PEOPLE v DEL ROSARIO

G.R. No. 127755 | April 14, 1999 | J. Bellosillo

FACTS:

Based on eyewitness Paul Alonzo:

o May 13, 1996, bet. 6 to 6:30 PM, Alonzo stopped his tricycle by the
side of Nitas Drugstore, General Luna St., Cabanatuan City (bec. 3
women flagged him)
o He saw 2 men and a woman struggling for possession of a bag. After
taking the bag, the Snatcher 1 (armed with a gun) started chasing
another man who was trying to help the woman. Snatcher 2 kicked the
woman, sending her to the ground. When S1 came back, he shot the
woman (who was still on the floor) on the head.
o The bag was then taken to the tricycle of Joselito Del Rosario, which
was parked 1 meters in front of Alonzo. Someone inside received the
bag. S1 then sat behind the driver, S2 went inside the sidecar, and
they sped off.
o Alonzo managed to recognize the driver and was able to get the plate
number of the tricycle. He then went to the police HQ to report the
incident.
Del Rosarios version:
o At around 5:30 PM, he was hired (for P120) by a certain Boy Santos to
drive him (Boy) to a cockpit. However, after being directed to the
market place and fetching Jun Marquez and Dodong Bisaya, he was
asked to proceed and stop at the corner of Burgos and Gen. Luna St.
on the pretext of Bisaya buying a cigarette.
o Bisaya then accosted Virginia Bernas (victim) and grappled with her for
the bag. Marquez alighted and helped Bisaya.
o He tried to leave, but Santos, who was then inside the sidecar,
prevented him from leaving and even threatened to shoot him. After
Bisaya took the bag, Marquez (before boarding) shot Bernas on the
head while she was lying prone on the ground. Bisaya then boarded
the sidecar and Marquez rode behind him. He was the directed to drive
towards Dicarma. He overheard them saying they would throw the bag
at some street where there were cogon grasses.
o After arriving at Dicarma, he was warned not to tell the police
otherwise, his family would be harmed. He then went home, and
because of the threat, did not report the matter to the owner of the
trike nor to the brgy. capt. and police.
Him, long with Ernesto Jun Marquez, Virgilio Boy Santos and John Doe
(Dodong) was then charged with the special complex crime of Robbery with
Homicide for having robber Virginia Bernas, a 66-year old businesswoman, of
200k in cash and jewelry and on the occasion thereof, shot and killed her. He
was the only one tried. Marquez was killed in a police encounter and the two
remained at large.

He was found guilty as co-principal in the crime, sentencing him to death and
payment for actual, moral and exemplary damages.

ISSUE/HELD/RATIO:

He contends that the RTC did not acknowledge the presence of threat and
irresistible force employed upon him by his co-accused;
o WON he can claim exemption from criminal liability under Art.
12, par. 5 of the RPC (Exempting circumstance: acted under the
compulsion of an irresistible force): YES.
o SC said he was unarmed and unable to protect himself when he was
prevented at gunpoint from leaving the crime scene during the
commission of the crime. He was also only forced to help them escape.
o A person who acted under this circumstance acted without freedom.
Actus me invito factus non est meus actus (An act done by me against
my will is not my act)
o The duress, force, fear or intimidation must be present,
imminent and impending as to induce well-grounded apprehension
of death or serious bodily harm. It leaves no opportunity for escape or
self-defense in equal combat. It is so formidable that the person is
reduced to a mere instrument who not only acts without will but also
against his will.
o The RTC was wrong in saying his fear was merely speculative, fanciful
and remote since a gun pointed at him could not be constitute
irresistible force because it did not pass the test required by the law
and jurisprudence.
It is natural that a person threatened with weapons will
normally, usually and probably do what an armed man asks
them to do, nothing more, nothing less.
A person in his situation would be more concerned with his
personal welfare and security rather than the safety of a person
whom he only saw for the first time that day.
Upon cross-examination, he said that Santos gun was pointed at
him and he (Santos) threatened to kill even his family.
o He is then exempt from criminal liability since by reason of fear of
bodily harm he was compelled against his will to transport his coaccused away from the crime scene.

WHEREFORE, he is ACQUITTED! RTC decision reversed.

Other issues:
o

RTC did not consider his defense that he was not part of the
conspiracy; WON he was part of the conspiracy: Like, of course
not. Duh. Conspiracy is planned in utmost secrecy. It is when two or
more persons aim their acts towards the accomplishment of the same
unlawful object, each doing a part so that their combined acts, though
apparently independent, were in fact connected and cooperative,
indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence odd

sentiment. Mere knowledge, acquiescence or approval of the act,

without the cooperation or agreement to cooperate, is not enough to
constitute one party to a conspiracy.
Apparently, police officers did not recite his Miranda rights during
custodial investigation. Since he was not told of his right to remain
silent, his verbal admissions on his participation in the crime even
before his actual arrest were inadmissible against him.
Apparently, the same police officers only invited him for interview.
After he had given all information, led them to the place where the bag
was and to the whereabouts of the other accused, and had given his
statement, they detained him in the police station. He was
detained/arrested without a warrant.