Case Title

G.R. No.
Date Promulgated
Ponente
Topic
Nature of action
Accused
Victim

People v. Banzales
L-63260
March 20, 1987
Second Division, Justice Fernan
Persons who incur criminal liability
Article 17. Principals
Appeal from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Lucena City
Murphy Banzales
Josephine Diadola
Rosalina Ricafort

Facts of the Case (PROSECUTION)

3:00 PM, July 17, 1982
-

Rosalina Ricafort, 17 y/o, cosmetology student and a resident of Riverside Subdivision, Lucena City,
visited her elder half-sister, Leonida Obenza, at the resthouse of the family owned resort near Luzonian
University
Rosalina and Leonida exchanged pleasantries and ate coconut

4:00 PM, same day

-

Rosalina decided to head home

She took the shortcut leading to the hill where jeepnees usually stop
The said shortcut is a narrow footpath in the middle of tall cogon grasses, thick underbrushes, trees
and bamboo groves
As she approached a turning area, a woman approached her and requested to help her to look for a
boy that died in the area. The said woman is the accused Josephine Diadola.
Rosalina hesitated but Josephine reassured her that she is safe because they are both girls
Rosalina agreed but just after taking a few steps, Josephine pulled her to a thickly forested area 10
meters away from the path
Murphy Banzales, also an accused, emerged from his hiding place and grabbed Rosalina from behind.
Josephine covered the mouth of Rosalina while Banzales pinned her down and threatened to kill her if
she shouted
Rosalina tried to break free but Banzales boxed her on the stomach so she fell unconscious
When she woke up again, Banzales has already inserted his organ inside her private part. Josephine
covered her mouth again as she noticed that she was already awake
To make noise, Rosalina kicked the ground with her feet, but Banzales gave her a blow on her thighs
and stomach, so she fell unconscious for the second time
When she woke up, it was already dark. She saw that she only wore her bra up in her neck and her
panty dangling from her right leg
Banzales was seated beside her, and warned her that he would kill her parents if she told anyone. Then
Banzales left.

Almost nighttime, same day

Rosalina struggled to go back to her sisters house. There she saw a piece of clothing hanging on a
cacao tree. She used the said clothing and wrapped it around her body.
Leonida saw her sister and Rosalina told her that she was raped. Leonida took a blanket to cover
Rosalina
Leonida ran to the road and hailed a jeep, and brought Rosalina to the Quezon Memorial Hospital

7:00 PM, same day

-

Rosalina was examined by the resident physician

Examination results:
o congestion on the anterior fourchette left and posterior left and hymenal laceration at the 5:00
o'clock position.
o The vagina which admitted one finger with difficulty bore dark blood and traces of sperm cells.
o There was multiple linear abrasion at the anterior chest [upper torso] which could have been
caused by sharp instruments or fist blows.
o The physician also found blood on Rosalina's lower cheeks near the lip area.
Police arrived and asked Rosalina for description of the rapists. She said that she does not know their
names but knows their faces.
Description given by Rosalina:
o Woman: medium height with a high-bridge nose and wearing T-shirt with green stripes, maong
pants and a pair of Adidas shoes.
o Man: quite fat, tall with thick curly hair and a protruding stomach

Morning, June 18, 1982

-

Using the description, the police took custody of Banzales and Diadola, brought them to the hospital
and was positively identified by Rosalina

3:00 PM, same day

-

Rosalina was discharged from the hospital

Around midnight, same day

-

Rosalina and her foster parents were invited to the police HQ

She again identified the accused as the ones who sexually abused her
She executed a sworn statement of the details of what happened

June 21, 1982

-

Rosalina signed a complaint and sworn before the city fiscal with the CFI against Banzales as principal
by direct participation and Diadola as principal by indispensable cooperation
Both accused pleaded not guily

No date
-

Both accused were found guilty as charged after hearing

Mitigating circumstance of voluntary appreciated in their favor

Alibi (DEFENSE)
For Banzales
-

Banzales: high school graduate, 24 y/o, PUJ driver, resident of Lucena City
According to him:
o June 17, 1982, between 4 to 6:00 PM he was out plying his usual route
Around 4:00 PM, he was at the market place picking up passengers
A friend, Phil. Constabulary Sgt. Charlie Tolopia boarded the jeep
Upon reaching the university, all other passengers alighted except Tolopia
Banzales brought Tolopia to the latters home at Madrid St. where they talked for 15
mins.
5:20 PM Banzales resumed driving, picked up passengers bound to the market
Upon reaching the town, a tire started to wobble, so he brought the jeep to his parents
house for repair
5:35 PM Banzales decided to call it a day, went with fellow driver named Junior, had
drinks until 9:30 at the house of Aling Delia
o June 18, 1982 Banzales drove his jeep till noon
Having heard that the police was looking for a tall man, he went to the police to present
himself
When brought to Rosalina, he said that Rosalina was silent and did not respond when
asked if Banzales was the one who abused her
He was released and he resumed his driving
Around midnight, while drinking with friends, the police picked him up and brought him
to the police station where he was identified by Rosalina as the rapist

For Diadola
-

Diadola: 20 y/o, single, jeepney conductress, resident of Red V, Lucena, reportedly a tomboy
According to her:
o June 17, 1982, 9:00 AM to 8:30 PM she was working as a conductress in the red Tamaraw
jeepney driven by Rolando Lopez

Cross-examination of witnesses presented by the defense:

-

Banzales presented Tolopia

o it was elicited from Tolopia that he was a long-time acquaintance of Banzales and a comrade-inarms of his father in the Philippine Constabulary
Diadola presented Rolando Lopez, her jeepney driver, and Dionisio Diadola, her father, to convince the
RTC that she was out plying the university site route between 4 to 6:00 PM

Issues
-

WON the appellants have been definitely identified by the victim

WON the appllants respective alibis are enough to exculpate them

For the 1st Issue:

Answer: Yes.
-

Rosalina had all the opportunity to recognize and remember the appellants.
o Why? Rosalina used to see Diadola at the Obar Ricemill whenever she went there to have
palay milled; Rosalina once met Banzales while on board a jeep because she remembered him
sitting opposite her and they even had a conversation; Banzales also pointed her to a shortcut
at the burol, the same path that she used for the first time when she was abused; Rosalina
also saw Banzales hanging around a neighbors house 20 meters away from the burol
Rosalina was raped in broad daylight, her eyes were not covered, only her mouth. Even if she fainted
twice, she was conscious for a few moments and saw who was abusing her
The identification process by the police was meticulous
o They showed another tomboy to Rosalina to test her recollection
o They told the appellants to enter the room twice
o They again asked Rosalina to identify the abusers again at the police station
Rosalina narrated the event in a straight forward manner

For the 2nd issue:

Answer: No.
-

The court found the testimonies of the witnesses presented by the defense as doubtful, because they
are either a relative, a close friend, or an associate. Because of this, the Court is convinced that the
victim positively identified the appelants.

Ruling: Both Banzales and Diadola were principals of the crime.

As per SC:
-

The trial court correctly found Dialola, a woman, equally culpable as a principal together with Banzales
for the crime of rape.
Appellants' combined actions easily induce the belief that everything had been prearranged between
them in order that Banzales might carry out his bestial designs upon the victim.
Dialola cooperated in the perpetration of the rape by Banzales by acts without which the crime could
not have been consummated.
She paved the way by luring the unsuspecting victim into a secluded wooded area, delivering her to
Banzales and then covering the girl's mouth so that she could not summon for help.
The criminal responsibility of Dialola has been established.

Dispositive part:
WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction is affirmed but the penalty is modified. Accused-appellants Murphy
Banzales and Josephine Dialola are hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the victim,
Rosalina Ricafort, in the amount of P30,000.00. Costs against accused-appellants.

Abejuela vs People

Topic: criminal law: ACCOMPLICES

Doctrine: knowledge of the criminal intention of the princip is indispensible in order to hold a person liable as
an accomplice

G.R. No. 80130 Aug 19, 1991

BENJAMIN ABEJUELA, petitioner,
vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents

Ponente: C.J. Fernan

Petition for certiorari to reviese decision of the Court of Appeals

Finding petitioner as an accomplice of the crime of estafa thru falsification of documents

Cast of Characters:
- Benjamin Abelueja: businessman engaged in the manufacture of agricultural equipment; owner of the Banco
Filipino passbook
- Glicerio Balo, Jr: employee of Banco Filipino- Tacloban; used the passbook of Abelueja to malverse funds
from the bank

FACTS

Glicerio Balo befriended Benjamin Abelueja and they would often dine together, go to nightclubs together and
drinking sprees. Balo offered financial assistance to Abelueja's welding business, claiming that he, Balo, was
expecting a large sun of money from his late father's insurance policy.

Aug 3, 1978: Balo, showing checks supposedly from his late father's insurance, went to Abelueja's welding
shop to borrow the latter's passbook. Abelueja was surprised and thought it was not possible for Balo to use
Abelueja' s account. Abelueja suggesred that Balo open his own account but Balo claimed that he cannot as he
was an employee of the said bank. Abelueja suggested that Balo open one in another bank but Balo

responded that he wanted it in the bank so he, Balo, can facilitate immediate encashment. Balo assured that
there was nothing wrong with allowing the former to use the latter's passbook. Abelueja accepted the
explanations and entrusted passbook to Balo.

Aug 8: Balo returned passbook with a reflected deposited acct of P20,000. Balo requested and persuaded
Abelueja to withdraw P15,000 on the former's behalf. Balo's practice of depositing and withdrawing money
using Abelueja's account continued for some time until the reflected total deposit for August amounted to
P176,145 and a reflected total withdrawal of P175,607.96.

Thereafter, the bank's accountant discovered the diacrepancies between the interest reconsiliation balance
and subsidiary balance, but could not locate tr posting reconciliation and deposit slips. After examination of
bank records, bank officials were convinced that the discrepancies were caused by bookkeeper Belo who had
access to Abelueja's account ledger. They concluded that Belo manipulated the ledger.

Bank officials confronted Balo, who initially feigned innocence, but later admitted. Petitioner Abelueja was
also implicated for being the owner of the passbook

ACTION/INFORMATION

Dec 5, 1978: Information was filed against Balo and Abelueja for the crime of estafa thru falsification of
documents

May 29, 1979: Trial Court issued order of preliminary attachment against all the properties of the two accused
not exceeding P175,145.25. The goods were placed in NBI's custody. (In the meantime, Balo was reportedly
killed by the NPAs in the mountains of Balangkayan, Eastern Samar)

Feb 25, 1981: Consequently, trial court, pursuant to RPC 89, dismissed case against Balo but without prejudice
to civil action for recovery of damages arising from the offense

Sept 7, 1981: Banco Filipino filed motion praying for the forfeiture, in their favor, the goods in NBIs custody.

Nov 5: trial court granted motion

Jan 11, 1984: Lower court found accused guilty of the crime of estafa thru falsification of documents. The
penalty was 15y,3m,11d to 16y,8,21d of reclusion tenporal and to indemnify BF in the sum of P176145.25

Sept 16, 1987: CA affirmed decision.

Oct 7, 1987; Petitioner filed appeal, claiming act was done in good faith as he had no knowledge of the
criminal intention of Baldo, and hence, he cannot be convicted as principal nor accomplice.

Respondents maintain that petitioner should not only be an accomplice but a principal as the scheme coyld
not have been accomplished without his knowledge or cooperation

ISSUE

Whether or not Benjamin Abelueja is an ACCOMPLICE to the crime of estafa thru falsification of documents

HELD and RATIO

No. After weighing the evidence, the court found Abejuela was completely unaware of the criminal schemes
of Balo. First, from Balo's own admission, it was he who deceived Abejuela. Since Balo had a perfec alibi,
Abejuela was hoodwinked to believe. Moreover, they consider themselves as compadres. Second, even
without Abejuelas passbook, as long as the acct number is known, false deposits could still be posted by Belo
in the savings account ledger of Abejuela (note: ledger is more accurate than passbook). The evidence points
to Balo as the one who manipulated Abejuela into lending the passbook. The most that can be attributed to
Abejuela was his negligence and gullibility.

Knowledge in the criminal intent of the principal is essential to convict Abejuela as an accomplice of the crime.
There must be cooperation in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts.

However, the cooperation that is referred to and punished must be knowingly or intentionally. Since the
knowledge of Abejuela to the scheme of Balo was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, he can not be
convicted as an accomplice, and thus, he should be acquitted.

RULING
Wherefore on reasonable doubt, Benjamin Abejuela is acquittes.
However, the writ of preliminary attachment issued by RTC against properties of petitioner and those of his
co-accused to satisfy civil obligation are made permanent.

PEOPLE VS DOBLE
Topic: Persons who incur criminal liability: Accomplices
Case Number and Date of Decision: No. L30028, May 31, 1982
Case name: THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs. CRESENCIO DOBLE., et. al., defendants,
CRESENCIO DOBLE, SIMEON DOBLE and ANTONIO ROMAQUIN, defendants-appellants
Ponente: De Castro, J.
Facts of the case:
The crime:
-Defendants-appellants Simeon Doble, Cresencio Doble, and Antonio Romaquin were among ten accused in a
bank robbery at the Navotas branch of the Prudential Bank and Trust Company and a fatal shooting outside
the bank at the North Bay Boulevard in Navotas, Rizal around midnight on June 13-June 14, 1966 (the bank
operated at night until morning)
-According to Cresencios extrajudicial statement, at 8 p.m. on June 13, Joe Instik, the leader of the robbery
gang, had asked Cresencio to look for a boat for a robbery. He brought Joe Intsik to Romaquin, who owned a
banca
-The perpetrators had met in the house of Simeon Doble for a final conference on the robbery. Simeons
house was near the landing place of the banca. Simeon, in a statement to police, said there were ten men in
the meeting, including Cresencio and Romaquin. Simeon listened to the meeting but did not join the gang in
the robbery because he had a foot injury and would have only been a liability
-That same night, ten men, almost all of them heavily armed, left the shores of Manila in the banca. Upon
reaching Navotas, Rizal past midnight June 14, eight men disembarked from the banca and proceeded to rob
the bank. Romaquin was left behind in the banca, as well as Cresencio, who was given a gun to prevent
Romaquin from fleeing. Romaquin would later claim in his statement that he was unaware a robbery would
take place; Cresencio, in his testimony in court, claimed when he was given the gun, he had even tried to
return it because he didnt know how to operate it
-At the bank, at around 12:30 a.m., two of the robbers at first pretended to be customers asking their money
to be changed into small denominations, before three other men armed with long guns barged in and fired at
the ceilings and walls of the bank and ordered the employees to lie down. The robbers then demanded the
keys to the vault, but since the vaults compartments were locked, the armed men just went to the two teller
cages and took whatever they could. The men left carrying with them the sum of P10,439.95.
-Police from an outpost beside the bank had responded upon hearing gunfire at around 1:30 a.m. and spotting
a man pointing a Thompson to the sky while in front of the bank. But when the patrolmen ran to the middle of
the road, they were attacked with gunfire coming from their left.
-Four were killed in the shooting and five injured. Killed were Sgt. Alejandro Alcala of the Philippine
Constabulary, Sgt. Eugenio Aguilos, Cpl Teofilo Evangelista of the Navotas Police Department, and Dominador
Estrella, a market collector. Those who were injured were Patrolman Armando Ocampo, Exequiel Manalus,
Jose Fabian, Rosalina Fuerten and Pedro de la Cruz.

-After the shooting, the eight perpetrators returned to the banca, fully armed, some of them carrying
bayongs. The banca had then sped away. Simeon testified in his statement that when the banca returned,
the perpetrators hurriedly left because one of them was wounded.
-Romaquin was given P441 by the perpetrators, possibly as rental for the boat. Romaquin gave Cresencio P41
when Cresencio asked him for a share of the loot, and Simeon P2, when Simeon had asked for his share on the
morning of June 14
-Romaquin hid the money and repainted his boat
-Cresencio gave Romaquin a note asking him not to reveal to the police the names of their companions
-The three were taken into police custody, interrogated and had issued extrajudical statements by mid-June
The lower court case:
-Defendants-appellants Simeon Doble, Cresencio Doble, and Antonio Romaquin were among ten accused in a
case of robbery committed in band, with multiple homicide, multiple frustrated homicide and assault upon
agents of persons in authority at the Court of First Instance-Rizal
-The three had issued extrajudicial statements while in custody, and had also testified in court
-Only five of the ten accused were brought to trial, including the three defendants-appellants. The other five
were at large and were only identified as John Does in the information
-The Court of First Instance Rizal found the three guilty as principals in the crimes charged (Simeon Doble as
principal by agreement and encouragement, Cresencio Doble and Antonio Romaquin as co-principal by
conspiracy or by actual participation) and sentenced them to DEATH. Their two other co-accused were
acquitted.
-The decision was submitted for automatic review of the Supreme Court
Issue:
Whether Simeon Doble, Cresencio Doble, and Antonio Romaquin should be held liable as principals for the
crimes
Held:
Simeon Doble is not liable for the crimes. Cresencio Doble and Antonio Romaquin are liable for being
accomplices in the robbery, not the killings
-Supreme Court found no culpable participation of Simeon Doble: Simeon is by no means a co- conspirator,
not having even taken active part in the talks among the malefactors in his house.
-Supreme Court found Cresencio and Romaquin not liable as co-principals in the crime charged. At the most,
their liability would be that of mere accomplices. They joined in the criminal design when Cresencio consented
to look for a banca and Romaquin provided it when asked by the gang leader Joe Intsik, and then brought the
malefactors to the scene of the robbery, despite knowledge of the evil purpose for which the banca was to be
used. It was the banca that brought the malefactors to the bank to be robbed and carried them away from the

scene after the robbery to prevent their apprehension. Appellants thus cooperated but not in an indispensable
manner. Even without appellants providing the banca, the robbery could have been committed, specially with
the boldness and determination shown by the robbers in committing the crime.
-It is however, not established by the evidence that in the meeting held in the house of Simeon Doble, the
malefactors had agreed to kill, if necessaryWhat appellants may be said to have joined is the criminal design
to rob, which makes them accomplices. Their complicity must, accordingly, be limited to the robbery, not with
the killing.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court found Cresencio Doble and Antonio Romaquin guilty beyond reasonable doubt as
accomplices for the crime of robbery in band. Simeon Doble was acquitted for lack of sufficient evidence to
establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The penalty imposable upon appellants Cresencio Doble and Antonio Romaquin is prision mayor minimum
which has a range of 6 years, 1 day to 8 years. The commission of the crime was aggravated by nighttime and
the use of a motorized banca. There being no mitigating circumstance, both appellants should each be
sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from five (5) years, four (4) months, twentyone (21) days of prision
correccional to eight (8) years of prision mayor as maximum, and to indemnify the heirs of each of the
deceased in the sum of P12,000.00 not P6,000.00 as imposed by the trial court.

Dissenting opinions:
Barredo, J.
I vote that Doble and Romaquin should be sentenced for robbery with homicide, as accomplices. As to Simeon
Doble, my conclusion is that he is at least accessory after the fact.
Plana, J.
Why should the two appellants be held civilly liable for the killing if they are absolutely not criminally liable
therefor?
-Cresencio Doble and Antonio Romaquins civil liability for death must be modified so as to conform with the
rules prescribed in articles 109 and 110 of Revised Penal Code.
ABAD SANTOS, J.;
-Cresencio and Romaquins complicity includes in the killings.
-Principals were each fully armed; the arms consisted of pistols, carbines and Thompson submachine guns.
This fact was known to the appellants since gun was even given to Cresencio to prevent Romaquin from
fleeing. This shows that the principal malefactors were prepared to kill even an accomplice so that they could
accomplish their criminal objective.

Topic
Case No.
Case Name

Ponente

Persons Who Incur Criminal Liability - Accomplices

G.R. No. 3486 / February 7, 1991
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LUDOVICO C. DOCTOLERO alias ECOY,
CONRADO C. DOCTOLERO alias CONDRING, and VIRGILIO C. DOCTOLERO alias
VERGEL, accused-appellants.
J. Regalado [Second Division]
INFORMATION

That on or about the 8th day of November, 1970, in barrio Binday, municipality of San Fabian, province of
Pangasinan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed
with bolos, went up the house of Marcial Sagun and once thereat, conspiring together and mutually aiding one
another, with intent to kill and with evident premeditation and treachery, with abuse of superior strength and
with extreme cruelty, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, hack, stab and
strike Lolita de Guzman Oviedo, Epifania Escosio and Jonathan Oviedo and immediately thereafter, the same
accused while already on the road, conspiring together and mutually aiding one another, with intent to kill and
with evident premeditation and treachery, attack, assault, hack and stab Marcelo Doctolero, thereby inflicting
upon him multiple mortal wounds which caused his death.

CHARACTERS
The Perpetrators
1. Ludovico Doctolero principal; the one who did the murder and injuring of the minor
2. Conrado Doctolero accomplice; he did not participate in the actual murder but the Court found him
accomplice by being there and being ready to lend suppor to the principal; he was subject of the
appeal/review
3. Virgilio Doctolero same; same; he died while the proceeding (appeal) was ongoing
The Victims
1.
2.
3.
4.

Lolita de Guzman Oviedo (dead)

Epifania Escosio (dead)
Marcelo Doctolero (dead)
Jonathan Oviedo (injured)
RELEVANT FACTS

Procedural History
The perpetrators were found guilty and sentenced Ludovico to three cadena perpetua and for the
accomplices two indeterminate sentences of 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor to 17 Years and 4 months
of reclusion temporal and additional penalty of 2 months and 1 day to 4 months of arresto mayor for the
slight physical injury suffered by Jonathan Oviedo at the CFI of Pangasinan;

The appeal originally was for the entire decision of the CFI but it wound up being a review only for the
criminal liability of Conrado (Ludovico withdrew his pettiton for review; Virgilio died while the proceeding
was ongoing).
Facts Constituting the Crime
Nov. 8, 1970 (evening): Marcial Sagun with his wife Maria Oviedo Sagun and Lolita de Guzman-Oviedo
(Marias sister-in-law) were walking home from their whole day toll in their field when along the road,
they came across the three defendants, Ludovico, Conrado and Virgilio (all Doctolero);
Without any warning or cause or reason, he struck Marcial Sagun with a bolo, holding Marcials left
shoulder with his left hand; Marcial was able to evade the strike and they wrestled for the bolo while Lolita
ran towards their house;
Marcial and Maria Sagun were able to escape the three accused and they went to Marcelo Doctoleros
house for refuge. The three accused then pursued them [after a lapse of considerable time, it seemed] to
their house which was near Marcelos house;
The three accused were throwing stones at Marcials house, shouting for Marcial to come out, and
eventually they went inside the house. Pacensia Sagun-Diamoy, who was at Marcelo Doctoleros yard
cleaning palay saw this;
At that point, the murder occurred inside one of the rooms of the house, the evidence pointing to
Ludovico brutally killing the two women Lolita Oviedo and Epifania Escosio and injuring Jonathan Oviedo
while Conrado and Virgilio were at the house (although not in the room) knowing the murder but doing
nothing;
As the three were going down from the house (after the crime), Pacensia went to Marcials and asked the
three why cant you be patient and forget but she was asked not to interfere, apparently they (the
accused) were running away from the scene of the crime;
Marcelo Doctolero saw the commotion and went out of his house as well, asking for the three other
Doctoleros to be patient and forget but the three replied with vulva of your mother and we will kill
you, too and Ludovico struck Marcelo with their bolos; their father Antonio arrived, he also struck
Marcelo with a bolo on the head. Antonio was Marcelos half-brother [he had a limited narrative in the
ponencia, though].
Maria Sagun saw all this as well when she hid behind a palm tree a few meters away from their house; she
corroborated the testimony of Pacensia that when the three accused went down from their *Saguns+
house, they killed Marcelo Doctolero
Nine wounds were inflicted on the body of Marcelo; one on the body of Lolita and nine on the body of
Epifania. Jonathan received three wounds that were attended to in the hospital and healed fifteen days
after.

Rebuttal of the Defense

Appellant Conrado averred that the murders occurred as a consequence of a sudden thought or impulse
and criminal design was lacking;
He also denied participating in the murder, saying that he was not in the place of the commission of the
crime (being outside the room where murder was committed);
Defense also pointed out the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecutions witnesses but the
Court dismissed these contentions as inconsequential variations of the observation of the same incident.
ISSUE
W/N Conrado Doctolero should be criminally liable as an accomplice to the murder of Lolita de Guzman
Oviedo, Epifania Escosio and Marcelo Doctolero and to the injuries received by Jonathan Oviedo
RATIO DECIDENDI
ISSUE
W/N Conrado Doctolero
should be criminally liable
as an accomplice to the
murder of Lolita de Guzman
Oviedo, Epifania Escosio
and Marcelo Doctolero and
to the injuries received by
Jonathan Oviedo

RATIO
YES
When the three of them went up the house, the Court said that it was
impossible for Conrado (together with Virgilio) not to be aware of the brutal
murder being carried out by their brother Ludovico inside the house. It was
also impossible for them not to hear the screams of pain of the victims or
the sound of the ruthless hacking of their bodies. The Court said that it was
obvious that under the circumstance they are aware and it was reasonable
to believe that they were there ready to lend assistance.
As to his averring that there was no criminal design, the Court said that
there was criminal intent even though the accomplice did not know of the
actual crime intended by the principal provided he was aware that it (the
crime) was an illicit act.
RULING

WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court is MODIFIED and judgment is hereby rendered IMPOSING
on appellant Conrado Doctolero three (3) indeterminate sentences of ten (10) years of prision mayor to
seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal each for the death of Epifania Escosio, Lolita
de Guzman Oviedo and Marcelo Doctolero, and a penalty of twenty (20) days of arresto menor for the less
serious physical injuries inflicted on Jonathan Oviedo. Appellant Conrado Doctolero and the estate of Virgilio
Doctolero are ORDERED to indemnify, in the sum of P50,000.00 for each set or group of heirs, the respective
heirs of Epifania Escosio, Lolita de Guzman Oviedo and Marcelo Doctolero, and to pay one-half (1/2) of the
costs.
SO ORDERED.
NO SEPARATE OPINION

Title: The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Nemesio Talingdan, Magellan Tobias, Augusto
Berras, Pedro Bides and Teresa Domogma, accused-appellants.
Docket No.: G.R. No. L-32126
Date: 06 July 1978
Ponente: Per Curiam

FACTS
Main Characters
Bernardo Bagabag
Nemesio
Talingdan
Magellan Tobias
August Berras
Pedro Bides
Teresa Domogma

Corazon

Victim
A policeman who was Teresas lover
alias Oming
Co-appellants

Wife of the victim

(Note that no proof was found as to whether or not she was actually married to the
deceased. Nonetheless, she and the deceased had children and established a
family home.)
Daughter of Bernardo and Teresa who testified for the prosecution
She was 12 years old at the time the crime was committed

CFI Decision
Nemesio Talingdan, Magellan Tobias, Augusta Berras, Pedro Bides, and Teresa Domogma1 were convicted
with the crime of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, with indemnity to the offended party, the
heirs of the deceased Bernardo Bagabag, in the amount of P12,000.
Story
Background. Bernardo Bagabag and Teresa Domogma, along with their children, live in Sobosob,
Salampadan, Abra. Bernardo and Teresas relationship had been strained and beset with troubles as
Teresa had deserted the family home a couple of times with Bernardo looking for her each time.
Teresa is in an illicit relationship with Nemesis Talingdan, who had visited Teresa twice in the family
home while Bernardo was at work. During those visits, Teresa made her daughter, Corazon, leave the
house. Bernardo eventually found out about the illicit relationship, and during a quarrel with Teresa, he
directly charged the latter that should she get pregnant, that child would not be his.
About a month before Bernardo was killed on 24 June 1967 (SATURDAY), Teresa had again left their house
and did not return for more than three weeks. Bernardo came to know later that Teresa and Talingdan
were seen together in the town of Tayum, Abra during the time that the former was gone.

Because no certificate nor any other proof of marriage with the deceased could be presented by the prosecution, could not be charged with parricide.

(THURSDAY) Two days before Bernardo was killed, Bernardo and Teresa had a violet quarrel wherein the
former slapped the latter several times causing her to seek the help of the police. Thereafter, Talingdan,
a policeman, arrived in the vicinity of the house calling on Bernardo to come down. Bernardo, however,
ignored Talingdan, who was armed at that time. Talingdan eventually left the place but warned Bernardo
that he would someday kill him.
The following day Friday morning,2 Corazon was in a creek to wash clothes when she saw her mother,
Teresa, meeting with Talingdan and Magellan Tobias, Augusto Berras, and Pedro Bides in a small hut,3
some 300 to 400 meters away from their house. As she approached them, she heard one of them say
"Could he elude a bullet"; and when accused her mother noticed her presence, she shoved her away
saying "You tell your father that we will kill him".
Teresas Version:
Teresa claims that she loved Bernardo, that they never quarreled, and that he never maltreated her.
She sometimes had to talk to Bernardo when he quarrels with his own mother who wanted Bernardos
earnings be given to her. Her in-laws also hated her because her mother-in-law could not get the
earnings of Bernardo for the support of her other son, Juanito, in his schooling. Juanito also disliked her
because she did not give him any of the carpentry tools which her brothers in America were sending
over.
Teresa points out that she never left their conjugal home for any long period of time and if she did
leave the house they were only during those times when she had to go to Bangued to cash the dollar
checks sent to her by her brothers in America. She notes that she was sometimes accompanied by
Bernardo, or if she had to go alone, she leaves Sallapadan in the morning, she rides in a weapons carrier
along with merchants going to Bangued in the morning and always rode back with them to Sallapadan in
the afternoon of the same day.
Teresa claims that she only came to know Talingdan, as he was one of those policemen who would be
instructed by the Mayor to help them locate their familys carabaos and horses when they get lost. She
also notes that she knew Talingdan well because they are neighbors, the latter's home being only about
250-300 meters away from theirs. But illicit relationship had never existed between them.
Day the Crime was Committed
What Happened according to Corazon. On 24 June 1967, shortly after the sun had set, while Corazon
was cooking food for supper, she saw her mother go down the house through the stairs and go to the
yard where she again met with the other appellants. As they were barely 3-4 meters from the place
where she was in the "batalan", Corazon heard them conversing in subdued tones, although she
could not discern what they were saying. Nevertheless, Corazon was able to recognize all of them
through the light coming from the lamp in the kitchen through the open "batalan" and she knows
them well for they are all residents of Sobosob. According to Corazon, the appellants had long guns
at the time.
The meeting did not last long, after about two minutes Teresa came up the house and proceeded to
her room, while the other appellants went under an avocado tree nearby. When supper was ready,
Corazon called her parents to eat, but Bernardo who was in the room adjoining the kitchen did not
2
3

Between 10:00 to 11:00 AM.

Owned by her father

heed his daughter's call to supper instead continued working on a plow, while Teresa said that she
would first put the baby to sleep. So Corazon ate supper alone, and as soon as she was finished she
again called her parents to eat. This time, she informed her father about the presence of persons
downstairs, but Bernardo paid no heed to what she said. He proceeded to the kitchen and sat
himself on the floor near the door. Corazon stayed nearby watching him. At that moment, he was
suddenly fired upon from below the stairs of the "batalan". The four accused then climbed the stairs
of the "batalan" carrying their long guns and seeing that Bernardo was still alive, Talingdan and
Tobias fired at him again. Note, however, that Bides and Berras did not fire their guns at that precise
time, but when Corazon tried to call for help Bides warned her, saying "You call for help and I will kill
you", so she kept silent. The assailants then fled from the scene, heading east.
Corazons male teacher4 was the first one to come to her aid. When came out of her "silid" later, she
pulled Corazon aside and questioned her, and when Corazon informed her that she recognized the
killers of her father to be her co-appellants herein, she warned her not to reveal the matter to
anyone, threatening to kill her if she did so. Later, other persons arrived and helped fix and dress the
lifeless body of Bernardo5; who was buried on 26 June 1967. The victim's brother who came from
Manila arrived one day after the burial followed by their mother who came from La Paz, Abra.
Corazon, eventually revealed the identities of the killers of her father to these immediate relatives,
which led to the filing of the information for murder against the five appellants.
What Happened According to Teresa. In the early evening of 24 June 1967, Teresa was cooking their
food for supper while her husband was in the adjoining room making a plow. As soon as the food was
ready, along with her two children, she went to the adjoining room where Bernardo was to call him
for supper. He then proceeded to the kitchen to eat while Teresa and the two children were about
to follow him to the kitchen they heard more than five or six successive gun shots coming from near
their "batalan". They were all so terrified that they immediately cried for help, albeit she did not know
yet at that precise time that her husband was shot, as she and the children were still in the other
room on their way to the kitchen, about three meters away from Bernardo. But soon Teresa heard
her husband crying in pain, and as soon as she reached him, she took Bernardo into her arms. She
did not see the killers of her husband, as the night was then very dark and it was raining. Bernardo
was in her arms when the first group of people who responded to their cry for help arrived. Among
them were the chief of police, some members of the municipal council and appellant Tobias who even
advised Teresa not to carry Bernardos body to avoid abortion as she was then six months pregnant.
The chief of police then conducted an investigation of the surroundings and he found some empty
shells and foot prints on the ground some meters away from the "batalan". He also found some bullet
holes on the southern walls of said "batalan" and on the nothern wallings of the kitchen. Later, Teresa
requested some persons to relay the information about the death of her husband to her relatives in
Manabo, Abra, and they in turn passed on the news to Bernardo's mother and her family in La Paz,
Abra.
Teresa suspects that since her mother-in-law and her brother-in-law have axes to grind against her
and they have her daughter, Corazon, under their custody, they had forced the said child to testify
against her. She further declared that her late husband, Bernardo, had enemies during his lifetime,
as he had quarrels with some people over the land they work on.
Claims of the Defense
4
5

Who lived nearby

Autopsy on which was performed in his own house by the Municipal Health Officer of the place on June 26, 1967, about 36 hours after death

Talingdan was not in Sallapadan at the time Bernardo was killed since he escorted and acted as the
Mayors bodyguard when the latter left for Bangued on 22 June 2016 and only returned on 26 June
2016.
Tobias was in the house of Mrs. Bayongan in Sallapadan on the day of the killing. He was only
called upon by the Chief of Police to respond to the victims call for help.
Bides and Berras, who were tillers of Mrs. Bayongas land, were in the same house with Tobias at
the day of the crime. They were sleeping when the Chief of Police arrived. They only left the house,
which is about 250-300 meters away from the place of the killing, that evening of 24 June 1967.
Supreme Courts Perspective
Believed Corazons account of what transpired before, during, and immediately after the crime.
However, the Court has doubts on Corazons story that her mother told her "You tell your father we will
kill him when she saw the appellants in a hut near the creek. It deems that if it were true that there was
really such a message, it is to be wondered why she never relayed the same to her father. Furthermore,
the Court deems that it is quite unnatural that such a warning could have been done in such a manner.
Based on evidence, Talingdan, Tobias, Berras, and Bides are guilty of murder qualified by treachery, as
charged, and that they committed the said offense in conspiracy with each other, with evident
premeditation and in the dwelling of the offended party. In other words, two aggravating circumstances
attended the commission of the offense, namely, evident premeditation and that it was committed in
the dwelling of the victim [note that these two are generic aggravating circumstances]. No mitigating
circumstance has been proven.
Murder Qualified by Treachery
Male appellants deliberately chose nighttime to suddenly and without warning assault their victim,
taking advantage of their number and arms, it is manifest that they employed treachery to insure
success in attaining their objective.
They acted with evident premeditation. Talingdan made the threat to kill Bernardo Thursday night,
then he met with his co-accused to work out their conspiracy Friday and again on Saturday evening
just before the actual shooting. They had enough time to meditate, and desist, if they were not resolved
to proceed with their objective. They committed the offense in the dwelling of the offended party.
Appellants insist that the lone testimony of Corazon suffered from vital contradictions and inconsistencies
and falsehood because of patently unnatural circumstances alleged by her. In response, the Court clarified
that the fact the witness varied on cross-examination the exact time of some of the occurrences she
witnessed (e.g., whether it was before or after Bernardo had began eating when he was shot; whether or
not the accused were already upstairs or still downstairs when they first fired their guns) cannot alter the
veracity of her having seen Talingdan, Tobias, Bides, and Berras in the act of mercilessly and coldbloodedly shooting her father to death.
Appellants Claim
Attack on Corazons credibility

Courts Response

Said that her father appeared But as correctly observed by the prosecuting fiscal the witness does
unconcerned when she informed him not know then "the mentality of her father" (p. 62, t.s.n., hearing of
of the presence of people downstairs. March 29, 1968).

Declared that the accused conversed

that Saturday night preceding the day Proves that the accused were too engrossed in their conversation,
the crime charged was committed in a unmindful of whether the place where they were talking was lighted
lighted place although there was a or not, and unmindful even of the risk of recognition
place which was unlighted in the same
premises.
Declared that Pedro Bides and Even if these accused did withhold their fire, however, since they
Augusto Berras did not fire their guns. were privies to the same criminal design, would this alter their
culpability? Should the witness Corazon Bagabag be discredited for
merely stating an observation on her part which is not inherently
unnatural?
Declared that only three bullets from
the guns of the four male accused But would this not merely prove that not all the accused were good
found their mark on the
shots?
body of her father.
Declared that her father was still able
to talk after he was shot yet. Dr. Jose
Dalisan declared that his death was The doctor's opinion could yield to the positive testimony of Corazon
instantaneous.
in this regard without in the least affecting the findings of said doctor
as regards the cause of the death of the deceased.
No cogent explanation has been offered why Corazon would attribute the assault on her father to three
other men, aside from Talingdan whom she knew had relations with her mother, were she merely makingup her account of how he was shot, no motive for her to do so having been shown.
Court is convinced of the sincerity and truthfulness of the witness. Corazon was too young to be affected
by the infidelity of her mother in the manner the defense suggests. Her whole testimony that it could not
have been a fabrication. It would be too consistent for Corazon to have been able to substantially maintain
throughout her stay on the witness stand without any fatal flaw, in the face of severe and long crossinterrogations, if she had not actually witnessed the event she had described.
Appellants Claim
CFI allegedly failed to consider the testimony of Dr.
Dalisan that the distance between the assailants and
the deceased could have been 4 to 5 meters when the
shots were fired

Courts Response
Appellants overlook the testimony of Corazon
Bagabag that when the first shot was fired, the
gunman was about 3- meters from her father,
which disproves the theory of the defense that the
killers fired from a stonepile under an avocado tree
some 4 to 5 meters away from the deceased's house.
Court a quo ignored the testimonies of defense The trial court made the following apt observations
witness Cpl. Bonifacio Hall and Chief of Police Rafael on the testimony of defense witness Cpl. Bonifacio
Berras on their having found bullet marks on the Hall:
southern walling of the house of the deceased, as well
as empty cal. 30 carbine shells under the This witness stated that we went to the house of the
aforementioned avocado tree.
deceased to investigate the crime after the deceased
had already been buried; that he investigated the
widow as well as the surroundings of the house

where the deceased was shot. He found empty shells

of carbine under the avocado tree. He stated that
the 'batalan' of the house of the deceased has a
siding of about 1- meters high and that he saw
bullet holes on the top portion of the wall directly
pointing to the open door of the 'batalan' of the
house of the deceased. When the court asked the
witness what could have been the position of the
assailant in shooting the deceased, he stated that
the assailant might have been standing. The
assailant could not have made a bullet hole on the
top portion of the sidings of the 'batalan' because
the 'batalan' is only 1- meters high, and further,
when asked as to the level of the ground in relation
to the top sidings of the 'batalan,' he answered that
it is in the same level with the ground. If this is true,
it is impossible for the assailant to make a bullet
hole at the top portion sidings of the 'batalan,'
hence, the testimony of this witness who is a PC
corporal is of no consequence and without merit.
Talingdan, Tobias, Bides, and Berras were not at the Bides, Tobias and Berras were sleeping at 8:00
scene of the crime when it happened
o'clock that night in the house of Mrs. Bayongan
which is only 250 meters away from the scene of the
crime. Granting, for the sake of argument, but
without admitting, that they were already sleeping at
8:00 o'clock in the house of Mrs. Bayongan, Corazon
clearly stated that her father was gunned down at
sunset which is approximately between 6:00 and
6:30 in the evening, hence, the accused Tobias,
Berras and Bides could have committed the crime
and went home to sleep in the house of Mrs.
Bayongan after the commission of the crime.

Talingdan accompanied Sallapadan Mayor Gregorio

Banawa to Bangued for the purpose of attending a
cursillo in Bangued. They started in Sallapadan in the
early morning of 22 June 1967 and arrived in Bangued
the same day. According to Talingdan, he went to
accompany the mayor to the cursillo house near the
Bangued Cathedral and after conducting the mayor to
the cursillo house, he went to board in the house of
the cousin of Mayor Banawa near the Filoil Station at
Bangued, Abra. From that time, he never saw the
Mayor until after they went home to Sallapadan on
the 26th.

The three accused also failed miserably to present

the testimony of Mrs. Bayongan, the owner of the
house where they slept that night to corroborate or
bolster their defense of alibi.
He could have returned anytime on the evening of 22
June or any time before the commission of the
offense to Sallapadan and commit the crime on the
24th at sunset, then returned to Bangued, Abra to
fetch the mayor and bring him back to Sallapadan on
the 26th.

Relevant Issue to the Topic: Is Teresa guilty of murder or is she to be acquitted or is she an accessory?
CFI
OSG
SC
Teresa is Teresa
is Proof of Teresas direct participation in the conspiracy is not beyond
guilty of recommended for reasonable doubt, for which reason, sue cannot have the same liability as
murder
acquittal
her co-appellants.
Had no hand in the actual shooting of her husband. Neither is it clear that
she helped directly in the planning and preparation thereof.
However, SC remains convinced that she knew it was going to be done
and did not object.
Not shown that she masterminded the crime either by herself alone or
together with her co-appellant Talingdan. Such a conclusion could only be a
surmise, suspicion and conjecture, not really includible since she had been
having her own unworthy ways with Bernardo for quite a long time,
seemingly without any need of his complete elimination.
Presence of morally convincing proof that she is at the very least an
accessory to the offense committed by her co-accused. She warned her
daughter not to reveal the identities of the killers, to wit Don't tell it to
anyone. I will kill you if you tell this to somebody."
When the peace officers investigated what happened, instead of helping
them with the information given to her by Corazon, she claimed she had
no suspects in mind. In other words, whereas, before the actual shooting of
her husband, she was more or less passive in her attitude regarding her coappellants' conspiracy, known to her, to do away with him, after Bernardo
was killed, she became active in her cooperation with them. These
subsequent acts of her constitute "concealing or assisting in the escape of
the principal in the crime" which makes her liable as an accessory after
the fact under paragraph 3 of Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code.
WHEREFORE, with the above finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the appellants Nemesio Talingdan,
Magellan Tobias, Augusto Berras and Pedro Bides of the crime of murder with two aggravating
circumstances, without any mitigating circumstance to offset them, they are each hereby sentenced to
DEATH to be executed in accordance with law. Guilty beyond reasonable doubt as accessory to the same
murder, appellant Teresa Domogma is hereby sentenced to suffer the in determinate penalty of five (5)
years of prision correccional as minimum to eight (8) years of prision mayor as maximum, with the accessory
penalties of the law. In all other respects, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed, with costs against
appellants.
Separate Opinions
Justice
MAKASIAR

Teresa

Point
Domogma

should

be

Supporting Arguments
Marriage Issue. A marriage certificate is not

Justice

Point
convicted, not merely as an
accessory, but of parricide as
principal and meted the death
penalty.

Supporting Arguments
indispensable to establish the fact of marriage;
because the presumption that the deceased and the
accused Teresa were married subsists by reason of
the fact that they had been living together for about
13 years as evidenced by the birth of the childwitness Corazon, who was 12 years old at the time
her father was killed on 24 June 1967 by the
accused-appellants, and who was 13 years of age
when she testified. They have other children aside
from Corazon.
Teresa is a co-conspirator and not merely an
accessory on the ground that based on Corazons
account:
-

CASTRO

Concurs, with the observations,

however, that the evidence points to
the appellant Teresa Domogma as a
co-principal and that she should
therefore also be held guilty of
murder and sentenced to death.
TEEHANKEE Concurs, but join in the partial dissent
of Mr. Justice Makasiar insofar as the
penal liability of the accused Teresa
Domogma is concerned.

she was included in the pre-murder meetings

of the male appellants (note the event in the
creek and batalan scenario).
after meeting with the appellants, Teresa went
to her room and did not go out when Corazon
first called for supper because according to her
she needed to put the baby to sleep.
Teresa stayed in her room from the time Corazon
called for parents the second time regarding
dinner until the Bernardo was killed and the male
appellants had left the house.
Teresa warned her daughter not to reveal the
names of her fathers killers otherwise she
herself would kill Corazon
Two days before Bernardo was shot, he and
Teresa had a quarrel during which Bernardo
slapped Teresa several times by reason of which
Teresa left the house and sought the help of the
police. Thereafter, Talingdan came and
challenged Bernardo and threatened that
someday he would kill the latter.

Topic
Case No.
Case
Name
Ponente

Conspirators
G.R. No. 99379 | April 22, 1994
PEOPLE vs. JORGE
Bellosillo, J.

Cast of Characters:
Eduardo Jorge Y Ramirez Romeo Lajera
Remedios Bernales
-

Corazon Palma

No Information

, only this:

Francisco Palma
Patricio Ocenar

Accused-appellant
Convicted of murder and sentenced to reclusion perpetua
Held the hands of Palma while Bernales stabs the victim
Held the hands of Palma while Bernales stabs the victim
At large
Stabbed Palma
At large at the time of the trial but was eventually arrested to
face separate trial
Victim
Barangay tanod of Brgy. Doa Imelda, QC
Main witness of the prosecution
Wife of victim

On 15 June 1989, an amended information was filed charging Eduardo Jorge, Romeo Lajera and Remedios
Bernales with murder for the killing of Francisco Palma with the aggravating circumstances of treachery and
evident premeditation. However, only Jorge was tried by the court a quo because Lajera and Bernales
managed to remain at large, although Bernales was eventually arrested in August 1991 to face separate trial.

Gist:
Jorge and Lajera held the hands of Palma while Bernales stabs
Jorge convicted of murder and sentenced to reclusion perpetua
SC acquitted because of weak evidence of the prosecution
Testimony of prosecution witness:
On 26 June 1990, at around 9:30 p.m., while he was at the barangay hall, a person informed him that
Francisco Palma was being molested by three men in Paui Street.
Taking with him his "knife-stick," Ocenar proceeded to Paui Street where, at a distance of some ten
arms length, Ocenar saw Eduardo Jorge and Romeo Lajera holding the hands of Palma and a woman
(later identified as Bernales) stabbing Palma on the left chest with a long instrument.
Ocenar cannot tell exactly what kind of weapon was used.
Ocenar at the aggressors causing them to run away leaving Palma behind.
Palma tried to chase his aggressors but collapsed immediately on Baloy Street.
Dr. Renato Bautista, the one who examined the victim, stated that the stab wound on his left chest was
the cause of his death.

Testimony of the wife:

The wife was also presented to testify but as per Patricio Ocenar, Corazon Palma came to know of the
incident only from him.
Corazon testified that someone came to her house and told her, "Cory, Cory, your husband is stabbed
dead and he is in Baloy."
The trial court discounted Corazons testimony because her testimony that she saw Francisco being
mauled and then stabbed does not appear credible. The trial court also noted that Corazons testimony
reads like that of Mr. Ocenar which, considering her interest in this case, renders Corazons narration
on the identity of Franciscos killers doubtful.

Defense:
Jorge claims that he was sleeping in his house at the time of the killing.
Jorge was only awakened when policemen, led by the Corazon, forced Jorge out of his house despite
his protestations and profession of innocence, and brought to the police station.
Nature of the present action: Appeal from a decision of the RTC of QC

Decision of the trial court:

Jorge was convicted of murder with abuse of superior strength and sentenced to reclusion perpetua
Issues and Ratio Decidendi

ISSUES
RATIO
W/N the prosecutions NO.
evidence is sufficient to
establish guilt
The evidence for the prosecution does not meet the quantum of
proof required to overcome the constitutional presumption of
innocence of the accused. We are not saying here that appellant
is innocent but that his guilt has not been proved beyond
reasonable doubt; hence, he should be acquitted.
The defense of the accused is alibi, which is the weakest of
defenses. But the case against him must still fail since the
evidence of the prosecution is even weaker; for, as it has been
repeated often enough, the conviction of the accused must not
rest on the weakness of the defense but on the strength of the
prosecution.
W/N the trial court erred YES.

in finding him guilty of

murder as principal In order to convict appellant as a principal by direct participation
without sufficient proof in the case before us, it is necessary that conspiracy among him
of conspiracy among him and his co-accused be proved.
and his co-accused
No conspiracy here was established. Conspiracy; like any other
ingredient of the offense, must be proved as sufficient as the
crime itself through clear and convincing evidence, not only by
mere conjectures. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is required to
establish the presence of criminal conspiracy. In fact, the
appealed decision does not mention, much less discuss,
conspiracy.
It is possible that the appellant had no knowledge of the common
design, if there was any, nor of the intended assault until the
victim was actually stabbed. The evidence does not show that
appellant knew that Bernales had a knife; that she intended to
use it to stab the victim; and, even if she had such intention and
appellant knew it, that he held the victim's hand to insure the
effectiveness and fatality of Bernales' attack.
To prove the existence of conspiracy, the following must be
present:
1. Unity of purpose and unity in the execution of the
unlawful objective
o In this case, no unity of purpose was shown. The only
involvement of appellant was his holding of the hand
of Palma when he was stabbed by Bernales on the left
chest, which could also mean a desire on the part of
appellant to avoid a physical encounter between
Palma and Bernales, a woman, who was not known to
appellant to be armed with a knife.
2. Unity of Design
o There was no other evidence to show unity of design.
The simultaneousness of the act of stabbing the victim
by Bernales with the holding of the hand of the same
victim by appellant does not of itself demonstrate
concurrence of wills or unity of purpose and action.
3. Intent to Kill
o The mere holding of the victim's hand does not
necessarily prove intention to kill. If the tragedy was a
chance stabbing, there can be no conspiracy to speak
of.
There is conspiracy if the victim was stabbed more than once and
appellant still held on to the hand of the victim. That would have
indicated intent to kill and a community of purpose and design.

Ocenars testimony, although appearing credible, does not

establish the existence of conspiracy. It is elementary that, in the
absence of conspiracy, each of the accused is responsible only for
the consequences of his own acts. All that appellant did was to
hold the hand of Palma, which is not a crime.
Whether
or
not
appellant
can
be
considered a principal by
indispensable
cooperation
or
an
accomplice in the crime
of murder

NO.
It is required in order to be liable either as a principal by
indispensable cooperation, or as an accomplice, that the accused
must unite with the criminal design of the principal by direct
participation. There is nothing on record to show that appellant
knew that Bernales was going to stab Palma, thus creating a
doubt as to appellant's criminal intent.
The cooperation that the law punishes is the assistance knowingly
or intentionally rendered, which cannot exist without previous
cognizance of the criminal act intended to be executed.

W/N the trial court erred

in qualifying the killing to
murder with abuse of
superior strength when
such circumstance is not
alleged
in
the
Information

YES.
The accused is correct, although it could have been considered
nonetheless as a generic aggravating circumstance even if not so
alleged. However, this is no longer significant considering the
conclusion herein reached.

RULING

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is REVERSED and accused-appellant EDUARDO JORGE Y RAMIREZ is
ACQUITTED of the crime charged. Accordingly, it appearing that he is detained, his immediate release from
custody is ordered unless he is held for another cause.

SO ORDERED.