You are on page 1of 11

People v.

Atop (1998)
Facts: 11-year-old Regina lives with her grandmother. Atop is the common-law husband of her
grandmother. Atop was found guilty of 4 counts of rape which was committed in 1993 (2x),
1994 and 1995. The
lower court took into account the AC of relationship. Nature: Appeal from the Automatic
Review of the joint decision of the RTC of Ormoc
Alejandro Atop alias Ali guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of rape and
sentencing him to two terms of reclusion perpetua for the first two counts, and to death for the
third.

According to the prosecution:


Regina Guafin, told the court that she is a granddaughter of Trinidad Mejos and that the accused
Alejandro Atop is the common law husband of said Trinidad Atop
- Her mother is a daughter of Trinidad Atop and lives in Pangasinan. She is an illegitimate child
and she does not even know her father. Since her early childhood she stayed with her
grandmother Trinidad Atop and the accused. Sometime in 1991 when she was already 10 years
of age the accused started having lustful desire on her. The accused then inserted his finger into
her vagina. She told her grandmother about this but her grandmother did not believe her. She was
then told by her grandmother, Trinidad Mejos, that what her grandfather did to her was just a
manifestation of fatherly concern. She continued staying with her grandmother and her common
law husband Alejandro Atop.
- Oct. 9, 1992 – Atop had carnal knowledge of Regina. Regina informed her grandmother but
her grandmother refused to believe her.
-Regina reported the incidents of rape that happened in 1992, 1993, and 1994 only in January
1995. She said that she was afraid to report the incident because Ali threatened to kill her.
According to Defense:
- Ali denied the accusations of Regina and imputed ill motive upon her aunts, who were the
daughters of his live in partner.

Issues:
1. WON the circumstances of nighttime and relationship as aggravating can be appreciated.
 NO. Nocturnity
-Must have been deliberately sought by the offender to facilitate the crime or prevent its
discovery or evade his capture or facilitate his escape.
-Must have purposely taken advantage of the cover of night as an indispensable factor to attain
his criminal purpose.
- The prosecution failed to prove that nighttime was deliberately sought by appellant to facilitate
this dastardly acts. In fact, the prosecution failed to show that appellant consummated his carnal
designs at night, except only for the December 26, 1994 incident which the victim said occurred
at 11:00 p.m. There are no evidence substantiating the trial court’s conclusion that appellant
intentionally sought the darkness to advance his criminal exploits
- Scope of Relationship
 Spouse
 Ascendant
 Descendant
 Legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister
 Relative by affinity in the same degree
 Relationship by affinity refers to a relation by virtue of a legal bond such as marriage.
Relatives by affinity are those commonly referred to as in-laws, stepfather, stepmother,
stepchild and the like.
-Relatives by consanguinity or blood relatives encompassed under the second, third and fourth
enumeration above.
- The law cannot be stretched to include persons attached by common-law relations.
-There is no blood relationship or legal bond that links the appellant to his victim. Thus, the
modifying circumstance of relationship cannot be considered against him
-§11 of A335 of the RPC as amended: The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of
rape is committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: when the victim is under
eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian relative
by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common law spouse of the
parent of the victim
-Appellant is not the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. He is the common-law
husband of the girl’s grandmother. Neither is appellant the victim’s “parent, ascendant, step-
parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the 3rd civil degree.” Hence, he’s
not encompassed in any of the relationships expressly enumerated.
-Penal statutes are to be liberally construed in favor of the accused

2. WON accused committed the crime beyond reasonable doubt.


- YES. No simple barrio lass would so candidly admit before the public that a man who had
lived as common-law husband to her grandmother had inserted his penis in her vagina for so
many times in the past. It is unthinkable that complainant, a young lady of fifteen years, would
allow her private parts to be examined and would withstand the rigors of a public trial — along
with the shame, humiliation and dishonor of exposing her own mortifying defilement — if she
was not in fact ravished
- It is unnatural and unbelievable for Regina’s aunts to concoct a story of rape of their own
very young niece, that would bring shame and scandal not only to her but to the entire family,
especially to their mother.

Held: The law cannot be stretched to include persons attached by common-law relations. In this
case, there is no blood relationship or legal bond that links Atop to his victim.
PEOPLE v San Pedro
Facts: A lifeless body of Felimon Rivera was found. It was found that the group of San Pedro,
who pretended to hire Rivera’s jeep to haul coconuts, had hit Rivera at the nape with a water
pipe. He was able to jump out of the jeep but was chased and stabbed at the back several times at
the back. The jeep was then sold by the accused.
Held: Lack of instruction is not applicable to the crimes of theft and robbery, much less the
crime of homicide. The reason is that robbery and killing are, by their nature wrongful acts and
are manifestly so to be enlightened, equally as to the ignorant.
Abejuela v. People
August 19, 1991
Who incurs criminal liability – Accomplice
Fernan, J:

Facts:
 This is a case of estafa.
 Abejuela became close friends with Balo, a Banco Filipino employee. Abejuela has an
account with Banco Filipino.
 Balo borrowed Abejuela’s passbook with Banco Filipino and used it to deposit and
withdraw money, even amounting to almost 200k. He told Abejuela that what he was
depositing were from the insurance proceeds of his grandfather but that as a Banco
Filipino employee he could not open his own account and so had to use Abejuela’s.
 It was found that Balo used his being an employee of the bank to post false deposits.
Abejuela did not know of this and when he started getting suspicious, he actually even
closed his account with Banco Filipino to prevent Balo from continuing. Both Balo and
Abejuela were charged with Estafa.
 During pendency of the case, Balo was purportedly killed by the NPA. The trials
continued for Abejuela.
 RTC ruled that Abejuela is an accomplice to the crime. CA affirmed the rtc decision.
Issue:
 Whether or not Abejuela is an accomplice to the crime of estafa.
Ratio:
 NO HE IS NOT.
o After carefully weighing the arguments of both parties as well as taking into
consideration the evidence on record, we are inclined to believe that petitioner
Abejuela was completely unaware of the malevolent scheme of Balo. From Balo's
own admissions, it was he who deceived Abejuela through sweet talk, assurances,
drinking sprees and parties and cajoled him into giving in to his requests.
Furthermore, during that time, nobody would have questioned Balo's source of
money and since he had a perfect alibi, i.e. the insurance proceeds of his later
father. When Balo showed Abejuela some checks purporting to be his father's
insurance proceeds, Abejuela was hoodwinked into believing that Balo indeed
had money. Balo's request to borrow Abejuela's passbook in order to facilitate the
encashment of the checks seemed reasonable enough, considering that they were
close friends and "compadres".

 On being an accomplice:
o Knowledge of the criminal intent of the principal in this case, (Glicerio Balo,
Jr.) is essential in order that petitioner Abejuela can be convicted as an
accomplice in the crime of estafa thru falsification of commercial document. To
be convicted as an accomplice, there must be cooperation in the execution of the
offense by previous or simultaneous acts. However, the cooperation which the
law punishes is the assistance rendered knowingly or intentionally, which
assistance cannot be said to exist without the prior cognizance of the offense
intended to be committed.
 In a number of cases decided by the court, it has been held that knowledge of the criminal
intention of the principal is indispensable in order to hold a person liable as an
accomplice. It has been satisfactorily
 established that Banco Filipino suffered damage. Although abejuela was unaware of the
criminal workings of Balo, he nevertheless contributed to their eventual consummation
by recklessly entrusting his passbook
 to Balo and by signing the withdrawal slips. He failed to exercise prudence and care.
Therefore he must be held civilly accountable.
o

Ruling: Abejuela is acquitted.


People vs. Doble, 114 SCRA 131
Nature: Automatic review of the decision of CFI Rizal. 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 beach-bank 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 bank’s 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.

HELD: 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 doesn’t 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 w/o w/c it would not have been committed. At
most, his act amounted to joining in a conspiracy w/c is not punishable. Simeon then was not a
principal both by agreement and encouragement for his non-participation in the commission of
the crime. Nor was it clearly proven that he had received any part/fruits of the lootedmoney as to
make him an accessory. As recommended by SolGen, Simeon Doble is entitled to acquittal w/ 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 w/c 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 consti’l rts to counsel and against self-incrimination.
However, it must be noted that they didn’t present any medical cert to attest to the injuries
allegedly inflicted. More so that their testimonies match each other’s. And it should also be noted
that Celso Aquino’s 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 w/ differently as their co-accused Aquino who was allowed to give his statement freely.

The extra-judicial statements o 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 w/c makes the
driver a mere accomplice.
But it isn’t established by evidence that in the mtg 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 w/ 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 aggr 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
FACTS: Epifania and Lolita were killed in the house of Marcial where they were living. A few
meters from the house, Marcelo was fatally injured. The evidence of the prosecution tend to
show that the three accused were responsible for the deaths of Epifania and Lolita and in
inflicting injuries to Jonathan. And immediately, with their father and co-accused, Antonio
Doctolero they hacked Marcelo with their bolos which caused the death of the latter.

HELD: We have held that where one goes with the principals and in staying outside of the house
while the others went inside to rob and kill the victim, the former effectively supplied the
criminals with material and moral aid, making him guilty as an accomplice. Appellant contend
that the murders occurred as a consequence of a sudden thought or impulse, thus negating
common criminal design in their minds. This pretension must be rejected since one can be an
accomplice even if he did not know if the actual crime intended by the principal provided that he
was aware that it was an illicit act.
People v. Talingdan (1978)
Facts:

 Teresa Domogma was the supposed wife of the deceased Bernardo Bagabag
 No certificate or any other proof of their marriage could be presented by the prosecution
 They lived with their children in Sobosob, Salapadan, Abra
 Their relationship had been strained and beset with troubles for Teresa had deserted her
family home a couple of times and each time Bernardo took time out to look for her
 On 2 different occasions, appellant Nemesis Talingdan has visited Teresa in their house
while Bernardo was out at work, and during those visits Teresa had made Corazon, their
then 12-year old daughter to go down the house and leave them
 Bernardo had gotten wind that an illicit relationship was going on between Talingdan and
Teresa
 About a month before Bernardo was killed, Teresa had again left their house and did not
come back for a period of more than 3 weeks, and Bernardo came to know later that she
and Talingdan were seen together in the town of Tayum Abra during that time
 Just two days before Bernardo was killed (Thursday), Bernardo and Theresa had a violent
quarrel; Bernardo slapped Theresa several times, resulting in Theresa seeking the help of
the police
 Accused Talingdan, a policeman, came armed to the vicinity of Bernardo's house and
called him to come down; Bernardo ignored him; Talingdan instead left and warned
Bernardo that someday he would kill him
 On Saturday, June 24, 1967, Bernardo was gunned down in his house
 The defendants' and Corazon's accounts of what happened had variations

Corazon's version:

 Friday morning: Corazon was in a creek to wash clothes. She saw her mother Teresa
meeting with Talingdan and their co-appellants Magellan Tobias, Augusto Berras, and
Pedro Bides in a small hut owned by Bernardo
 She heard one of them say "Could he elude a bullet"
 When Teresa noticed Corazon, she shoved her away saying "You tell your father that we
will kill him"
 Saturday, after sunset: Corazon was cooking food for supper when she saw her mother
go down the house to go to the yard where she again met with the other appellants.
 She noted the long guns the appellants were carrying.
 Teresa came back to the house and proceeded to her room.
 Corazon informed Bernardo, who was then working on a plow, about the presence of
persons downstairs, but Bernardo paid no attention
 Bernardo proceeded to the kitchen and sat himself on the floor near the door
 He was suddenly fired upon form below the stairs of the batalan
 The four accused climbed the stairs of the batalan and upon seeing that Bernardo was
still alive, Talingdan and Tobias fired at him again
 Bides and Berras did not fire at that precise time but when Corazon tried to call for helo,
Bides warned her that he will kill her if she calls for help
 Teresa came out of her room and when Corazon informed her that she recognized the
killers, the former threatened to kill the latter if she reveals the matter to anyone

The defendant's version:

 Teresa loved Bernardo dearly, they never quarreled, and her husband never maltreated
her.
 Teresa came to know Talingdan only when the latter became a policeman in Sallapadan;
an illicit relationship never existed between them
 Talingdan was not in Sallapadan at the time of the killing on June 24; he escorted the
Mayor in Bangued from June 22 to June 26
 Tobias, Bides, and Berras claimed to be in the house of one Mrs. Bayongan in
Sallapadan, 250-300 meters from the place of the killing

Issue:
Whether or not Teresa Domogma is an accessory to Bernardo's murder

 It is contended that there is no evidence proving that she actually joined in the
conspuracy to kill her husband because there is no showing of actual cooperation on her
part with co-appellants in their culpable acts that led to his death
 It is claimed that what is apparent is "mere cognizance, acquiescence or approval thereof
on her part, which it is argued is less than what is required for her conviction as a
conspirator

Holding:
Yes. She is an accessory to Bernardo's murder.
Ratio:

 Note: The court believed Corazon's testimony.


 It is true that proof of her direct participation in the conspiracy is not beyond reasonable
doubt; she cannot have the same liability as her co-appellants. She had no hand in the
actual shooting. It is also not clear if she helped directly in the planning and preparation
thereof. But the court is convinced that she knew it was going to be done and did not
object.
 There is in the record morally convincing proof that she is at the very least an accessory
to the offense committed.
 She did not only order her daughter not to reveal what she knew to anyone, she also
claimed to have no suspects in mind when the peace officers came into their house later
to investigate
 Whereas before the actual shooting she was more or less passive in her attitude regarding
the conspiracy, after Bernardo was killed, she became active in her cooperation with her
co-appellants
 These acts constitute "concealing or assisting in the escape of the principal in the crime"
 Male appellants sentenced to death. Guilty beyond reasonable doubt is Teresa Domogma,
sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 5 years of prision correccional as
minimum to 8 years of prision mayor as maximum.

You might also like