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