COVERDALE ABARQUEZ vs. PEOPLE g) Paz claims that he was only trying to talk to Almojuela.

However, Paz could

Weight and Insufficiency of Evidence | January 20, 2006 | Carpio, J. not have been merely talking to Almojuela, as he tried to portray, because
Nature of the Case: Review on Certiorari Almojuela was already grappling with Quejong at that time. Paz interpreted
Abarquez’s action as an attempt to prevent him from helping Quejong. His
FACTS: interpretation was adopted by TC and sustained by CA. Yet, in his testimony,
 The prosecution charged Abarquez with the crimes of homicide and Paz admitted that while restraining him, Abarquez was scolding or
attempted homicide, alleging in the two informations filed that said accused reprimanding him and telling him to stop. It was not shown that Abarquez was
was conspiring and confederating with one Alberto Almojuela in the killing stopping Paz from helping Almojuela. It is more likely that Abarquez was trying
of Ricardo Quejong Bello, by stabbing him twice with a bladed weapon and to stop Paz from joining the fight. Abarquez’s act of trying to stop Paz does
hitting him with a gun at the back. not translate to assistance to Almojuela.
 TC found Abarquez guilty beyond reasonable doubt as an accomplice in the h) The prosecution argues that Abarquez was remiss in his duties as a barangay
crime of homicide. kagawad in not extending assistance to the then wounded Quejong. This,
 Abarquez filed an appeal to CA but it rejected Abarquez’s allegation that he however, does not necessarily show concurrence in Almojuela’s criminal act.
was merely at the crime scene to pacify the quarreling parties. When Paz ran away, Abarquez shouted at him that he left his wounded
 Abarquez alleges that the prosecution’s evidence does not satisfy the test companion. Apparently, Abarquez was not aware of the extent of Quejong’s
of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support this conviction as an injury and he expected Paz to look after his own companion.
accomplice; that there was a misapprehension of facts; and that TC and CA i) When there is doubt on the guilt of an accused, the doubt should be resolved
reached their conclusion based entirely on speculation, surmises and in his favor – the equipoise rule is applied in this case. Where the evidence
conjectures; and assails the credibility of the witnesses against him. on an issue of fact is in issue or there is doubt on which side the evidence
preponderates, the party having the burden of proof loses.
ISSUE: W/N there is sufficient to prove the fact that Abarquez was an
accomplice in the killing of Bello – No. RULING: Petition is granted. Abarquez is acquitted as an accomplice in the crime
a) Two elements must concur before a person becomes liable as an of homicide.
accomplice:
1) Community of design, which means that the accomplice knows of,
and concurs with, the criminal design of the principal by direct
participation; and
2) The performance by the accomplice of previous or simultaneous
acts that are not indispensable to the commission of the crime.
b) Mere commission of an act, which aids the perpetrator, is not enough. The
cooperation that the law punishes is the assistance knowingly rendered,
which cannot exist without the previous cognizance of the criminal act
intended to be executed.
c) The accused must unite with the criminal design of the principal by direct
participation in order to be liable as an accomplice.
d) The court held in one case that the mere presence of the accused at the crime
scene cannot be interpreted to mean that he committed the crime charged.
e) In convicting Abarquez in this case, TC and CA relied mainly on the testimony
of Paz who testified that he was held by Abarquez on the shoulders, thus
preventing him from helping Quejong who was grappling with Almojuela.
Paz’s testimony does not show that Abarquez concurred with Almojuela’s
criminal design.
f) "Tumigil" literally means "stop." Clearly, Abarquez was trying to stop Paz
from joining the fray, not from helping Quejong.