Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Thereafter, the unwary Juliana went to the beach where she was
accustomed to void and when she squatted, Misa unexpectedly
appeared behind her, held her hair, thus tilting her face, and while in
that posture, he inserted into her mouth the muzzle of the pistol and
fired it. Paciano and Gaudencia, who were near the beach, witnessed
the actual killing.
On August 7, 1969, Misa was interrogated by Patrolman A.B. Vencer Jr.
of the city police department. He signed a confession admitting the
killing of Juliana Nierra and implicating the other accused therein. ,
Misa testified at the preliminary in6vestigation. In his testimony, he
admitted again the killing and confirmed his confession implicating
Paciano Nierra, his wife Gaudencia, Doblen and Rojas
Thereafter, Misa, Doblen, Rojas and the Nierra spouses, as
co6conspirators, were charged with murder aggravated by reward,
treachery, evident premeditation, nocturnity, ignominy and abuse of
superiority and, as to Misa, recidivism, since he had been sentenced to
reclusion perpetua for the murder of Antonio Abad Tormis in Cebu City.
Issue: WON Dublin and Rojas are criminally liable as accomplice.
Held: Yes. After a conscientious reflection on the complicity of Doblen
and Rojas, we have reached the conclusion that they should be held
guilty as accomplices. It is true, strictly speaking, that as co6
conspirators they should be punished as co6 principals. However, since
their participation was not absolutely indispensable to the
consummation of the murder, the rule that the court should favor the
milder form of liability may be applied to them.
In some exceptional situations, having community of design with the
principal does not prevent a malefactor from being regarded as an
accomplice if his role in the perpetration of the homicide or murder
was, relatively speaking, of a minor character.
People v. Doble, 114 SCRA 131 (1982)
Facts: Late in the night of June 13, 1966, 10 men, almost all heavily
armed w/ pistols, carbines and thompsons, left the shores of Manila in
a motor banca & proceeded to Navotas, Rizal to rob the beach6bank
Prudential Bank & Trust Co. Said bank wad an unusual banking hours,
open from midnight till 8AM. Once docked in Navotas and taking
advantage of the darkness of the night, 8 men disembarked from the
banca and proceeded to their mission. Once inside, they started firing
at the banks ceiling, walls & door of the vault. The 8 men then
returned to the waiting motor banca w/ about P10.5K & sped away. As
a result of the shooting, many people got killed & injured. Among those
who got killed were agents of the law. Only 5 of the 10 men were
brought to trial, the rest still remain at large. 2 of the 5 accused were
acquitted. It is only Cresencio Doble, Simeon Doble and Antonio
Romaquin appealing in the charge of bank robbery committed in band,
w/ multiple homicide, multiple frustrated homicide and assault upon
agents of persons in authority.
Issue: WON defendant is an accomplice.
Held: Yes. First, as to appellant Simeon, evidence shows that the
malefactors met in his house to discuss the plan to rob the bank. This
circumstance alone doesnt conclude his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. The facts do not show that he performed any act tending to the
perpetration of the robbery, nor that he took a direct part therein or
induced other persons to commit, or that he cooperated in its
consummation by some act without which it would not have been
committed. At most, his act amounted to joining in a conspiracy which
is not punishable. Simeon then was not a principal both by agreement
and encouragement for his non6participation in the commission of the
crime. Nor was it clearly proven that he had received any part/fruits of
the looted money as to make him an accessory. As recommended by
SolGen, Simeon Doble is entitled to acquittal with no sufficient
evidence to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Next, as regards Romaquin & Doble, the malefactors who waited in the
banca, both contend that their extra judicial statements upon which
their conviction was principally made to rest, are inadmissible for
having been allegedly obtained by force and intimidation, torture and
maltreatment, and in violation of basic constitutional rights to counsel
and against self incrimination. However, it must be noted that they
didnt present any medical cert to attest to the injuries allegedly
inflicted. More so that their testimonies match each others. And it
should also be noted that Celso Aquinos testimony, as one of the
accused, admitted that no violence was inflicted on him to procure his
statement. This is evidence enough that the appellants could not have
been dealt with differently as their co6accused Aquino who was
allowed to give his statement freely.
The extra judicial statements of the appellants are convincing to show
that their liability is less than that of a co6principal by conspiracy or by
actual participation. Cresencio was merely in6charge of the banca and
had no knowledge of the concrete plan and execution of the crime.
The mastermind obviously did not extend confidence in him as he was
only asked to provide a banca just a few hours before the commission