." When he went out of the house, he heard people, say
and Francisco Mediona to kill both Rogelio Fernando and the victim
that Francisco Mediona stabbed somebody. He then returned to
in this case, Pastor Escala. What the trial court overlooked, though
the house of Elsa, but shortly thereafter, two policemen arrived,
is that the conspiracy which the records and the evidence of this
handcuffed him, and pushed him outside the house. He told them
case show and which the prosecution successfully established is to
that he had not done anything wrong, and when he asked why they
kill Fernando only and not Escala also.
arrested him, they just told him to give his explanation at the police
headquarters. At the police headquarters, Patrolman Richard
Lumbad tried to force him to admit that he killed Pastor Escala, but It is very obvious that the accused-appellant and his cousins
he refused to do so. intended to harm Fernando because of the bad blood that existed
between the latter and Francisco Mediona due to a
misunderstanding that occurred a month before the incident which
Although the accused-appellant was not the one who stabbed the
Francisco could not forget despite the amicable settlement
victim in this case, the trial court convicted him as a principal on the
mediated by the barangay captain. The actions of the accused-
basis of conspiracy established by the following facts, to wit: (a) the
appellant in arming himself with a sling and darts which he aimed
accused-appellant and his cousins Francisco Mediona and Ruben
towards the bakery where Fernando and the others were and in
Mediona emerged together and at the same time from an alley
blocking the path of Fernando when the latter tried to run away
nearby and went toward the bakery while the victim and his
from Francisco establish his concurrence in the criminal purpose of
companions were conversing in front of the bakery; (b) instead of
Francisco, the actual assailant of Fernando. But with respect to the
proceeding directly to the bakery, they first veered toward another
stabbing of the victim herein, Pastor Escala, we find very tenuous
direction and went to the house nearby (presumably Elsa Mediona's
and insufficient the evidence of conspiracy. Conspiracy, just like the
house); (c) they reappeared after a while near the bakery where
crime itself, must be established by proof beyond reasonable
Francisco pretended to buy bread, while the accused-appellant and
doubt.7 And the rule has always been that co-conspirators are liable
Ruben, armed with slings and darts which they pointed at the
only for acts done pursuant to the conspiracy; for other acts done
bakery, positioned themselves strategically along Magsaysay Street;
outside the contemplation of the co-conspirators or which are not WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment of Branch 49 of the Regional
the necessary and logical consequence of the intended crime, only Trial Court of Manila in Criminal Case No. 90-82576-SCC is
the actual perpetrators are liable. 8 In such a case, the dictum that AFFIRMED, subject to the modifications on the extent of the
the act of one is the act of all does not hold true anymore. accused-appellant's criminal liability and the imposable penalty, and
as modified, accused-appellant RODOLFO FEDERICO Y MEDIONA is
No reason, motive, or intent on the part of Francisco was shown or found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder only
proved why he would stab Escala. And there is no convincing as accomplice and his penalty is hereby reduced from reclusion
evidence that the killing of Escala was part of the conspiracy to kill perpetua to an indeterminate penalty ranging from Eight (8) years
Rogelio Fernando. Neither is there any indication that the accused- of prision mayor as minimum, to Seventeen (17) years and Four (4)
appellant was aware that Francisco would attack Escala. Francisco months of reclusion temporal as maximum.
stabbed Escala only after he had stabbed Rogelio Fernando and the
latter ran away. Why Francisco decided to also stab Escala is beyond Costs against the accused-appellant.
our ken. We could only surmise that Escala made a move which
Francisco perceived as an act of aggression against him because
after repeatedly stabbing Escala, Francisco even challenged those
around him to a fight.9 We cannot and should not assume that the
accused-appellant had any inkling of what Francisco was going to do
at the time the latter turned against Escala. Because the conspiracy
was to kill Fernando only and the accused-appellant did not
conspire with Francisco in the killing of Escala, he cannot be held JAIME ONG y ONG, Petitioner,
liable as a co-conspirator for the said killing. vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
In the absence of a conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose and
intention immediately before the commission of the crime, or DECISION
community of criminal design the criminal responsibility arising
from acts directed against one and the same person is individual
SERENO, CJ.:
and not collective; each of the participants is liable only for the acts
committed by him. 10The accused-appellant, by his actions while
Francisco was stabbing Escala, is liable for the latter's death, not as Before the Court is an appeal from the Decision1 dated 18 August
a co-principal however, but as an accomplice under Article 18 of the 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the
Revised Penal Code. It was established that at the time Francisco Decision2 dated 06 January 2006 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
attacked and stabbed Escala, the accused-appellant and Ruben Branch 37, Manila. The RTC had convicted accused Jaime Ong y Ong
Mediona remained standing in the same place where they were (Ong) of the crime of violation of Presidential Decree No. (P.O.)
when Francisco stabbed Fernando and still had their slings and 1612, otherwise known as. the Anti-Fencing Law.
darts pointed at the people near the bakery. It is obvious then that
at that particular instance, the accused-appellant became aware of Ong was charged in an Information3 dated 25 May 1995 as follows:
the intent of Francisco to kill Escala. Moreover, he cooperated in
the execution of Francisco's purpose and concurred therewith by That on or about February 17, 1995, in the City of Manila,
pointing his sling and darts, either to give moral support to Philippines. the said accused, with intent of gain for himself or for
Francisco or to deter the people from attacking him in retaliation another. did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
for the stabbing of Escala. Such cooperation, however, was not receive and acquire from unknown person involving thirteen (13)
indispensable to the accomplishment of the evil deed as to make truck tires worth ₱65, 975.00, belonging to FRANCISCO AZAJAR Y
him a co-principal. LEE, and thereafter selling One (1) truck tire knowing the same to
have been derived from the crime of robbery.
Under Article 52 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty to be
imposed upon an accomplice in a consummated crime is that next CONTRARY TO LAW.
lower in degree to the one prescribed by law for the consummated
felony. The penalty prescribed by Article 248 at the time of the
commission of the crime herein was reclusion temporal in its Upon arraignment, Ong entered a plea of "not guilty." Trial on the
maximum period to death. 11 The penalty next lower in degree merits ensued, and the RTC found him guilty beyond reasonable
would be prision mayor maximum to reclusion temporal medium. doubt of violation of P.D. 1612. The dispositive portion of its
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum penalty Decision reads:
which may be imposed upon the accused-appellant would be within
the range of the penalty next lower in degree to that of prision WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds that the
mayor maximum to reclusion temporal medium which is prision prosecution has established the guilt of the accused JAIME ONG y
correccional maximum to prision mayor medium, and its maximum ONG beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Presidential Decree
would be within the range of prision mayor maximum to reclusion No. 1612 also known as Anti-Fencing Law and is hereby sentenced
temporal medium. In view of the absence of any mitigating or to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of 10 years and 1 day to 16
aggravating circumstances, such maximum period shall be the years with accessory penalty of temporary disqualification.
medium period of the prescribed, penalty. 12Accordingly, the
accused-appellant shall be sentenced to suffer an indeterminate SO ORDERED.4
penalty ranging from eight (8) years of prision mayor as minimum to
seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as
maximum.
Dissatisfied with the judgment, Ong appealed to the CA. After a one tire from his display, which Atienza bought for ₱5,000.00.
review of the records, the RTC’s finding of guilt was affirmed by the Atienza asked appellant if he had any more in stock.
appellate court in a Decision dated 18 August 2009.
Appellant then instructed his helpers to bring out twelve (12) more
Ong then filed the instant appeal before this Court. tires from his warehouse, which was located beside his store. After
the twelve (12) truck tires were brought in, private complainant
The Facts entered the store, inspected them and found that they were the
same tires which were stolen from him, based on their serial
numbers. Private complainant then gave the prearranged signal to
The version of the prosecution, which was supported by the CA, is
the buy-bust team confirming that the tires in appellant's shop
as follows:
were the same tires stolen from the warehouse.

Private complainant was the owner of forty-four (44) Firestone


After seeing private complainant give the pre-arranged signal, the
truck tires, described as T494 1100 by 20 by 14. He acquired the
buy-bust team went inside appellant's store. However, appellant
same for the total amount of ₱223,401.81 from Philtread Tire and
insisted that his arrest and the confiscation of the stolen truck tires
Rubber Corporation, a domestic corporation engaged in the
be witnessed by representatives from the barangay and his own
manufacturing and marketing of Firestone tires. Private
lawyer. Resultantly, it was already past 10:00 in the evening when
complainant's acquisition was evidenced by Sales Invoice No. 4565
appellant, together with the tires, was brought to the police station
dated November 10, 1994 and an Inventory List acknowledging
for investigation and inventory. Overall, the buy-bust team was able
receipt of the tires specifically described by their serial numbers.
to confiscate thirteen (13) tires, including the one initially bought by
Private complainant marked the tires using a piece of chalk before
poseur-buyer Tito Atienza. The tires were confirmed by private
storing them inside the warehouse in 720 San Jose St., corner Sta.
complainant as stolen from his warehouse.5
Catalina St., Barangay San Antonio Valley 1, Sucat, Parañaque,
owned by his relative Teody Guano. Jose Cabal, Guano's caretaker
of the warehouse, was in charge of the tires. After appellant sold six For his part, accused Ong solely testified in his defense, alleging that
(6) tires sometime in January 1995, thirty-eight (38) tires remained he had been engaged in the business of buying and selling tires for
inside the warehouse. twenty-four (24) years and denying that he had any knowledge that
he was selling stolen tires in Jong Marketing. He further averred
that on 18 February 1995, a certain Ramon Go (Go) offered to sell
On February 17, 1995, private complainant learned from caretaker
thirteen (13) Firestone truck tires allegedly from Dagat-dagatan,
Jose Cabal that all thirty-eight (38) truck tires were stolen from the
Caloocan City, for ₱3,500 each. Ong bought all the tires for ₱45,500,
warehouse, the gate of which was forcibly opened. Private
for which he was issued a Sales Invoice dated 18 February 1995 and
complainant, together with caretaker Cabal, reported the robbery
with the letterhead Gold Link Hardware & General Merchandise
to the Southern Police District at Fort Bonifacio.
(Gold Link).6

Pending the police investigation, private complainant canvassed


Ong displayed one (1) of the tires in his store and kept all the twelve
from numerous business establishments in an attempt to locate the
(12) others in his bodega. The poseur-buyer bought the displayed
stolen tires. On February 24, 1995, private complainant chanced
tire in his store and came back to ask for more tires. Ten minutes
upon Jong's Marketing, a store selling tires in Paco, Manila, owned
later, policemen went inside the store, confiscated the tires,
and operated by appellant. Private complainant inquired if
arrested Ong and told him that those items were stolen tires.7
appellant was selling any Model T494 1100 by 20 by 14 ply
Firestone tires, to which the latter replied in the affirmative.
Appellant brought out a tire fitting the description, which private The RTC found that the prosecution had sufficiently established that
complainant recognized as one of the tires stolen from his all thirteen (13) tires found in the possession of Ong constituted a
warehouse, based on the chalk marking and the serial number prima facie evidence of fencing. Having failed to overcome the
thereon. Private complainant asked appellant if he had any more of presumption by mere denials, he was found guilty beyond
such tires in stock, which was again answered in the affirmative. reasonable doubt of violation of P.D. 1612.8
Private complainant then left the store and reported the matter to
Chief Inspector Mariano Fegarido of the Southern Police District. On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC’s findings with modification by
reducing the minimum penalty from ten (10) years and one (1) day
On February 27, 1995, the Southern Police District formed a team to to six (6) years of prision correcional.9
conduct a buy-bust operation on appellant's store in Paco, Manila.
The team was composed of six (6) members, led by SPO3 Oscar OUR RULING
Guerrero and supervised by Senior Inspector Noel Tan. Private
complainant's companion Tito Atienza was appointed as the The Petition has no merit.
poseur-buyer.
Fencing is defined in Section 2(a) of P.D. 1612 as the "act of any
On that same day of February 27, 1995, the buy-bust team, in person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy,
coordination with the Western Police District, proceeded to receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall
appellant's store in Paco, Manila. The team arrived thereat at buy and sell, or in any manner deal in any article, item, object or
around 3:00 in the afternoon. Poseur-buyer Tito Atienza proceeded anything of value which he knows, or should be known to him, to
to the store while the rest of the team posted themselves across have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or
the street. Atienza asked appellant if he had any T494 1100 by 20 by theft."
14 Firestone truck tires available. The latter immediately produced
The essential elements of the crime of fencing are as follows: (1) a accord with the usual practices of commerce. The nature and
crime of robbery or theft has been committed; (2) the accused, who condition of the goods sold, and the fact that the seller is not
is not a principal or on accomplice in the commission of the crime of regularly engaged in the business of selling goods may likewise
robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, suggest the illegality of their source, and therefore should caution
conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals the buyer. This justifies the presumption found in Section 5 of P.D.
in any article, item, object or anything of value, which has been No. 1612 that "mere possession of any goods, . . ., object or
derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; (3) the anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery
accused knew or should have known that the said article, item, shall be prima facie evidence of fencing" — a presumption that is,
object or anything of value has been derived from the proceeds of according to the Court, "reasonable for no other natural or logical
the crime of robbery or theft; and (4) there is, on the part of one inference can arise from the established fact of . . . possession of
accused, intent to gain for oneself or for another.10 the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft." xxx.22

We agree with the RTC and the CA that the prosecution has met the Moreover, Ong knew the requirement of the law in selling second
requisite quantum of evidence in proving that all the elements of hand tires.1âwphi1 Section 6 of P.D. 1612 requires stores,
fencing are present in this case. establishments or entities dealing in the buying and selling of any
good, article, item, object or anything else of value obtained from
First, the owner of the tires, private complainant Francisco Azajar an unlicensed dealer or supplier thereof to secure the necessary
(Azajar), whose testimony was corroborated by Jose Cabal - the clearance or permit from the station commander of the Integrated
caretaker of the warehouse where the thirty-eight (38) tires were National Police in the town or city where that store, establishment
stolen – testified that the crime of robbery had been committed on or entity is located before offering the item for sale to the public. In
17 February 1995. Azajar was able to prove ownership of the tires fact, Ong has practiced the procedure of obtaining clearances from
through Sales Invoice No. 456511 dated 10 November 1994 and an the police station for some used tires he wanted to resell but, in this
Inventory List.12 Witnesses for the prosecution likewise testified particular transaction, he was remiss in his duty as a diligent
that robbery was reported as evidenced by their Sinumpaang businessman who should have exercised prudence.
Salaysay13 taken at the Southern Police District at Fort
Bonifacio.14 The report led to the conduct of a buy-bust operation In his defense, Ong argued that he relied on the receipt issued to
at Jong Markerting, Paco, Manila on 27 February 1995. him by Go.1âwphi1 Logically, and for all practical purposes, the
issuance of a sales invoice or receipt is proof of a legitimate
Second, although there was no evidence to link Ong as the transaction and may be raised as a defense in the charge of fencing;
perpetrator of the robbery, he never denied the fact that thirteen however, that defense is disputable.23 In this case, the validity of
(13) tires of Azajar were caught in his possession. The facts do not the issuance of the receipt was disputed, and the prosecution was
establish that Ong was neither a principal nor an accomplice in the able to prove that Gold Link and its address were fictitious.24Ong
crime of robbery, but thirteen (13) out of thirty-eight (38) missing failed to overcome the evidence presented by the prosecution and
tires were found in his possession. This Court finds that the serial to prove the legitimacy of the transaction. Thus, he was unable to
numbers of stolen tires corresponds to those found in Ong’s rebut the prima facie presumption under Section 5 of P.D. 1612.
possession.15 Ong likewise admitted that he bought the said tires
from Go of Gold Link in the total amount of ₱45,500 where he was Finally, there was evident intent to gain for himself, considering
issued Sales Invoice No. 980.16 that during the buy-bust operation, Ong was actually caught selling
the stolen tires in his store, Jong Marketing.
Third, the accused knew or should have known that the said article,
item, object or anything of value has been derived from the Fencing is malum prohibitum, and P.D. 1612 creates a prima fqcie
proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. The words "should know" presumption of fencing from evidence of possession by the accused
denote the fact that a person of reasonable prudence and of any good, article, item, object or anything of value, which has
intelligence would ascertain the fact in performance of his duty to been the subject of robbery or theft; and prescribes a higher
another or would govern his conduct upon assumption that such penalty based on the value of the 25 property.
fact exists.17 Ong, who was in the business of buy and sell of tires
for the past twenty-four (24) years,18 ought to have known the The RTC and the CA correctly computed the imposable penalty
ordinary course of business in purchasing from an unknown seller. based on ₱5,075 for each tire recovered, or in the total amount of
Admittedly, Go approached Ong and offered to sell the thirteen (13) ₱65,975. Records show that Azajar had purchased forty-four (44)
tires and he did not even ask for proof of ownership of the tires from Philtread in the total amount of ₱223,40 1.81.26 Section 3
tires.19 The entire transaction, from the proposal to buy until the (p) of Rule 131 of the Revised Rules of Court provides a disputable
delivery of tires happened in just one day.20 His experience from the presumption that private transactions have been fair and regular.
business should have given him doubt as to the legitimate Thus, the presumption of regularity in the ordinary course of
ownership of the tires considering that it was his first time to business is not overturned in the absence of the evidence
transact with Go and the manner it was sold is as if Go was just challenging the regularity of the transaction between Azajar ,and
peddling the thirteen (13) tires in the streets. Phil tread.

In Dela Torre v. COMELEC,21 this Court had enunciated that: In tine, after a careful perusal of the records and the evidence
adduced by the parties, we do not find sufficient basis to reverse
Circumstances normally exist to forewarn, for instance, a the ruling of the CA affirming the trial court's conviction of Ong for
reasonably vigilant buyer that the object of the sale may have been violation of P.D. 1612 and modifying the minimum penalty imposed
derived from the proceeds of robbery or theft. Such circumstances by reducing it to six ( 6) years of prision correccional.
include the time and place of the sale, both of which may not be in
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DENIED for lack Slug found sub cutaneously,
of merit. Accordingly, the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. CR No. 30213 is hereby AFFIRMED. 2nd ICS Mid Clavicular line left.

SO ORDERED. CAUSE OF DEATH

Tension Hemathorax 1

Lito Vino and Sgt. Jesus Salazar were charged with murder in a
complaint filed by PC Sgt. Ernesto N. Ordono in the Municipal Trial
Court of Balungao, Pangasinan. However, on March 22, 1985, the
municipal court indorsed the case of Salazar to the Judge Advocate
LITO VINO, petitioner,
General's Office (JAGO) inasmuch as he was a member of the
vs.
military, while the case against Vino was given due course by the
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE COURT OF
issuance of a warrant for his arrest. Ultimately, the case was
APPEALS, respondents.
indorsed to the fiscal's office who then filed an information
charging Vino of the crime of murder in the Regional Trial Court of
Frisco T. Lilagan for petitioner. Rosales, Pangasinan.

RESOLUTION Upon arraignment, the accused Vino entered a plea of not guilty.
Trial then commenced with the presentation of evidence for the
prosecution. Instead of presenting evidence in his own behalf, the
accused filed a motion to dismiss for insufficiency of evidence to
GANCAYCO, J.: which the prosecutor filed an answer. On January 21, 1986, 2 a
decision was rendered by the trial court finding Vino guilty as an
accessory to the crime of murder and imposing on him the
The issue posed in the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of 4 Years and 2 months
of the resolution of this Court dated January 18, 1989 denying the
of prision correccional as minimum to 8 years of prision mayor as
herein petition is whether or not a finding of guilt as an accessory to
maximum. He was also ordered to indemnify the heirs of the victim
murder can stand in the light of the acquittal of the alleged principal
in the sum of P10,000.00 being a mere accessory to the crime and
in a separate proceeding.
to pay the costs.

At about 7:00 o'clock in the evening of March 21, 1985, Roberto


The motion for reconsideration filed by the accused having been
Tejada left their house at Burgos Street, Poblacion, Balungao,
denied, he interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals. In due
Pangasinan to go to the house of Isidro Salazar to watch television.
course, a Decision was rendered affirming the judgment of the
At around 11:00 P.M., while Ernesto, the father of Roberto, was
lower court. 3
resting, he heard two gunshots. Thereafter, he heard Roberto cry
out in a loud voice saying that he had been shot. He saw Roberto
ten (10) meters away so he switched on the lights of their house. Hence, the herein petition for review wherein the following grounds
Aside from Ernesto and his wife, his children Ermalyn and Julius are invoked:
were also in the house. They went down to meet Roberto who was
crying and they called for help from the neighbors. The neighbor 1. THAT AN ACCUSED CAN NOT BE CONVICTED
responded by turning on their lights and the street lights and AS AN ACCESSORY OF THE CRIME OF MURDER
coming down from their houses. After meeting Roberto, Ernesto FOR HAVING AIDED IN THE ESCAPE OF THE
and Julius saw Lito Vino and Jessie Salazar riding a bicycle coming PRINCIPAL IF SAID ACCUSED IS BEING CHARGED
from the south. Vino was the one driving the bicycle while Salazar SOLELY IN THE INFORMATION AS PRINCIPAL
was carrying an armalite. Upon reaching Ernesto's house, they FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT THE CRIME
stopped to watch Roberto. Salazar pointed his armalite at Ernesto PROVED IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE CRIME
and his companions. Thereafter, the two left. CHARGED.

Roberto was brought to the Sacred Heart Hospital of Urdaneta. 2. THAT "AIDING THE ESCAPE OF THE
PC/Col. Bernardo Cacananta took his ante-mortemstatement. In the PRINCIPAL" TO BE CONSIDERED SUFFICIENT IN
said statement which the victim signed with his own blood, Jessie LAW TO CONVICT AN ACCUSED UNDER ARTICLE
Salazar was Identified as his assailant. 19, PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE
MUST BE DONE IN SUCH A WAY AS TO DECEIVE
The autopsy report of his body shows the following- THE VIGILANCE OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES OF THE STATE AND THAT THE
"ESCAPE" MUST BE ACTUAL;
Gunshot wound

3. THE CONVICTION OF AN ACCESSORY


POE Sub Scapular-5-6-ICA. Pal
PENDING THE TRIAL OF THE PRINCIPAL
VIOLATES PROCEDURAL ORDERLINESS. 4
1 & 2 cm. diameter left
During the pendency of the appeal in the Court of Appeals, the case validly convicted as an accomplice or accessory under an
against Salazar in the JAGO was remanded to the civil court as he information charging him as a principal.
was discharged from the military service. He was later charged with
murder in the same Regional Trial Court of Rosales, Pangasinan in At the onset, the prosecution should have charged the petitioner as
Criminal Case No. 2027-A. In a supplemental pleading dated an accessory right then and there. The degree of responsibility of
November 14, 1988, petitioner informed this Court that Jessie petitioner was apparent from the evidence. At any rate, this lapse
Salazar was acquitted by the trial court in a decision that was did not violate the substantial rights of petitioner.
rendered on August 29, 1988.
The next issue that must be resolved is whether or not the trial of
The respondents were required to comment on the petition. The an accessory can proceed without awaiting the result of the
comment was submitted by the Solicitor General in behalf of separate charge against the principal. The answer is also in the
respondents. On January 18, 1989, the Court resolved to deny the affirmative. The corresponding responsibilities of the principal,
petition for failure of petitioner to sufficiently show that accomplice and accessory are distinct from each other. As long as
respondent court had committed any reversible error in its the commission of the offense can be duly established in evidence
questioned judgment. Hence, the present motion for the determination of the liability of the accomplice or accessory can
reconsideration to which the respondents were again required to proceed independently of that of the principal.
comment. The required comment having been submitted, the
motion is now due for resolution.
The third question is this-considering that the alleged principal in
this case was acquitted can the conviction of the petitioner as an
The first issue that arises is that inasmuch as the petitioner was accessory be maintained?
charged in the information as a principal for the crime of murder,
can he thereafter be convicted as an accessory? The answer is in
In United States vs. Villaluz and Palermo, 7 a case involving the
the affirmative.
crime of theft, this Court ruled that notwithstanding the acquittal of
the principal due to the exempting circumstance of minority or
Petitioner was charged as a principal in the commission of the crime insanity (Article 12, Revised Penal Code), the accessory may
of murder. Under Article 16 of the Revised Penal Code, the two nevertheless be convicted if the crime was in fact established.
other categories of the persons responsible for the commission of
the same offense are the accomplice and the accessory. There is no
Corollary to this is United States vs. Mendoza, 8 where this Court
doubt that the crime of murder had been committed and that the
held in an arson case that the acquittal of the principal must
evidence tended to show that Jessie Salazar was the assailant. That
likewise result in the acquittal of the accessory where it was shown
the petitioner was present during its commission or must have
that no crime was committed inasmuch as the fire was the result of
known its commission is the only logical conclusion considering that
an accident. Hence, there was no basis for the conviction of the
immediately thereafter, he was seen driving a bicycle with Salazar
accessory.
holding an armalite, and they were together when they left shortly
thereafter. At least two witnesses, Ernesto and Julius Tejada,
attested to these facts. It is thus clear that petitioner actively In the present case, the commission of the crime of murder and the
assisted Salazar in his escape. Petitioner's liability is that of an responsibility of the petitioner as an accessory was established. By
accessory. the same token there is no doubt that the commission of the same
offense had been proven in the separate case against Salazar who
was charged as principal. However, he was acquitted on the ground
This is not a case of a variance between the offense charged and
of reasonable doubt by the same judge who convicted Vino as an
the offense proved or established by the evidence, and the offense
accessory. The trial court held that the identity of the assailant was
as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved,
not clearly established. It observed that only Julius Tejada identified
in which case the defendant shall be convicted of the offense
Salazar carrying a rifle while riding on the bicycle driven by Vino,
proved included in that which is charged, or of the offense charged
which testimony is uncorroborated, and that two other witnesses,
included in that which is proved. 5
Ernesto Tejada and Renato Parvian who were listed in the
information, who can corroborate the testimony of Julius Tejada,
In the same light, this is not an instance where after trial has begun, were not presented by the prosecution.
it appears that there was a mistake in charging the proper offense,
and the defendant cannot be convicted of the offense charged, or
The trial court also did not give due credit to the dying declaration
of any other offense necessarily included therein, in which case the
of the victim pinpointing Salazar as his assailant on the ground that
defendant must not be discharged if there appears to be a good
it was not shown the victim revealed the identity of Salazar to his
cause to detain him in custody, so that he can be charged and made
father and brother who came to his aid immediately after the
to answer for the proper offense. 6
shooting. The court a quo also deplored the failure of the
prosecution and law enforcement agencies to subject to ballistic
In this case, the correct offense of murder was charged in the examinations the bullet slug recovered from the body of the victim
information. The commission of the said crime was established by and the two empty armalite bullet empty shells recovered at the
the evidence. There is no variance as to the offense committed. The crime scene and to compare it with samples taken from the service
variance is in the participation or complicity of the petitioner. While rifle of Salazar. Thus, the trial court made the following observation:
the petitioner was being held responsible as a principal in the
information, the evidence adduced, however, showed that his
There appears to be a miscarriage of justice in
participation is merely that of an accessory. The greater
this case due to the ineptitude of the law
responsibility necessarily includes the lesser. An accused can be
enforcement agencies to gather material and
important evidence and the seeming lack of
concern of the public prosecutor to direct the THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,
production of such evidence for the successful vs.
prosecution of the case. 9 JOSE TAMAYO, ET AL., defendants.
JOSE TAMAYO, RAMON TAMAYO, HILARIO TAMAYO, FEDERICO
Hence, in said case, the acquittal of the accused Salazar is TIBUNSAY, and TEODORO CASPELLAN,appellants.
predicated on the failure of the prosecution to adduce the quantum
of evidence required to generate a conviction as he was not Teofilo Sison for appellants.
positively identified as the person who was seen holding a rifle Attorney-General Villa-Real for appellee.
escaping aboard the bicycle of Vino.

A similar situation may be cited. The accessory was seen driving a


bicycle with an unidentified person as passenger holding a carbine
fleeing from the scene of the crime immediately after the STREET, J.:
commission of the crime of murder. The commission of the crime
and the participation of the principal or assailant, although not
This appeal has been brought to reverse a judgment of the Court of
identified, was established. In such case, the Court holds that the
First Instance of the Province of Pangasinan, finding the five
accessory can be prosecuted and held liable independently of the
appellants, Jose Tamayo, Ramon Tamayo, Hilario Tamayo, Federico
assailant.
Tibunsay, and Teodoro Caspellan, guilty of the offense of homicide,
committed on July 17, 1921, in the municipality of Binalonan,
We may visualize another situation as when the principal died or Province of Pangasinan, upon the person of one Catalino Carrera,
escaped before he could be tried and sentenced. Should the and sentencing them as follows: Jose Tamayo, Ramon Tamayo, and
accessory be acquitted thereby even if the commission of the Hilario Tamayo, as principals, to undergo imprisonment for fourteen
offense and the responsibility of the accused as an accessory was years, eight months and one day, reclusion temporal, with the
duly proven? The answer is no, he should be held criminally liable as accessories specified in article 59 of the Penal Code, and jointly and
an accessory. severally to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P650;
and Federico Tibunsay and Teodoro Caspellan, as accomplices, to
Although in this case involving Vino the evidence tended to show undergo imprisonment for eight years and one day, prision mayor,
that the assailant was Salazar, as two witnesses saw him with a rifle with the accessories specified in article 61 of the Penal Code, and
aboard the bicycle driven by Vino, in the separate trial of the case of jointly and severally to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the
Salazar, as above discussed, he was acquitted as the trial court was sum of P350; imposing also on those within each respective class,
not persuaded that he was positively identified to be the man with the obligation to respond subsidiarily for the indemnity imposed
the gun riding on the bicycle driven by Vino. In the trial of the case upon those of the other class, in conformity with article 125 of the
against Vino, wherein he did not even adduce evidence in his Penal Code; and finally, requiring each to pay his proportional part
defense, his liability as such an accessory was established beyond of the costs.
reasonable doubt in that he assisted in the escape of the assailant
from the scene of the crime. The identity of the assailant is of no It appears in evidence that on the morning of the day mentioned in
material significance for the purpose of the prosecution of the the complaint the deceased, Catalino Carrera, in company with his
accessory. Even if the assailant can not be identified the brother, Francisco Carrera, and a youth of thirteen years, named
responsibility of Vino as an accessory is indubitable. Juan Gonzales, who was living with the deceased, repaired to a field
belonging to the deceased, in the barrio of San Felipe, municipality
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is denied and this of Binalonan, to do agricultural work, preparatory to the planting of
denial is FINAL. palay. For the accomplishment of these labors, it was necessary to
turn water into the paddy from an irrigating ditch flowing nearby;
SO ORDERED. and the deceased accordingly intercepted the flow of the water in
this ditch by constructing a dirt dam, thereby diverting the water
entirely to his own land. While the deceased was engaged in
Narvasa and Medialdea, JJ., concur.
working in and around the irrigating ditch, his brother Francisco was
occupied nearby in leveling the soil with a light rake, and the boy,
Juan Gonzales, mounted on a carabao, was using a harrow to
smoothen the surface of the field a few rods away.

While the three mentioned were busy as above stated, the five
appellants herein arrived from the barrio of Asingan, which is the
place of their abode, to begin work preparing another plot of land
for cultivation, adjacent to or near the paddy upon which the
deceased was at work. Upon arriving upon the scene of their
intended labors, the five appellants found that no water was
available for watering the land which they intended to prepare,
owing to the fact that all the water in the canal was being
appropriated by the deceased. The five therefore approached the
deceased and either Hilario or Ramon Tamayo asked him to allow
the water, or some of the water, to flow on through the canal to
their land, as it was dry and water was necessary. In reply the
deceased told them to wait for the rain of heaven. The appellants skin and fractured and depressed the skull over a length of eight
were not content with this rejoinder, and the request for water was centimeters. Death was evidently caused by the direct shock
repeated, upon which the deceased told them that they should produced by the blow, in connection with a cerebral hemorrhage
await his pleasure. which had ensued. Upon examining other parts of the body, this
physician found no other sign of violence.
Seeing that their request for water was disregarded, the anger of
the appellants was aroused, and Hilario Tamayo advanced towards While the scene above depicted was being transacted, Federico
the irrigating ditch, and toward the deceased, with the intention, so Tibunsay and Teodoro Caspellan were standing close by; and we are
Hilario states, of breaking the dam with his hands, thereby releasing prepared to believed the testimony of Francisco Carrera when he
the water so that it would continue its course in the ditch. This says that while the altercation with Catalino Carrera was in progress
movement on the part of Hilario Tamayo was met with a Federico Tibunsay indicated his sympathy with his companions and
demonstration of resistance on the part of the deceased, and encouraged them by exclaiming "Go ahead! go ahead!" (¡Sigue!
struggle ensued, the salient features of which are in our opinion ¡Sigue!).
established clearly enough, though some of the more minute details
are obscure. Basilia Orensia further states that Teodoro Caspellan cooperated in
the attack by delivering blows with his fist on the back of the
At this point it may be stated that when the five appellants deceased while the latter was held by Hilario and Ramon Tamayo.
approached the deceased to ask for water, Basilla Orensia, the wife Francisco Carrera corroborates her to a certain extent upon this
of the latter, had just arrived in the field, bringing food for her point, but the proof on this point is not entirely clear, and if such
husband and his assistant, as the day was getting hot and the hour blows were delivered by this appellant, he had apparently desisted
was approaching when agricultural laborers are accustomed to take from the attack before Jose Tamayo intervened.
rest and refreshment. She therefore was present at the quarrel
from the beginning and is one of the two adult witnesses for the After life was extinct, Federico Tibunsay approached the body and
prosecution, the other being Francisco Carrera, the brother of the removed a large bolo with which the deceased was provided,
deceased. drawing it, so the witnesses for the prosecution testify, from the
sheath in which it was reposing. This bolo, it may be observed, was
His honor, the trial judge, as preliminary to his analysis of the facts afterwards found in the hands of Hilario, by whom it was delivered
in the appealed decision, observes that the prosecution witnesses to the justice of the peace. The evident explanation of this
have in some respect grossly exaggerated the facts from the point circumstance is that Federico. Tibunsay delivered the bolo to Hilario
of view of the prosecution, while the witnesses for the defense after the appellants had departed from the scene of homicide, with
have falsely attempted to make it appear that only two of the a view to the corroboration of the tale which they then concocted,
accused, namely, Hilario Tamayo and Jose Tamayo, were actually to the effect that only Jose and Hilario had been present at the
engaged in the assault. This observation is correct, and his Honor tragedy.
was entirely justified in refusing to accept the version of the affair
given by either set of witnesses, the truth being evidently When Hilario Tamayo was arrested he exhibited a slight cut on the
somewhere between the extremes. left forearm, which he claims to have received while he was
engaged with the deceased. The proof for the prosecution tends to
Bearing this circumstances in mind, we have carefully examined the show that the deceased did not use his bolo at all, and a suspicion is
evidence, after conceding to some of the accused the benefit of a suggested that the cut exhibited by Hilario was designedly made by
reasonable doubt upon minor features of the case, we find the facts himself, or some one acting at his instance, in order to give
more immediately connected with the homicide to be substantially plausibility to a pretense that he had acted in self-defense. We
as follows: When Hilario Tamayo found himself confronted by the consider the point to be of little fundamental importance, for even
deceased in a threatening attitude, he at once closed in upon the supposing that this cut on Hilario's arm was inflicted by the
deceased and, seizing him firmly by the neck, began choking him, deceased, the evidence in our opinion shows that Hilario was not
with the result that the deceased was rendered incapable of acting in legitimate self-defense.
effectual resistance. Upon this Francisco Carrera ran to his brother's
assistance and taking Hilario by the belt, pulled him away, It does not appear that there was any antecedent grudge or ill-
whereupon a minor altercation apparently ensued between these feeling between the five appellants and the deceased, and there is
two and during the remainder of the affray Hilario remained nothing to show that the latter had previously conspired together
separated a few meters from Catalino Carrera. to engage in the unlawfully aggression which cost the deceased his
life. It was clearly a case of a casual quarrel, culminating in violence;
As soon as Hilario had been thus drawn away from the deceased, and the trial judge was right in so finding.
Ramon Tamayo at once took Hilario's place and continued choking
the deceased until the latter had become visibly weak; and it was at Having outlined the proof connecting the five appellants with the
this moment that Jose Tamayo, a son of Ramon, ran up and homicide, we pass to a feature of the case upon which we have not
delivered a blow with a bamboo stick on the side of the head of the hitherto touched. This has relation to five other individuals, namely,
deceased just above the left ear. The deceased at once gave down, Pastor Caspellan, Nicomedes Caspellan, Domingo Cañiza, Alejandro
but Ramon Tamayo continued to choke him for a few moments Destor, and Felipe Obejo, who were jointly accused with the five
until life was extinct. Seeing what had been thus accomplished, the appellants. It appears that these persons are laborers who upon the
five accused went away, leaving the body where it had fallen. occasion in question were engaged in agricultural work not far away
from the paddy of the deceased, and when the trouble arose they
The physician who examined the cadaver found that the gathered quickly around the combatants. In the excited state of her
longitudinal blow on the side of the head had broken through the imagination, and owing perhaps to some manifestation of sympathy
on their part with the appellants, Basilia supposed that these five subsection 1 of that article, means "those who, participating in the
had also come to cooperated in the attack on her husband, and she criminal resolution, proceed together to perpetrate the crime and
claims that while the fight was going on one or more of them personally take part in its realization, executing acts which directly
encouraged the appellants by calling out "go ahead!" (¡sigue!). tend to the same end." (Vol. I, p. 341.) Immediate participation in
Upon this circumstance the fiscal considered it proper to include the criminal design entertained by the slayer is therefore essential
the whole ten in the complaint; but the trial judge very properly, to the responsibility of one who is alleged to hace taken a direct
upon the conclusion of the evidence for the prosecution, ordered part in the killing, as a principal, but who has not himself inflicted an
that the complaint as against these five should be dismissed for lack injury materially contributing to the death. Moreover, this guilty
of proof. participation in the criminal resolution of the slayer is a substantive
fact that must be clearly deducible from all the circumstances taken
Upon the facts above stated it is obvious that the offense together.
committed was properly designated by the trial judge as simple
homicide; and Jose Tamayo was rightly condemned as principal in Upon this aspect of the case the following decisions of this court
the commission of said offense. We are of the opinion that there is appear to be decisive.
no aggravating or mitigating circumstances to be taken into account
in estimating said offense, and it results that the penalty imposed In United States vs. Manayao (4 Phil., 293), it appeared that a state
by the trial judge upon Jose Tamayo, imprisonment for fourteen of enmity existed between one Simeon Manayao and the deceased,
years, eight months and one day, reclusion temporal, with the Mateo Margarejo, and that upon a certain occasion an altercation
accessories specified in article 59 of the Penal Code, was not arose between them at a village store, in which a number of their
incorrect. friends took sides. Upon departing for their homes, the quarrel was
renewed between the deceased and one of his friends on the one
The question whether the four other appellants have been shown side, and Simeon Manayao, with Angel Manayao, on the other. In
to be guilty of criminal complicity in the offense of homicide and, if the course of this altercation Simeon Manayao drew his pocketknife
so, in what character, is not free from difficulty; and inasmuch as and stabbed Mateo Margarejo in the side, inflicting a wound from
the acts respectively done by them differ somewhat in the case of which death ensued. It was held that Angel Manayao was not
each individual, it is necessary to consider the responsibility of each responsible for the homicide. Said the court:
in turn. In so doing we begin with an examination of the relation of
Ramon Tamayo to the crime, for he was holding the deceased when The proof shows that the deceased received but one
the fatal blow was struck, and the case against him is perceptibly wound, and, while it is true that Angel Manayao took
stronger that than against the remaining three. Moreover, it will be sides with said Simeon Manayao in the quarrel, there is
convenient to discuss the case of this appellant, first, with reference nothing in the evidence to show that he joined in the
to the question whether he can be held as a principal, or coauthor, commission of the homicidio, either as principal or
of the homicide; and, secondly, if not responsible as a principal, accomplice. There is nothing to show concerted action
whether he can be held responsible in the character of an between the said Angel Manayao and Simeon Manayao in
accomplice. the use of the knife and in the stabbing which resulted in
the death of the said Margarejo, nor that the said Angel
In considering the responsibility of this appellant, the following Manayao had any reason to believe that his companion
circumstances should be borne in mind, namely, first, that no intended to make a deadly attack on the deceased. (U.
previous concert among the accused to commit aggression upon S. vs. Manayao, 4 Phil., 293, 294.)
the deceased is shown; secondly, that in the inception of the
encounter there was no apparent intention on the part of any of In United States vs. Magcomot (13 Phil., 386), it appeared that upon
the accused to take the life of the deceased or even to inflict upon the occasion of a game of cards, two persons, Isidro and Clemente
him serious bodily harm; and, finally, that the delivery of the fatal Magcomot, quarreled with one Pedro Magnave; and in the course
blow by Jose Tamayo was the act of a person suddenly coming into of an altercation which resulted, they threw him down and
the fight without having been previously involved in the quarrel. In overpowered him, when Epifanio Magcomot, father of Isidro and
this connection, it is to be remembered, that none of the appellants Clemente, arrived upon the scene and inflicted a fatal blow upon
were armed or had on their person even so much as a bolo; and the Pedro Magnave by stabbing him, while the first two had him down.
only individual supplied with a dangerous weapon was the It was held that Isidro and Clemente were not responsible for the
deceased, who had a bolo and, as the trial judge found, used it with homicide. Said this court, speaking through Mr. Justice Mapa:
some effect upon Hilario Tamayo.
In view of all the circumstances of the case we are
In considering whether Ramon Tamayo is guilty as a principal in this satisfied that the assault was committed without the
homicide, the first impression must be that, if he is responsible in concurrence of the will of Isidro and Clemente Magcomot,
that character, it is because of his direct participation in the and in the absence of that violation, which is the
commission of the deed; but when the facts proved are carefully fundamental source of criminal liability, these
considered in the light of the jurisprudence relating to criminal codefendants cannot lawfully be held liable for the
responsibility, it will be seen that he cannot properly be held aggression and its consequences. On the other hand, it
responsible in the character of principal, for the reason that cannot be pleaded that the acts committed on the body
participation on his part in the criminal design of Jose Tamayo, the of the deceased by said codefendants and by Epifanio
actual slayer, is not sufficiently proved. were perpetrated at the same time, because this
simultaneous does not of itself demonstrate the
The very first words of comment upon article 13 of the Penal Code concurrence of wills nor the unity of action and purpose
found in the pages of Viada are to the effect that the expression which are the bases of the responsibility of two or more
"those who take a direct part in the commission of the deed," in individuals, and in the absence of which it is strictly just, in
accordance with the sound principles of law, that each the character of principal. In this connection we may quote words
one should only be held liable for the acts perpetrated by that have been so often repeated by the supreme court of Spain as
him. (U. S. vs. Magcomot, 13 Phil., 386, 389.) to constitute a classical formula for the expression of a generally
recognized truth. Say the court: "It is an essential condition to the
In United States vs. Reyes and Javier (14 Phil., 27), it appeared that existence of complicity, not only that there should be a relation
one Javier got into a fight with the deceased named Legaspi; and between the acts done by the principal and those attribute to the
while Javier was holding Legaspi firmly so that the latter was person charged as accomplice, but it is furthermore necessary that
disabled from making any effectual resistance one Reyes struck the latter, with knowledge of the criminal intent, should cooperate
Legaspi on the head several times with a heavy cudgel inflicting with the intention of supplying material or moral aid in the
wounds of which the latter died. There was no previous concert execution of the crime in an efficacious way." (Decision, May 23,
between Javier and Reyes and the latter had primarily intervened 1905; Viada, 5 Supp., 169; decision, June 28, 1901; Viada, 4 Supp.,
with the intention of separating the two original combatants. It was 196.)
held that Javier was not responsible for the homicide committed by
Reyes. Said the court: A similar doctrine, with respect to the indispensable concert,
mediate or immediate, with the author of a crime in order that the
It is impossible to say from the record whether Javier or aggressive acts of a third person against the injured party can be
Legaspi was the original aggressor in the fight which was qualified as acts of criminal complicity, is established in terms
in progress when Reyes intruded himself between them, equally expressive and explicit in another decision, where the
and it well may by that Javier, who was wholly unarmed, supreme court of Spain says:
was within his rights when he took hold of Legaspi to
prevent him from making use of his club; but, however Considering that the principal element of every
this may be, it is quite clear from all the record that he did punishable complicity consists in the occurrence of the
not take hold of Legaspi or continue to hold him for the will of the accomplice with the will of the author of the
purpose of aiding Reyes in striking Legaspi upon the head; crime which presupposes the mediate or immediate
and that there was no concerted action between Javier agreement of both to carry out the commission thereof;
and Reyes nor voluntary cooperation on the part of Javier, and that when such concurrence is lacking, although there
in the homicidal attack, the sudden and unexpected may be participation by action, the person committing
intervention of Reyes not having given any opportunity acts directly connected with the passive subject, either
therefor. (U. S. vs. Reyes and Javier, 14 Phil., 27, 30.) prior to, or simultaneously with, the commission of the
crime, may incur any responsibility, but cannot be
In United States vs. Macuti (26 Phil., 170), six defendants had been criminally responsible as accomplice of the actual
convicted of the crime of homicide committed upon the person of perpetrator of the crime in the juridical sense of the word.
one Martino Jalea. Three of these six were acquitted upon appeal to (Decision, Nov. 4, 1892; Viada, 2 Supp., 116.)
this court for the reason that, while the proof showed that they had
been present upon the occasion of the homicide, there was not As the same court observed, in its judgement of May 23, 1905, from
sufficient evidence to show further participation by them in the which we have already quoted, there is a total lack of basis upon
offense. As to two other appellants, to wit, Florentino and Agaton which to found the relation of solidarity between the act of the
Macuti, it appeared that they were engaged in a fight with Jalea at principal and one charged as accomplice where the facts proved
the time the latter was stabbed by Modesto Macuti, the actual disclose the absence of the moral element of design
slayer. In acquitting them, this court said: (intencionalidad) on the part of the accomplice.

Assuming that Florentino and Agaton Macuti were In a decision of December 4, 1889, the following case was
fighting with Jalea at the time Modesto Macuti stabbed presented: Two persons, one of whom was in a state of
him, can they be held responsible as principals? We have intoxication, were misbehaving on the streets, upon which a third
already stated that the record shows no prearranged plan person came up to protest against their conduct. As the intervening
to kill the deceased. It has been the constant holding, not third person approached the two misdemeanants one of them
only of this court, but also of the supreme court of Spain, raised a cudgel to strike, while the other who was in a state of
that in the absence of a previous plan or agreement to intoxication inflicted a serious wound with a rapier. It was held by
commit a crime the criminal responsibility arising from the supreme court that the person using the stick was not guilty of
different acts directed against one and the same person is the offense of lesiones graves caused by his companion. (Decision,
individual and not collective, and that each of the Dec. 4, 1889; Viada, 2 Supp., 116.) .
participants is liable only for the acts committed by
himself. (U. S. vs. Macuti, 26 Phil., 170, 177.) In a decision of November 14, 1892, the following case was
presented; Two individuals passing along a street met a third; and,
From the foregoing discussion it is evident that the judgment upon certain cause of offense, one of the two slapped the third and
finding Ramon Tamayo guilty as principal, or co-author, in this drew a knife to attack him, at which moment the companion from
homicide cannot be sustained, and we proceed to consider whether behind discharged a pistol at the person who had been thus
he can be adjudged guilty in the character of accomplice, under attacked, causing an injury from which he died. It was held by the
article 14 of our Penal Code, by reason of having cooperated in the supreme court of Spain that without further data it would be
commission of the deed by previous or simultaneous acts. On this improper to find the first assailant guilty as an accomplice in the
branch of the case also it will be found that, by the overwhelming crime of murder committed by the other. (Decision, Nov. 14, 1892;
weight of authority, the same community of purpose and intention Viada, 2 Supp., 124.)
is necessary to justify the conviction of an accused person in the
character of accomplice that is necessary to sustain conviction in
In a decision of November 20, 1895, case was presented where tow accused was guilty in the character of accomplice saying: "Although
individuals had simultaneously assaulted a third. One of the the accused did not intervene in giving the mortal injury caused by
assailants inflicted a slight hurt with a cutting instrument. The other the cudgel, for which reason he is not comprehended in article 13,
inflicted a serious injury with a firearm, as a result of which the he simultaneously trampled upon the deceased who was on the
person assailed died within a few days. The jury found that the two floor; and this simultaneity of acts contributing to the homicide
had not acted upon previous concert and with the same design. The makes him an accomplice in the same." (Decision, Dec. 29, 1884;
supreme court of Spain held that the one who had inflicted the Viada, vol. 1, p. 375.)
slighter injury was not guilty of the offense of homicide in the
character either of principal or accomplice. (Decision, Nov. 20, In a decision of June 13, 1904, a case is reported to the following
1895; Viada, 3 Supp., 140.) effect: The person slain appeared with a razor in hand in the street,
from which point he called to two others to come out from the inn
The doctrine sustained in the Spanish decisions, upon the point now where they were lodging. In response to this challenge one of them
under consideration, was adopted by this court in United States vs. emerged with jack-knife in hand, the other bearing the blade of a
Guevara (2 Phil., 528), where the language of a decision from the pair of pruning shears, In the fight which resulted, the first of the
supreme court of Spain was quoted with approval to the following two slew the challenger. It was held by the supreme court of Spain
effect: "The responsibility of the accomplice is to be determined by that the second had not taken a direct part in the fatal assault in the
acts of aid and assistance, either prior to or simultaneous with the sense necessary to make him a principal but that he was criminally
commission of the crime, rendered knowingly for the principal responsible in the character of accomplice. (Decision, June 13,
therein, and not by the mere fact of having been present at its 1904; Viada, 5 Supp., 167.)
execution, unless the trial court finds that the object of such
presence was to encourage the delinquent or to apparently or really In a decision of the supreme court of Spain of January 5, 1909, it
increase the odds against the victim, and in the absence of such an appeared that three persons took part in an aggression which
intent specifically shown, concurring with some overt act, which resulted in the death of the person assaulted. The fatal wound was
together form the basis of the responsibility of the indirect author inflicted by the discharge of a gun or pistol in the hands of one of
of the crime, such a conclusion is erroneous and constitutes an the three assailants, and at the time the fatal wound was inflicted
infraction of article 15 of the Penal Code." (Decision, June 25, 1886.) one of the other two was holding the victim by the neck, choking
him. The other was at the same time engaged in holding him by the
In United States vs. Bello (11 Phil. 526), the crime of robbery had arms, with the result that the victim was unable to move and
been committed by certain convicts who had improperly been defend himself when the slayer fired the fatal shot. The supreme
permitted to go at large by the sentry placed on guard at their court of Spain held that the accused who caused death was
quarters; and the sentry was convicted in the lower court of the principal and that the other two were accomplices, although it did
offense of robbery. It did not appear that, when he permitted the not appear that there was any previous concert. The court observed
authors of the crime to go at large, he had any knowledge of their that there was concert at the moment of consummating the act,
intention to commit any crime. It was held that the conviction could and that the acts of the accomplices implied criminal complicity
not be sustained as to the sentry, even in the character of from the form and manner in which assistance was rendered
accomplice; and the doctrine applicable to the case was elegantly (Decision, Jan. 5, 1909; Viada, 6 Supp., 152.)
expressed by Mr. Justice Mapa in the following words: "The
cooperation that the law punishes is the assistance knowingly or Other cases in which the Spanish court has declared complicity to
intentionally rendered, which cannot exist without previous exist, from the cooperation on the part of the accomplice, as
cognizance of the criminal act intended to be executed." evidence in simultaneous acts, are found in decisions as follows:
Decision, Dec. 1, 1873; Viada, vol. 1, p. 371; decision, July 6, 1881;
The doctrine above enunciated to the effect that criminal complicity Viada, vol. 1, p. 374; decision, July 3, 1900; Viada, 4 Supp., 194.
in the character of an accomplice necessarily reposes on knowledge
of the criminal design on the part of the principal and participation Now although, as thus demonstrated, participation on the part of
therein, is further illustrated in United States vs. Romulo (15 Phil., an accomplice in the criminal design of the principal is essential to
408); and it is also inferentially, if not expressly, recognized in all of the same extent as such participation is necessary on the part of
the cases referred to in the first branch of this discussion, one charged as coprincipal, nevertheless, it is evident, — and the
namely, United States vs. Manayao (4 Phil., 293); United States vs. cases above cited abundantly prove — that, as against an
Magcomot (13 Phil., 386); United States vs. Reyes and Javier (14 accomplice, a court will sometimes draws the inference of guilty
Phil., 27); United States vs. Macuti (26 Phil., 170). participation in the criminal designs from acts of concert in the
consummation of the criminal act and from the form and manner in
But while the authorities above collated conclusively show that a which assistance is rendered, where it would not draw the same
man cannot be an accomplice in a crime without participating in the inference for the purpose of holding the same accused in the
criminal design of the principal, something remains to be said about character of principal. This is because, in case of doubt, the courts
the acts from which such participation in the criminal design can be naturally lean to the milder from of responsibility.
proved. Upon this point it is undoubtedly true that concert of action
at the moment of consummating the homicide, and the form and The preceding discussion prepares the way for the consideration of
manner in which assistance is rendered, may determine complicity the concrete question whether Ramon Tamayo can be convicted as
where it would not be otherwise evident. Thus, in a decision of an accomplice in the homicide committed in this case by Jose
December 29, 1884, the case was that after two individuals had Tamayo on the person of Catalino Carrera; and if our review of the
beaten another and thrown him to the ground, the accused got authorities has not been unfruitful it will be recognized that the test
upon him, trampling his breast and face. As a consequence of the here to be applied is to be found in the question whether Ramon
injuries received from the beating by the first two, the injured Tamayo, in holding and choking the deceased when the latter was
person died. It was held by the supreme court of Spain that the struck by Jose Tamayo, was acting in furtherance of the criminal
design entertained against the deceased by Jose Tamayo. In this complicity in the offense of homicide is shown. In this connection it
connection it becomes important to note that both Basilia Orensia was held by the supreme court of Spain, in a decision from which
and Francisco Carrera repeatedly testify that after the deceased had we have already quoted, that the mere circumstance that a person,
received the fatal injury, Ramon Tamayo continued to hold and present at a quarrel, says aloud, so as to be heard by one of the
choke the deceased, then evidently on the ground, until after life contending parties, "there you have them," "now they are yours,"
was extinct. We consider it unlikely that the accusing witnesses "strike them," "this is the time," is not sufficient to fix complicity
could be mistaken about so dramatic and brutal a fact; and, if true, upon such person as an accomplice in the crime of homicide, where
it shows that Ramon Tamayo approved of the blow struck by his son other facts show that the spokesman did not speak said words with
Jose Tamayo; and a participation in the criminal design of the latter the intention that the person slain should bee wounded. (Decision,
was thereby shown, sufficient to make Ramon responsible as an May 23, 1905; Viada, 5 Supp., 169.)
accomplice, This incident in fact makes the case indistinguishable in
principle from those decided by the supreme court of Spain upon Again, in a decision of March 13, 1884, the case was that the
the dates respectively of December 29, 1894, and January 5, accused was present at the commission of the crime of murder by
1909, supra; and a majority of the Justice participating in this his brother upon the person of a common enemy of both, with
decision are of the opinion that this accused must at least be whom both brothers had had a previous dispute. While the deed
adjudged guilty as an accomplice in the homicide which is the was being committed, the accused was heard to have uttered some
subject of this prosecution.lawph!l.net threatening words, the exact nature of which is unknown, now was
it clearly shown to whom the words were directed. It was held by
Passing to the case of Hilario Tamayo, it is apparent in the light of the supreme court of Spain that this was not sufficient data to fix
the authorities above cited, that he must be absolved from all upon the accused complicity in the crime. Said the court:
responsibility for the homicide; for at the time Jose Tamayo
intervened in the affray Hilario had desisted from his own acts of Although the accused gave rise to the first dispute, and
aggression against the deceased; and he did nothing whatever to later accompanied the aggressor and was present at the
assist Jose in the immediate commission of the homicide. commission of the crime, uttering some threatening
Moreover, such acts as were done by Hilario prior to the words, the exact nature of which is unknown, nor does it
commission of the deed were evidently done without knowledge of appear to whom they were directed, these isolated facts,
the criminal design on the part of Jose, for that design had not then without any antecedents to explain them, cannot be given
been revealed. It result that his accused is guilty only of the great importance, nor can they be presumed to indicate
misdemeanor involved in his previous assault upon the deceased. participation or cooperation in the criminal act, which is
what legally determines complicity in a crime, without
The trial judge found Federico Tibunsay guilty as an accomplice, for thereby incurring a serious mistake. (Decision, March 13,
the reason that he stood by and is supposed to have animated the 1884; 1 Viada, 375.)
other assailants by calling out more than once "go ahead! go
ahead!" (¡sigue! ¡sigue!). Upon this point we note that though The same high tribunal has pointed out that the question whether a
Francisco Carrera, the most reliable of the two accusing witnesses, person can be held guilty as coprincipal by induction, from the use
testified that Federico Tibunsay used said expression, Basilia of an excited expression such as is attributed to Federico Tibunsay
Orensia attributed it to the five laborers from nearby fields who in the case before us, depends upon whether the words are of
were attracted to the scene when the quarrel first began and who, character, and are spoken under conditions, which give to them a
although included in the complaint, were discharged by the trial direct and determinative influence upon the main actor; and a
judge, when the prosecution concluded its case, for lack of distinction is pointed out between the words of command of a
sufficient incriminatory evidence; and Basilia insisted at the hearing father to his sons, under conditions which determine obedience,
that Federico Tibunsay did not say "go ahead" (¡sigue!) at all. She and excited exclamations uttered by an individual to whom
admitted in effect, however, that at the preliminary hearing before obedience in not due. The moral influence of the words of the
the justice of the peace, she had stated that Federico Tibunsay had father may determine the course of conduct of a son where the
used that expression. We further note that after having been words of a stranger would make no impression. (Decision, June 21,
subjected to a lengthy examination in the forenoon, this witness 1882; decision, Dec. 22, 1883; 1 Viada, 357.)
returned to the stand during the afternoon session and for the first
time, stated that just before Jose Tamayo struck the deceased,
In the case before us, when Federico Tibunsay is supposed to have
Federico Tibunsay called out "kill him" ("matadle"), which
used the expression "go ahead!" (¡sigue!), a mere assault was being
expression was used only once. Francisco Carrera does not
made, and it does not appear that he intended anything more than
corroborated this; and in the contradictory state of the proof, it
that the deceased should receive a should beating. It results that
would be exceedingly dangerous to the cause of justice to find that
Federico Tibunsay must also be absolved from complicity in the
the expression last mentioned was in fact used by this accused. Of
homicide.
course, it goes without saying that if the proof showed beyond a
reasonable doubt that, at the crisis of the assault, Federico Tibunsay
had called out to the assailants to kill Francisco Carrera, and Jose Upon similar considerations Teodoro Caspellan must be acquitted,
Tamayo had struck the fatal blow in response to this suggestion, as his alleged, but doubtful, participation was limited to the striking
Federico Tibunsay would be guilty, at least as an accomplice, if not of blows upon the back of the deceased while the latter was held by
indeed as a coprincipal, in having directly induced the commission Hilario or Ramon Tamayo.
of the deed.
From what has been said it result that the judgment appealed from
Assuming, however, as we well may, that Federico Tibunsay used must be affirmed in so far as it finds Jose Tamayo guilty of the
the expression "go ahead!" (¡sigue!) more than once while the offense of homicide and sentences him to undergo imprisonment
unlawful assault was being committed, it does not follow that his for fourteen years, eight months and one day, reclusion temporal,
with the accessories prescribed in article 59 of the Penal Code and appellant told AAA not to tell anyone what had happened or else
requires him to pay indemnity to the heirs of the deceased in the they would get back at her.
amount of P650; with proportional costs of this instance against the
appellant. The judgment must bee reversed as to all the other AAA went to San Pedro, Laguna after the incident and told her sister
appellants; and as to Ramon Tamayo, judgment will be entered what happened and the latter informed their mother about it. AAA,
declaring him guilty of homicide, in the character of accomplice, her sister and mother, filed a complaint at Barangay San Dionisio.
and requiring him to undergo imprisonment for eight years and one Thereafter, the barangay officials of San Dionisio referred the
day, prision mayor, with the accessories prescribed in article 61 of complaint to the police station.
the Penal Code, and imposing upon him liability to indemnify the
heirs of the deceased in the amount of P350, and to pay
The Parañaque City Police Office (Women's and Children Concern
proportionate costs of both instances; it being understood that as
Desk) asked the assistance of the Child Protection Unit of the
between Jose Tamayo and Ramon Tamayo the satisfaction of
Philippine General Hospital, upon which the latter assigned the case
indemnity shall be effected in accordance with article 125 of the
to Dr. Merle Tan. Consequently, with the consent of AAA and her
Penal Code. Hilario Tamayo will be sentenced for assault and
mother, and in the presence of a social worker of the Department
battery (malos tratos de obra), under No. 1 of article 589 of the
of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), Dr. Tan conducted the
Penal Code, to confinement for five days, arresto menor, and to pay
requisite interview and physical examination on AAA. Later on, Dr.
proportionate cost of both instances, Federico Tibunsay and
Tan issued a Medico-Legal Report4 stating that there was no evident
Teodoro Caspellan will be acquitted, with proportionate costs of
injury in the body of AAA, but medical evaluation cannot exclude
both instances de oficio. So ordered.
sexual abuse. During her testimony, Dr. Tan explained that such
impression or conclusion pertains to the ano-genital examination
Araullo, C. J., and Villamor, J., concur. and also stated that she found multiple abrasions on the back
portion of the body of AAA.5

Thus, an Information was filed, which reads as follows:

That on or about the 3rd day of July 2005, in the City of Parañaque,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
vs. above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together with
DINA DULAY y PASCUAL, Appellant. one alias "Speed," whose true name and identity and present
whereabouts is still unknown, and both of them mutually helping
DECISION and aiding one another, the herein accused Dina P. Dulay having
delivered and offered for a fee complainant AAA, 12 year old minor,
PERALTA, J.: to accused alias "Speed," who with lewd design and by means of
force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have carnal knowledge on said minor complainant AAA
This is to resolve an appeal from the Decision1 dated August 4, 2010
against her will and without her consent, which act is prejudicial to
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03725 affirming
the normal growth and development of the said child.
with modification the Decision2 dated October 8, 2008 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 194, Parañaque City, finding
appellant Dina Dulay guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime CONTRARY TO LAW.6
of Rape under Article 266-A. No. 1 (a) of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC) as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) 8353 as a co-principal by With the assistance of counsel de oficio, on August 3, 2005,
indispensable cooperation. appellant entered a plea of not guilty.7 Therafter, trial on the merits
ensued.
The records bear the following factual antecedents:
To support the above allegations, the prosecution presented the
Private complainant AAA3 was 12 years old when the whole incident testimonies of AAA and Dr. Merle Tan. On the other hand, the
happened. AAA's sister introduced the appellant to AAA as defense presented the sole testimony of appellant which can be
someone who is nice. Thereafter, appellant convinced AAA to summarized as follows:
accompany her at a wake at GI San Dionisio, Parañaque City. Before
going to the said wake, they went to a casino to look for appellant's Appellant met AAA a few days before June 2005 when the latter
boyfriend, but since he was not there, they went to Sto. Niño at was introduced to her by her cousin Eglay Akmad during the wake
Don Galo. However, appellant's boyfriend was also not there. When of a relative of AAA at Palanyag. The cousin of appellant was AAA's
they went to Bulungan Fish Port along the coastal road to ask for neighbor at Palanyag. Around 1 o'clock in the morning of July 3,
some fish, they saw appellant's boyfriend. Afterwards, AAA, 2005, appellant averred that she was at La Huerta, at the Bulungan
appellant and the latter's boyfriend proceeded to the Kubuhan Fish Port in Parañaque City with her cousin Eglay and stayed there
located at the back of the Bulungan Fish Port. When they reached for about thirty (30) minutes. They then proceeded to the house of
the Kubuhan, appellant suddenly pulled AAA inside a room where a appellant's cousin in Palanyag. In the said house, appellant saw
man known by the name "Speed" was waiting. AAA saw "Speed" "Speed" and two (2) other male persons. She also saw AAA who was
give money to appellant and heard "Speed" tell appellant to look for engaged in a conversation with "Speed" and his two (2)
a younger girl. Thereafter, "Speed" wielded a knife and tied AAA's companions. She asked AAA what she was doing there and the
hands to the papag and raped her. AAA asked for appellant's help latter said that it was none of her business ("wala kang pakialam sa
when she saw the latter peeping into the room while she was being akin"). Because of the response of AAA, appellant left the house and
raped, but appellant did not do so. After the rape, "Speed" and went home to General Trias, Cavite.
On October 8, 2008, the RTC found appellant guilty beyond III.
reasonable doubt of the crime of rape as co-principal by
indispensable cooperation. The dispositive portion of the decision ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S DEFENSE OF DENIAL CANNOT BE
reads: GIVEN GREATER EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT THAN THE
POSITIVE TESTIMONY OF PRIVATE COMPLAINANT.11
WHEREFORE, finding Accused Danilo guilty beyond reasonable
doubt for rape as a co-principal by indispensable cooperation, she is An appeal in a criminal case throws the whole case wide open for
hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of Reclusion Perpetua review and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though
under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code and to pay the unassigned in the appealed judgment, or even reverse the trial
offended party the amount of ₱ 50,000.00 by way of damages. court's decision on the basis of grounds other than those that the
parties raised as errors.12
The period of her detention shall be considered part of the service
of her sentence. The appellant in this case was charged in the Information as having
committed the crime of Rape under Article 266-A, No. 1 (a) of the
SO ORDERED.8 RPC, as amended by R.A. 8353 in relation to Section 5 (b) of R.A.
7610. She was eventually convicted by the trial court of the crime of
Not satisfied with the judgment of the trial court, the appellant rape as a co-principal by indispensable cooperation and was
brought the case to the CA. The latter, on August 4, 2010, sentenced to suffer imprisonment of reclusion perpetua as
promulgated its decision affirming the ruling of the RTC with a provided under Article 266-B of the RPC.
modification on the award of damages, thus:
In sustaining the conviction of the appellant as co-principal by
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision of the court a quo is AFFIRMED indispensable cooperation, the CA, ratiocinated:
with the MODIFICATION that the accused-appellant is sentenced to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered to indemnify To cooperate means to desire or wish in common a thing. But that
the offended party the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos (₱ 50,000.00) common will or purpose does not necessarily mean previous
as civil indemnity, Fifty Thousand Pesos (₱ 50,000.00) as moral understanding, for it can be explained or inferred from the
damages and Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (₱ 25,000.00) as circumstances of each case. The cooperation must be indispensable,
exemplary damages. that is, without which the commission of the crime would not have
been accomplished. x x x
SO ORDERED.9
xxxx
Hence, the present appeal.
The proven facts and circumstances obtaining in this case fall
In her Brief, appellant assigned the following errors: squarely on the above-cited example. It will be noted that the
cooperation of the accused-appellant consisted in performing an
act which is different from the act of execution of the crime
I
committed by the rapist. Accused-appellant cooperated in the
perpetration of the crime of rape committed by "Speed" by acts
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE without which the crime would not have been consummated, since
ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF RAPE AS CO-PRINCIPAL she prepared the way for the perpetration thereof, convinced the
BY INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION. victim to go with her under the guise of looking for her boyfriend
and upon arrival at the kubuhan, she pulled the victim inside a room
II where "Speed" was waiting, delivered the victim to him, and then
after receiving some amount of money from "Speed" she settled in
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL another room together with her boyfriend so that "Speed" might
WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE freely consummate the rape with violence and intimidation, as he
PRIVATE COMPLAINANT AAA.10 did.13

The Office of the Solicitor General, representing the appellee, However, this Court is of another view and does not subscribe to
refutes the above assignment of errors by stating the following the findings of the trial court, as sustained by the CA that appellant
arguments: is guilty beyond reasonable doubt as co-principal by indispensable
cooperation in the crime of rape.

I.
Under the Revised Penal Code,14 an accused may be considered a
principal by direct participation, by inducement, or by indispensable
CONSPIRACY WAS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED IN THIS CASE. cooperation. To be a principal by indispensable cooperation, one
must participate in the criminal resolution, a conspiracy or unity in
II. criminal purpose and cooperation in the commission of the offense
by performing another act without which it would not have been
THE LOWER COURT DID NOT ERR IN BELIEVING THE accomplished.15 Nothing in the evidence presented by the
TESTIMONY OF PRIVATE COMPLAINANT. prosecution does it show that the acts committed by appellant are
indispensable in the commission of the crime of rape. The events
narrated by the CA, from the time appellant convinced AAA to go
with her until appellant received money from the man who A: Yes, sir.
allegedly raped AAA, are not indispensable in the crime of rape.
Anyone could have accompanied AAA and offered the latter's Q: Can you tell this Honorable Court AAA, what was that
services in exchange for money and AAA could still have been conversation you heard between this Dina Dulay and the person
raped. Even AAA could have offered her own services in exchange who gave money to her?
for monetary consideration and still end up being raped. Thus, this
disproves the indispensable aspect of the appellant in the crime of
A: He said to look for a younger girl, Sir.16
rape. It must be remembered that in the Information, as well as in
the testimony of AAA, she was delivered and offered for a fee by
appellant, thereafter, she was raped by "Speed." Thus: xxxx

PROS. R. GARCIA: Now, what happened after you met this Dina PROS. R. GARCIA:
Dulay?
Q: Okay. After that conversation and the giving of money to Dina
WITNESS AAA: She invited me to go with her boyfriend, Sir. Dulay, what happened to you and the man?

xxxx A: He raped me, Sir.

Q: You went to the bulungan, what happened when you reached Q: Where were you raped?
the fish port or bulungan, AAA?
A: At the Kubuhan, Sir. Q: Can you describe to this Honorable Court
A: Pumunta kami sa kubuhan, Sir. how you were raped by that person?

Q: Where is this kubuhan located in relation to the fish port? A: He tied me up, Sir.

A: At the back portion, Sir. Q: How were you tied up as you said?

Q: And, when you said pumunta kami, who was then your A: He tied up both my hands, Sir.
companion in going to that kubuhan?
Q: Then after tying your hands what happened next?
A: Dina Dulay and her boyfriend, Sir.
A: He raped me and he pointed a knife at me, Sir.
Q: Do you know the name of the boyfriend of Dina Dulay?
Q: When you said you were raped, are you referring to the insertion
A: No, Sir. of his penis into your sex organ?

xxxx A: Yes, Sir.

Q: All right. After reaching the kubuhan, what happened next? Q: And, how did you feel at that time when the organ of this man
was inserted into your organ?
A: Pina-rape po ako, Sir.
A: It was painful, Sir.
Q: What made you say AAA that accused here Dina Dulay had you
raped at the kubuhan? Q: And, how did you react when as you said you were being raped
by this person?
A: Kasi po binayaran siya nung lalaki, Sir.
A: I cannot talk. He put clothes in my mouth, Sir.
Q: Now, do you know how much this Dina Dulay was paid by that
person who was you said raped you? Q: For how long did you stay in that kubuhan with this man? May
isang oras ba kayo doon?
A: No, Sir. I just saw them.
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: And what did you see that was paid to Dina?
Q: Now, tell us how AAA many times did this person insert his penis
into your organ?
A: Pera, Sir.

A: Only one (1) AAA, Sir.17


Q: Aside from seeing a guy giving money to Dina Dulay, did you hear
any conversation between this Dina Dulay and that man who gave
money to her?
It must be clear that this Court respects the findings of the trial a. acting as a procurer of a child prostitute;
court that AAA was indeed raped by considering the credibility of
the testimony of AAA. The rule is that factual findings of the trial b. inducing a person to be a client of a child
court and its evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their prostitute by means of written or oral
testimonies are entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed advertisements or other similar means;
on appeal.18However, the review of a criminal case opens up the
case in its entirety. The totality of the evidence presented by both
c. taking advantage of influence or relationship
the prosecution and the defense are weighed, thus, avoiding
to procure a child as a prostitute;
general conclusions based on isolated pieces of evidence.19 In the
case of rape, a review begins with the reality that rape is a very
serious accusation that is painful to make; at the same time, it is a d. threatening or using violence towards a child
charge that is not hard to lay against another by one with malice in to engage him as a prostitute; or
her mind. Because of the private nature of the crime that justifies
the acceptance of the lone testimony of a credible victim to convict, e. giving monetary consideration, goods or
it is not easy for the accused, although innocent, to disprove his other pecuniary benefit to a child with intent to
guilt. These realities compel this Court to approach with great engage such child in prostitution;
caution and to scrutinize the statements of a victim on whose sole
testimony conviction or acquittal depends.20 3. the child is exploited or intended to be exploited in
prostitution and
In this light, while this Court does not find appellant to have
committed the crime of rape as a principal by indispensable 4. the child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of
cooperation, she is still guilty of violation of Section 5 (a) of R.A. age.22
7610, or the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse,
Exploitation and Discrimination Act, which states that:
Paragraph (a) essentially punishes acts pertaining to or connected
with child prostitution. It contemplates sexual abuse of a child
Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. – Children, exploited in prostitution. In other words, under paragraph (a), the
whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other child is abused primarily for profit.23
consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult,
syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and As alleged in the Information and proven through the testimony of
other sexual abuse. AAA, appellant facilitated or induced child prostitution. Children,
whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other
consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult,
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious
perpetua shall be imposed upon the following: conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and
other sexual abuse.24 Thus, the act of apellant in convincing AAA,
(a) Those who engage in or promote, facilitate or induce child who was 12 years old at that time, to go with her and thereafter,
prostitution which include, but are not limited to, the following: offer her for sex to a man in exchange for money makes her liable
under the above-mentioned law. The purpose of the law is to
(1) Acting as a procurer of a child prostitute; provide special protection to children from all forms of abuse,
neglect, cruelty, exploitation and discrimination, and other
conditions prejudicial to their development.25 A child exploited in
(2) Inducing a person to be a client of a child prostitute by
prostitution may seem to "consent" to what is being done to her or
means of written or oral advertisements or other similar
him and may appear not to complain. However, we have held that a
means;
child who is "a person below eighteen years of age or those unable
to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse,
(3) Taking advantage of influence or relationship to neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of their age
procure a child as a prostitute; or mental disability or condition" is incapable of giving rational
consent26 to any lascivious act or sexual intercourse.
(4) Threatening or using violence towards a child to
engage him as a prostitute; or It must be noted that in the Information, it was alleged that
appellant was accused of Rape under Article 266-A, No. 1 (a) of the
(5) Giving monetary consideration goods or other RPC, as amended by R.A. 8353 in relation to Section 5 (b) of R.A.
pecuniary benefit to a child with intent to engage such 7610, and then went on to enumerate the elements of Section 5 (a)
child in prostitution.21 of R.A. 7610 in its body. The Information partly reads:

The elements of paragraph (a) are: x x x the herein accused Dina P. Dulay having delivered and offered
for a fee complainant AAA, 12 year old minor, to accused alias
1. the accused engages in, promotes, facilitates or induces "Speed," who with lewd design and by means of force and
child prostitution; intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
have carnal knowledge on said minor complainant AAA against her
will and without her consent x x x 27
2. the act is done through, but not limited to, the
following means:
Undoubtedly, the above-quoted falls under Section 5 (a) of R.A.
7610, the appellant acting as a procurer of a child and inducing the
latter into prostitution. It must be remembered that the character
of the crime is not determined by the caption or preamble of the
information nor from the specification of the provision of law
alleged to have been violated, they may be conclusions of law, but
by the recital of the ultimate facts and circumstances in the
complaint or information.28 The sufficiency of an information is not
negated by an incomplete or defective designation of the crime in
the caption or other parts of the information but by the narration of
facts and circumstances which adequately depicts a crime and
sufficiently apprises the accused of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him.29 1âwphi1

To dispute the allegation and the evidence presented by the


prosecution, appellant merely interposes the defense of denial. It is
well settled that denial is essentially the weakest form of defense
and it can never overcome an affirmative testimony, particularly
when it comes from the mouth of a credible witness.30

Anent the penalty, for violation of the provisions of Section 5,


Article III of R.A. 7610, the penalty prescribed is reclusion temporal
in its medium period to reclusion perpetua. Therefore, in the
absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the proper
imposable penalty is reclusion temporal in its maximum period, the
medium of the penalty prescribed by the law.31 Notwithstanding
that R.A. 7610 is a special law, appellant may enjoy the benefits of
the Indeterminate Sentence Law.32 Since the penalty provided in
R.A. 7610 is taken from the range of penalties in the Revised Penal
Code, it is covered by the first clause of Section 1 of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law.33 Thus, appellant is entitled to a
maximum term which should be within the range of the proper
imposable penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period
(ranging from 17 years, 4 months and 1 day to 20 years) and a
minimum term to be taken within the range of the penalty next
lower to that prescribed by the law: prision mayor in its medium
period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period (ranging from 8
years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months).34

As to the award of damages, the same must be consistent with the


objective of R.A. 7610 to afford children special protection against
abuse, exploitation and discrimination and with the principle that
every person who contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes
damage to another shall indemnify the latter for the
same.35 Therefore, civil indemnity to the child is proper in a case
involving violation of Section 5 (a), Article III of R.A. 7610. This is
also in compliance with Article 100 of the RPC which states that
every person criminally liable is civilly liable. Hence, the amount of
₱ 50,000.00 civil indemnity ex delicto as awarded in cases of
violation of Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. 761036 shall also be the
same in cases of violation of Section 5 (a), Article III of R.A. 7610.

WHEREFORE, the appeal of appellant Dina Dulay y Pascual is hereby


DISMISSED. However, the Decision of the CA is hereby MODIFIED as
appellant is not guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
rape, but of violating Section 5 (a), Article III R.A. 7610, amended,
for which she is sentenced to fourteen (14) years and eight (8)
months of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of
reclusion temporal, as maximum. Appellant is also ORDERED to pay
AAA the amount of ₱ 50,000.00 as civil indemnity.

SO ORDERED.

You might also like