Scribd
Upload
188 views2 pages

Requisites:: Accomplice

The document summarizes the legal definitions and requirements for accomplices and accessories according to Philippine law based on several case examples: 1) An accomplice must have knowledge of the criminal plan and cooperate in executing the offense to aid the principal. Accessories profit from, conceal evidence of, or help the principal escape after the crime. 2) One case found a wife an accessory for concealing her husband's murder and warning the witness not to tell. Another ruled a driver who helped the assailant escape was an accessory despite being charged as a principal. 3) The legal definitions, elements, and examples show how Philippine law distinguishes accomplices and accessories from principals in criminal cases.

Uploaded by

John Paul
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
188 views2 pages

Requisites:: Accomplice

The document summarizes the legal definitions and requirements for accomplices and accessories according to Philippine law based on several case examples: 1) An accomplice must have knowledge of the criminal plan and cooperate in executing the offense to aid the principal. Accessories profit from, conceal evidence of, or help the principal escape after the crime. 2) One case found a wife an accessory for concealing her husband's murder and warning the witness not to tell. Another ruled a driver who helped the assailant escape was an accessory despite being charged as a principal. 3) The legal definitions, elements, and examples show how Philippine law distinguishes accomplices and accessories from principals in criminal cases.

Uploaded by

John Paul
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Accomplice

Requisites:
1. That there be community of design; that is, knowing the criminal design of the principal by direct participation,
he concurs with the latter in his purpose.
2. That he cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts, with the intention of
supplying materials or moral aid in the execution of the crime in an efficacious way.
3. That there be a relation between the acts done by the principal and those attributed to the person charged as
accomplice.
People vs Nierra (February 12, 1980)
Facts:
Juliana Gadugdug-Nierra and Pagano Nierra were competitors in the business of selling softdrinks, Juliana was
selling coca-cola while Pagano was selling pepsi-cola. In order to monopolize those business. Paciano Nierra planned to
liquidate his competitor, Juliana. Felicisimo Doblen, cousin in law of Paciano, accompanied Gaspar Misa, a convicted
murderer in to the house of Paciano. In the bedroom of Paciano, together with his wife Gaudencia Garrido-Nierra,
agreed to kill Juliana and promise for P3,000 and also promised to add P400 after the killing. The agreement was
confirmed by Gaudencia and Pagano said it was up to Misa when he will kill Juliana. In the evening, Doblen handed the .
38 caliber pistol with 5 bullets to Misa. Misa then asked Vicente Rojas to act as a lookout. On the day of the killing, Misa
waited for Juliana to take the call of Nature since she was observed to do it regularly and when she squatted, Misa
suddenly appeared behind her, held her hair, tilting her head and inserted the muzzle in her mouth and fired it. She
sustained a gunshot wound in her tongue where the bullet passed through the buccal cavity down to the spinal column.
After the killing, Misa walked through the beach in front of Paciano and Gaudencia, and later threw the gun in a dense
talahib grass. In the morning, Paciano gave the P400 pesos to Misa as promised. Misa then gave Rojas P50. Misa and
Rojas are arrested for questioning by the policemen but later released. Misa left the city and arrested again by the
Constabulary soldier where he admitted the killing of Juliana and implicated Paciano, Gaudencia, Doblen, and Rojas.
Held:
Nierra spouses were convicted as co-principal by inducement, and also by acting as lookouts they became co-
principals by cooperation as well. Rojas and Doblen were convicted as accomplices.

People vs Doble (May 31, 1982)


Facts:
10 men which are heavily armed with pistols, carbine and thompson, left the shores of Manila in a motor banca
and proceeded to Navotas, to rob the Navotas Branch of the Prudential Branch and Trust Company. Upon arriving, 8
men preceded to the bank and later gunshots were heard. After, 8 men returned to the banca carrying a “bayong”.
Many were killed including agents of law and some were injured.
In the investigation, Simeon Doble, the owner of the house where the 10-armed men discuss their plan in
robbing the bank testified that he was not part of the band because he did not participate the discussion in which he
only listens to it and he has not given participation in the act and he claimed that he cannot join because he has a five
year old injury in the foot which would hinder him from executing the crime. He did also receive a share in the looting,
except for the 2 pesos given by Antonio Romaquin, in the morning after the incident.
Cresencio was asked by the leader of the gang to find a banca, he asked Romaquin to provide a banca where
Romaquin offered his banca which was used in the crime. Also, Cresenscio was given a gun in order to guard the banca
but he refused. Romaquin has a share of P441 while Cresencio was given P41.
Held:
Simeon Doble was acquitted and was not considered as co-principal or accomplices. Cresencio Doble and
Antonio Romaquin were convicted as accomplices. Joe Intsik leader.

People vs Doctolero (February 7, 1991)


Facts:
Ludovico Doctolero had an encounter with Marcial and Maria Sagun, Antonio and Lolita Oviedo. In his attempt
to escape, Ludovico hacked Lolita with a bolo which caused her death. Later,

Accessory
Accessory are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without having participated therein,
either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission by any of the following mannes:
a. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.
b. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime or the effects or instrument thereof, in order to prevent its
discovery.
c. By harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape of the principal of the crime, provided the accessory acts with
abuse of his public functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder or an
attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime.
Requisites:
1. That the accessory is a private person
2. That he harbors, conceals or assists in the escape of the principal
3. That the crime committed is either treason, parricide, murder, attempt to take the life of the President or that
the principal is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime.
People vs Talingdan (July 6, 1978)
Facts:
Teresa Domogma (the live-in partner of the deceased, Bernardo Bagabag) has illicit relationship with the
accused Nemesio Talingdan, the fruit of said relationship had made Corazon. Bernardo gotten wind of the illicit
relationship, they quarreled. Bernardo notice that Teresa did not come back for more than 3 weeks and he came to
know that she was with Talingdan. In his anger, they quarreled violently and Bernardo slapped Teresa several times.
Teresa sought the help of the police and Talingdan (policeman) came into the vicinity but he was ignored by Bernardo.
One day, Teresa met with Talingdan and another co-appellants Magellan Tobias, Augusto Berras and Pedro Bides. They
were witnessed by Corazon, which she heard “could he elude a bullet” in the conversation. Teresa notice the presence
of her child and told her that “you tell your father that we will kill him”. On the evening, Corazon, as she was preparing
for supper, she noticed the group of Talingdan and her mother got down and met with them. She also noticed that they
were holding long guns. The meeting did not last long, Teresa return to her room and the others went to the nearby
avocado tree. Corazon called her parents to eat but both declined. She ate supper alone. She also warned, Bernardo
about the person downstairs but she was ignored. But when Bernardo proceeded the kitchen and sat near the door, he
was suddenly fired upon. The four accused climbed the stairs of the “batalan” carrying their long guns and seeing
Bernardo was still alive, Talingdan and Tobias fired again. Bides and Berras did not fired at that precise time, but when
Corazon tried to call for help, Bides warned her if she do so she will be killed, so Corazon went silent. The assailants fled
from the scene. Teresa went down and also warned Corazon not to tell anyone or else she will be killed.
Held:
Talingdan, Tobias, Berras and Bides were guilty of murder as principals. Teresa Domogma is guilty as an
accessory; she is passive in the conspiracy of her co-appellants and after Bernardo was killed, she became active in her
cooperation with them. This act constitutes “concealing or assisting in the escape of the principal in the crime” which
makes her liable as an accessory.

Vino vs People (October 19, 1989) 0


Facts:
Roberto Tejada, left their house to go to the house of Isidro Salazar to watch tv. Ernesto Tejada, father of
Roberto, heard 2 gunshots and later heard Roberto crying out loud saying that he had been shot. Ernesto turn on the
lights when he saw Roberto. Aside from Ernesto and his wife, his children Ermalyn and Julius were also in the house.
Roberto was crying so they called for help from neighbors. The neighbors turn their lights on and the street lights where
after meeting Roberto, Ernesto and Julius saw Vino and Jessie Salazar riding a bicycle, Vino was the driver while Jessie
was carrying an armalite. Upon reaching Ernesto’s house, they stopped and pointed his armalite at Ernesto and his
companions and later left. Roberto was brought to the hospital but later died due to blood loss.
Held:
Lito Vino was not considered as a principal, although he was charged as principal in the information he can still
be convicted as an accomplice or accessory. In this case, although he was charged as a principal in the information, the
evidence adduced was showed that his participation is merely that of an accessory. Vino assisted in the in the escape of
the assailant from the scene of the crime. Even if the assailant was not convicted because of the insufficiency of the
evidence that it was Jessie Salazar the one carrying the armalite, it was enough to prosecute Vino as an accessory who
participate and assisted the assailant.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy