People v.

Yanson-Dumancas
G.R. No. 133527-28
FACTS:
The accused-appellant, Jeanette Yanson Dumancas was swindled in a fake gold bar
transaction losing P352,000 to Danilo Lumangyao and Rufino Gargar, Jr. In the morning
of Aug. 5, 1992 at 10:30 AM, Mario Lamis, Dominador Geroche, Rolando Fernandez, Jaime
Gargallano, Edwin Divinagracia, Teody Delgado, Moises Grandeza (Principals by
Participation) were planning to abduct Lumangyao & Gargar Jr. because they swindled the
Dumancas family. Col Nicolas Torres (Principals by Induction and by Direct Participation
and/or Indispensable Cooperation) was also informed of the plan of the group.
On August 6, 1992, Jeannette investigated the two abducted and told the group of
Geroche to take care of the two. Gargar, Jr. and Lumangyao were abducted by motor
vehicle and detained.
On Aug 7, 1992, the two were thereafter killed while blindfolded. Gargallano shot Gargar
while Geroche shot Lumangyao. by a group of persons; most of whom were members
of the police force, alleged to be under the direction, and undue influence of one P/Col.
Nicolas Torres, and acting upon the inducement of accused Yanson-Dumancas. Then
the 2 bodies were secretly buried by Cesar Pecha & Edgar Hilado (Principals by
Participation) in a makeshift shallow grave for the purpose of concealing the crime of
murder.
Issue: Whether or not Charles Dumancas and Jeannette Yanson Dumancas could be
held liable of the crime as principals by induction?
Held: There are two ways of directly forcing another to commit a crime, namely: (a) by
using irresistible force or (b) by causing uncontrollable fear. There is nothing to conclude
that the accused used either of the methods on the accused-appellants. Likewise, there
are two ways of inducing another to commit a crime, specifically: (a) by giving a prize, or
offering a reward or promise, and (b) by using words of command. There was no
evidence to show that the accused committed any of the foregoing acts prior to the
commission of the crime. In order that a person may be convicted as principal by
inducement, the following must be present: (1) the inducement be made with
the intention of procuring the commission of the crime, and (2) such inducement be the
determining cause of the commission by the material executor. There must exist, on the
part of the inducer, the most positive resolution and the most persistent effort to secure
the commission of the crime, together with the presentation to the person induced of the
strongest kind of temptation to commit the crime.
People v. Doble
G.R. No. L-30028
FACTS:
On June 13, 1966, 10 men, almost all heavily armed with pistols, carbines and
thompsons, departed Manila in a motor banca & proceeded to Navotas, Rizal to rob the
beach-bank Prudential Bank & Trust Co. Said bank had an unusual banking hours,
which is 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 bank’s ceiling, walls & door of the vault. The 8 men then returned to the
waiting motor banca with P10,439.95 & 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, with multiple
homicide, multiple frustrated homicide and assault upon agents of persons in authority
for based on the narration as to how the robbery and the killing that followed in its wake
were actually committed, the three appellants had no participation.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the three accused can be considered as co-principals or as mere
accomplices in the crime charged.
HELD:
First, the extra-judicial statements of the appellants are convincing to show that their
liability is less than that of a co-principal by conspiracy or by actual participation.
Cresencio was merely in-charge 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
of the crime. Nor was Romaquin considered a principle malefactor as there was a gun
pointed at him by Cresencio to prevent him from fleeing away from the scene, evident to
show that he never joined in the criminal purpose and that his acts were not voluntary.
An accomplice is one who, not being principal as defined in Art 17 RPC, cooperates in
the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts. There must be a
community of unlawful purpose between the principal and accomplice and assistance
knowingly and intentionally given to supply material and moral aid in the consummation
of the offense. In this case, the appellants’ cooperation is like that of a driver of a car
used for abduction which makes the driver a mere accomplice.
But it isn’t established by evidence that in the meeting held in the house of Simeon that
they all agreed to kill and not just rob. The finding that appellants are liable as mere
accomplices may appear too lenient but evidence fails to establish their conspiracy with
the real malefactors who actually robbed the bank and killed several people.
RULING:
Wherefore, Cresencio & Romaquin are guilty beyond reasonable doubt as accomplices
for the crime of robbery in band. The penalty imposable upon appellants is prision
mayor min. The commission of the crime was aggravating by nighttime & the use of a
motorized banca. There being no MC, both appellants should be sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty of prision correccional from 5 years, 4 months, 21 days to 8 years
of prision mayor as maximum.