ANALISIS Y DISCUSION

(that the inducer produced the strongest kind of temptation to commit the crime)

None of the following are present. In the present case, the abduction (indispensible ingredient of kidnap with ransom) was already committed, prior to the time Domancas uttered the words “take care of the two”. Such utterance could not have induced the commission of the crime on account that the crime was already committed.

In the present case, neither of the two is manifested by Domancas. It is concluded by the court that the plan to abduct the deceased was already present prior to her involvement (meeting on August 5, where the accused Lamis hatched the scheme).

(2.) Adonis Abeto (one who executed the search warrant in the house of Tortocion) is acquitted. He is not a conspirator, as mere presence at the scene of the crime is not conclusive of conspiracy, absent any proof of previous agreement. The presumption of regularity in the performance of duties (serving the search warrant) prevails.

(3.) Col. Torres is acquitted of his criminal liability by reason of his death. However, his civil liability survives.

(4.) Pecha is guilty as an accessory, by concealing or destroying the body of the crime for purposes of concealment. He has knowledge that the deceased were victims of violence, as the bodies were bloodied and still handcuffed when he buried them.

People vs Garcia

The accused Garcia, together with the co – accused, were charged with the crime of kidnapping for ransom (with illegal possession of firearms for the 2 accused). During arraignment, they pleaded not guilty thereto.

During trial, the prosecution, together with the testimonies of its witnesses, alleged the following facts, to wit;

1. That the private complainant, Atty. Tolieco, was jogging along Gilmore Avenue around 5:30am, when he was stopped by a blue Toyota Corona, from which the 2 assailants alighted therefrom, pointed a gun at him and threw him at the back of the said vehicle,

2. That when the victim was made to crouch at the legroom of the said car, he managed to take a good glimpse of the accused Valler and Garcia, before he was candcuffed and blindfolded,

3. That the assailants drove around 45 minutes while the assailants were pestering him, propounding to be military men, accusing him to be a drug pusher; that he was stripped of all personal belongings before they finally arrived at the safehouse of the accused in De Vega Compound in Fairveiw,

4. That upon arriving, the victim was put to a room, while the assailants made contact with her sister for the purpose of extorting ransom money, the amount of 2 million; that the sister, named Floriana, managed to haggle the amount to 2 million,

5. That after the conversation with the assailants, Floriana sought assistance from the PACC (Presidential Anti – Crime Commission), which immediately proceeded to the residence of Floriana,

6. That the next day, Floriana managed to raise P71,000 which was accepted by the assailants through phone; that the payoff was scheduled around 8pm the same day at Timog, QC, near “lighthouse” and “burger machine”; that Floriana proceeded thereto together with 2 companions, while PACC agents were positioned for surveillance,

7. That the pay-off did not materialize as the assailants, while monitoring the perimeter riding the blue Toyota, thought that the companions of Floriana were police officers; the assailants rescheduled the pay-off the next day at Mcdonalds, Sta.

Mesa; the PACC agents tailed the car and discovered that the safehouse was in Fairview,

8. That upon arriving at Mcdonalds in Sta. Mesa, Floriana was approached by the accused Garcia, where the latter got the ransom money and proceeded to the blue car; the PACC agents were able to apprehend the accused Garcia, while the accused Valler who was driving the car manage to escape,

9. That upon arrest of the accused Garcia, PAC agents who were surveying the safehouse conducted a rescue operations which proved to be successful, managing to arrest the (2) accused Lariba and Rogel who were guarding the safehouse, 10. That Valler was also arrested when he arrived at the safehouse.

After trial, the trial court found guilty, through conspiracy, of the crime of Kidnapping with Ransom. In a separate case, (2) of the accused were found guilty of illegal possession of firearms. All assailants were meted the death sentence.

The accused sought an appeal with the SC, arguing that they should be liable for slight illegal detention (Art. 268), and not for Kindapping with Ransom on account that the private complainant was released from detention by reason of the rescue operations, and not by reason of the payment of ransom.

WON the trial court erred in holding Lariba and Rogel as principals.

(1.) No, accused Laribal and Rogel are guilty as accomplices. It is shown by evidence that they

cooperated in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts which aided or facilitated its execution, BUT WITHOUT ANY INDISPENSIBLE ACTS FOR ITS ACCOMPLISHMENT.

The accused petitioners merely guarding the house for purposes of either helping the principals in facilitating the successful consummation of the crime and repelling any attempts to rescue the victims.

Conspirators and Accomplices have one thing in common, which is knowledge and assent to the criminal design. However, conspirators are the ones who decides that the crime be committed; accomplices merely

concur to it. Conspirators are the authors, accomplices are merely instruments who perform acts which are not essential to the consummation of the crime, but are merely supplementary.

Knowledge of the criminal design does not make one ipso facto a conspirator, absent any evidence showing that the accused participated in the decision making.

(2.) The participation of Laribal and Rogel are not indispensible, as the private complainant was already subdued ,in line with kidnapping, when the latter was placed in the custody of former.

(3.) Kidnapping for ransom is committed in the present case. No specific form of ransom is required for the felony, as long as the payment of an amount is imposed in exchange for the liberty of the victim.

(4.) Laribal and Rogel are acquitted of the charge for illegal possession of firearms as there is another crime committed at the same time (kidnapping for ransom).

Garcia vs CA

The accused Garcia was charged with murder and frustrated murder. During arraignment, he pleaded not guilty thereto.

During trial, the prosecution, together with its witnesses, alleged the following facts, to wit;

1. That the deceased Leano, together with witness Corpuz, were conversing along a street in Paco, Manila around 11:30pm, when all of the sudden, the wheel of the pedicab driven by Renato Garcia ran over the foot of the deceased, causing the latter and his companion to pursue the R. Garcia and hurled profanities to the latter,

2. That upon catching up, the deceased was surprised to see that R. Garcia, while yelling expletives to him, was trying to reach for his belt to take out a pistol; that the deceased and Corpuz fled the scene immediately and proceeded to the residence of the deceased’s uncle, private complainant Bernardo,

3. That upon conferring to the uncle about the incident, Bernardo ordered the two to come with him to the police station to have the incident blottered; that the (3) decided to take the jeep of the mother of Bernardo, located at the mother’s residence a few blocks away,

4. That when the (3) proceeded to the residence of the mother by foot, they stumbled across the (3) assailants, R. Garcia, the accused Felipe Garcia, and Gerry Lugos, all carrying handguns aimed towards the direction of the deceased and his companions,

5. That upon seeing the armed men, Bernardo sprinted to the direction of R. Garcia, but was immediately shot on the neck by the former causing him to fall down face flat, while Felipe Garcia and Gerry Lugos acted as lookouts,

6. That upon seeing his uncle shot, the deceased attempted to lift his uncle when suddenly, (3) shot were fired, hitting the deceased at the back of the head, while the witness Corpuz was unscathed as he ducked down when the shots were fired, 7. That upon shooting, the (3) assailants fled the scene, while Corpuz sought assistance from the brother of Bernardo who was then located at a nearby basketball court.

8. That the private complainant Bernardo survived despite the fatal gunshot wound on account of immediate medical attention.

After trial, the trial court found the accused guilty of “homicide” and frustrated “homicide” through conspiracy with the other assailants, although R. Garcia and Lugos were not taken into custody.

The lone petitioner – accused interposed the present appeal, arguing that there exists no conspiracy between the alleged assailants, and that he should be acquitted on account that it was R. Garcia who fired the said shots.

WON the trial court erred in holding that the accused appellant is guilty as a principal.

(1.) Yes, the accused is guilty not as a principal but as an accomplice. Conspiracy is not presumed, as it must be proven by evidence. Mere prior knowledge that a crime will be committed does not make one ipso facto a conspirator. Both knowledge of the crime and participation thereto is inherent in accomplices as well.

In case of doubt as to the resolution that an accused is either guilty as a principal or as a mere accomplice, doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused and should be considered as a mere accomplice.

The witness/private complainant Bernardo testified that the person who discharged the gunshots were R.

Garcia, and that the accused and Lugos acted as lookouts. The witness testified that the accused acted as aide.

In the present case, although a co-conspirator must suffer the penalty to be meted to the principals, the accused’s participation in the commission of the crime was not absolutely indispensible to its commission thereof; the accused merely acted as a lookout.

Insofar as criminal responsibility is concerned, what is controlling is not the existence of conspiracy, but the participation of the assailants in the commission of the crime.

People vs Antonio

The accused Antonio was charged with the crime of murder, where police officers Nieto and Cartalla were charged as accessories thereto. During arraignment, all pleaded not guilty thereto.

During trial, the prosecution, together with the testimonies of its witnesses, alleged the following facts, to wit;

1. That the accused Antonio, former chairman of Games and Amusement Board, proceeded to the IBC (International Business Cub) to meet with its President, Debdani, and the deceased Tuadles, a former professional basketball player; that the meet was for pleasure (3^rd night of playing pusoy – dos),

2. That upon arrival of the accused, he alone played with the deceased, as Debdani wasn’t able to come; that the two played until 9am the next morning,

3. That an altercation arose when the two disagreed with the division of winnings, causing the accused to lose his temper, reached his gun at the backside of his belt, and indiscriminately shot the deceased, hitting the latter right at the center of the head, between the eyes,

4. That after the shooting incident, the accused convinced the (2) police officers Nieto and Cartalla, together with the prosecution witness, SG Bobis, to got with him at his residence in Greenmeadowns, QC,

5. That the (2) accessories stayed thereat for several hours while the accused contacted several persons through phone, requesting legal aid,

6. That around 3pm, the accused, accompanied by officer Nieto, surrendered himself and the gun used thereto to San Juan Mayor, Jinggoy Estrada.

The prosecution alleged that SPO4 Nieto is an accomplice as he harbored and assisted the principal by failing to arrest the latter and surrender him to authorities. It also alleged that Nieto gave false information to deceive investigating authorities for the purpose of aiding the accused Antonio.

SPO1 Cartalla was also indicted as an accessory for concealing or destroying the instrument or body of the crime in order to prevent its discover, by removing the laser sight of the gun used in the said shooting incident and deliberately failing to preserve the evidence at the scene of the crime.

The police officers were found by the trial court guilty as accessories. The latter sought an appeal with the SC, alleging that the trial court erred in holding that they are accessories to the crime.

WON they are accessories.

(1.) Yes, they are guilty as accessories. Accessories to crimes are defined as “one who has knowledge of the commission of the crime, but did not take part in it as an accomplice or principal”, but took part in it subsequent to its commission through;