Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

People v.

Simbra, 117 SCRA 242 (1982)

Facts: Sergio Tolibas was charged and found guilty of the crime of rape
of one Gresilda Gonzales, a 16 yr old girl.
Prosecutions version: One night, Gonzales left her house to fetch
water from the artesian well. In the public market. About 36 meters
away from her house, along an unlighted portion of the road, appellant
Tolibas and one Simbra, both smelling of tuba, accused her. Simbra
grabbed her by the arms while Tolibas quickly covered her mouth with
a handkerchief. Helping each other, they dragged the girl to a serin,
where the bad deed happened. During the first commission of rape,
Simbra was the one who succeeded having carnal knowledge while
Tolibas held the girls arms and covered her mouth. Simbra succeeded
twice. Afterwards, it was Tolibas who had carnal knowledge of the girl 3
times while Simbra was holding the complainant. After the commission
of the crime, the two brought the girl to the house of Tolibas sister,
where she was fetched by her aunt. Police interrogation followed.
Defenses version: Gonzales was Simbras sweetheart and what
happened in the serin was done with the consent of the girl.
Issue: WON Simbra was a principal by indispensable cooperation.
Held: Yes. Appellants version is hard to believe. Tolibas committed the
crime of rape through direct participation when he himself had carnal
knowledge of the girl. And, when he aided Simbra, he committed
another crime of rape through indispensable cooperation. He is hereby
guilty of two crimes of consummated rape.
People v. Nierra, 96 Phil. 1 (1980)
Facts: Juliana Gadugdug Nierra and Pagano Nierra, her brother6inlaw,
were competitors in the businesses of launch transportation and the
sale of soft drinks in Barrio Tinago, General Santos City.
In order to monopolize those businesses in the locality, Paciano Nierra
conceived the Idea of liquidating his competitor, Juliana. For that
purpose, Felicisimo Doblen, a cousin in law of Paciano, accompanied to
Paciano's house Gaspar Misa, a convicted murderer who had escaped
from the Davao Penal Colony
Thereafter, Doblen, in behalf of Pagano Nierra, delivered to Misa at the
beach a package containing a caliber .38 pistol with five bullets. Misa
contacted his friend, Vicente Rojas, and apprised him that he (Misa)
had been hired to kill Juliana. Misa asked Rojas to act as lookout when
the killing would be perpetrated.

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

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 isnt 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.
Wherefore, Doble & 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
aggravated 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 yrs, 4 mos, 21 days to 8 yrs of
prision mayor as maximum.
People v. Doctolero, 193 SCRA 632 (1991)
Ludovico, Virgilio, and Conrado were stoning the house of Marcial.
After the two women inside protested their acts, the three went up
the house.
While inside the house, Ludovico boloed both women inside, as well
as a child.
Issue:WON defendants are liable as accomplices.
It is reasonable to believe that Conrado and Virgilio merely stood by
as Ludovico was boloing the two deceased women. Their presence
gave Ludovico the encouragement and reliance to proceed as he did.
This is similar to the case of US v. Balili where it was held that one
who goes with the principals, and in staying outside of the house while
the others went inside to rob and kill the victim, effectively supplies the

criminals with material and moral aid, making him guilty as an