G.R. No.

134730 September 18, 2000

FELIPE GARCIA, JR., petitioner, vs.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

DECISION

KAPUNAN, J.:

In two separate Informations filed before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, petitioner Felipe Garcia, Jr. was
charged with frustrated murder in Criminal Case No. 91-93374 and with murder in Criminal Case 91-93375 committed
as follows:

Criminal Case No. 91-93374:

That on or about November 3, 1990, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused conspiring and
confederating with two others who[se] true names, identities and present whereabouts are still unknown and helping
one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill and treachery, attack, assault
and use personal violence upon one REYNALDO BERNARDO Y DEL ROSARIO @ "BOY PANCHANG", by then and there
shooting the latter with a revolver, hitting him on the neck, thereby inflicting upon the said REYNALDO D. BERNARDO
@ "BOY PANCHANG" physical injuries which was necessarily fatal and mortal, thus performing all the acts of execution
which would have produced the crime of murder, as a consequence but nevertheless did not produce it by reason of
causes independent of his will, that is by the timely and able medical assistance rendered to the said REYNALDO D.
BERNARDO @ "BOY PANCHANG" which prevented his death.

Contrary to Law.1

xxx

Criminal Case No. 91-93375

That on or about November 3, 1990, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and
confederating together with two others whose true names, identities and present whereabouts are still unknown and
helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill and with treachery
attack, assault and use personal force upon one FERNANDO B. LEAO Y BERNARDO @ "BAGGING", by then and there
shooting the latter with a revolver, hitting him on the head, thereby inflicting upon the said FERNANDO B. LEAO @
"BAGGING" gunshot wounds which was the direct and immediate cause of his death thereafter.

Contrary to Law.

x x x2

The two cases were consolidated and tried jointly before Branch 49 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila.

Upon arraignment on 24 May 1991, the petitioner, assisted by counsel de parte, entered a plea of "Not Guilty" to
both charges.3

Trial on the merits then ensued. Based on the evidence presented, the trial court summarized the events that
led to the killing of Fernando Leao and the near fatal injuries sustained by Reynaldo Bernardo as follows:

On November 3, 1990, at about 11:30 o'clock in the evening, Arnold Corpuz and Fernando Leao, a 15-year old
student, and their friends, were conversing along Mataas na Lupa Street, Paco, Manila. Fernando Leao was on the
side of the street. Momentarily, a pedicab, with Renato Garcia (Reneng Palayok), on board, passed by and, in the
process, the right wheel of the pedicab ran over the right foot of Fernando Leao. The pedicab failed to stop and
continued on its way. Incensed, Fernando Leao ran after the pedicab. Arnold Corpuz followed suit, at a distance of
about three (3) meters away from the pedicab. When Fernando Leao was about abreast with the pedicab, he uttered
invectives but Renato Garcia retaliated and hurled invectives, too, at Fernando Leao, saying 'Putang ina ninyo.'
Fernando Leao was then ahead of the pedicab when he looked back and saw, to his consternation, Renato Garcia
placing his right hand on the right side of his waistline and about to pull out his gun. Afraid for his life, Fernando Leao
sped away from the pedicab, turned to an alley and ran to Mataas na Lupa Street, Paco, Manila, direct to the house of
his uncle, Reynaldo Bernardo, at No. 1281 Mataas na Lupa, Paco, Manila (Exhibit 'E-1'). The pedicab slowed down a
bit and then turned towards F. Muoz Street, Paco, Manila. Arnold Corpuz followed Fernando Leao to the alley and,
when he saw him again, Fernando Leao was conversing with his uncle, Reynaldo Bernardo, by the gate of the latter's
house (Exhibit 'E-1'). Fernando Leao reported to his uncle that Renato Garcia earlier uttered invectives at him and
even tried to pull out his gun from the back portion of his waistline. Reynaldo Bernardo decided to have the incident
reported to Police Station No. 5 of the Western Police District. Reynaldo Bernardo changed clothes, put on his shoes
and, with Fernando Leao and Arnold Corpuz, proceeded to the house of his mother, Esperanza del Rosario Bernardo
(Exhibits 'E-2' and 'O-2') to borrow the latter's jeep, parked near the basketball court, along Mataas na Lupa Street,
Paco, Manila, which they will use in going to the police station. The house of Reynaldo Bernardo was about twenty
(20) meters away from the house of his mother.

The three (3) then turned left along Mataas na Lupa Street, towards the direction of the house of Esperanza del
Rosario Bernardo. However, before they could reach her house, they had to pass by the intersection of F. Muoz Street
and Mataas na Lupa Street, Paco, Manila. The intersection was about twenty-five (25) meters away from the house of
the Accused and Renato Garcia and about fifty (50) meters away from the house of Gerardo Lugos, which was near
the South Superhighway already.

When Reynaldo Bernardo, Fernando Leao and Arnold Corpuz were near the corner of F. Muoz and Mataas na
Lupa Street, Paco, Manila, Reynaldo Bernardo saw the head of Gerardo Lugos who was peeping on the side corner of
the vacant store, at the said corner of the street. However, Reynaldo Bernardo gave no significance to the incident,
there being no feud or misunderstanding between him and Gerardo Lugos. When Reynaldo Bernardo, Fernando Leao
and Arnold Corpuz continued on their walk, Fernando Leao and Reynaldo Bernardo were walking side by side,
Fernando Leao on the right side of his uncle, while Arnold Corpuz was three (3) meters behind the two (2) but tried
to overtake them. When the three (3) passed by the first corner of F. Muoz Street, Paco, Manila and Mataas na Lupa
Street, Paco, Manila, Arnold Corpuz saw three (3) male persons, about seven (7) to ten (10) meters away on their left
side, walking along F. Muoz Street, Paco, Manila, going towards their direction, but did not as yet recognize them at
the time. However, when the three (3) male persons were near the portion of the street near the store, which was
lighted by the lights emanating from the Meralco post (Exhibit 'E'), Arnold Corpuz recognized the three (3) male
persons. The first was Renato (Reneng Palayok) Garcia, who was then holding a .38 caliber revolver, with his two (2)
hands raised on the level of his abreast, aimed at them. Behind Renato Garcia, towards his right side, was his younger
brother, the Accused and behind the Accused, to his right side, was Jerry Lugos. The Accused and Jerry Lugos were
armed with handguns, also aimed at Reynaldo Bernardo. When Reynaldo Bernardo, Fernando Leao and Arnold
Corpuz were about two (2) to three (3) meters from the intersection of F. Muoz and Mataas na Lupa Streets, Paco,
Manila, Reynaldo Bernardo turned, looked towards his left, and saw Renato Garcia, the Accused and Jerry Lugos, all
armed and their guns aimed at him. Reynaldo Bernardo then started to sprint toward where Renato Garcia, the
Accused and Jerry Lugos were but barely had Reynaldo Bernardo taken off when Renato Garcia fired his gun, once, at
Reynaldo Bernardo and hit the latter on the left side of his neck (Exhibit 'B'). Renato Garcia was then only about two
(2) meters way from Reynaldo Bernardo. When Renato Garcia fired at Reynaldo Bernardo, the Accused and Jerry
Lugos looked around as if acting as lookouts. Reynaldo Bernardo placed his left palm on the left side of his neck which
was hit, fell, at first, on a kneeling position and then, on the ground, face down (Exhibits 'E-3' and 'O'). Instinctively,
after Reynaldo Bernardo was hit, he flung and swung his hand inward, outward and sideward and, in the process, hit
Arnold Corpuz who was then about to give succor to Reynaldo Bernardo. Arnold Corpuz then fell on the ground, on a
sitting position. Arnold Corpuz then stood up and then fell again on a kneeling position (Exhibit 'E-4'). In the
meantime, too, Fernando Leao rushed to his uncle and tried to lift him (Exhibit 'E-5'). Fernando Leao was then on a
kneeling position. In the meantime, too, Renato Garcia, the Accused and Jerry Lugos continued walking towards
where Reynaldo Bernardo was sprawled and Fernando Leao beside him and Arnold Corpus in front of Fernando
Leao. The body of Reynaldo Bernardo was between them. Three (3) successive shots then ensued. Arnold Corpuz
then decided to lie down on the ground, face down, his face on the feet of Reynaldo Bernardo, to avoid being hit with
his two (2) hands under his breast. Arnold Corpuz then raised his head a little and noticed that the front portion of the
head of Fernando Leao was bulging and Fernando Leao falling down. It turned out that Fernando Leao was felled
(sic) by a gunshot wound at the back of his head. In the process, Arnold Corpuz saw Renato Garcia, the Accused and
Jerry Lugos behind Fernando Leao, still holding their guns. Renato Garcia, the Accused and Jerry Lugos then fled
from the scene together. Arnold Corpuz also fled from the scene towards the house of Esperanza del Rosario Bernardo
to plead for help. On the way, Arnold Corpuz met Dominador Bernardo, Jr., the brother of Reynaldo Bernardo who
came from the basketball court. Dominador Bernardo, Jr. inquired why Arnold Corpuz was running and Arnold Corpuzz
(sic) replied, thus: Tinamaan si Kuya Boy at Ferdie.' (pp. 214-216, id.) 4
 The victims were taken to the Medical Center Manila at about 12:00 midnight. Subsequently, Leao was
transferred to the Orthopedic Hospital, where he died in the morning of November 4, 1990. 5

Dr. Marcial Cenido performed an autopsy on the cadaver of Leao and prepared a report with the following Post
Mortem Findings:

EXTERNAL INJURIES AND EXTENSIONS INTERNALLY:

1. Gunshot wound, thru and thru with the following points of entry and exit:

Point of Entry - right occipital region, head, 58.5 inches from the heel, 3 cm. from the posterior midline,
measuring 0.5 cm. x 0.3 cm. and with the contusion collar measures 1 cm. x 0.7 cm. and

Point of Exit - right forehead, 5 cm. from the anterior midline, 58 inches from the heel, and measures 1.3 cm.
x 0.5 cm.

Course: Forwards, very slightly upwards and very slightly towards the lateral penetrating the cranial cavity and
lacerating the right occipital, parietal and frontal lobes of the brain.

2. Hematoma, below the right eyebrow.

INTERNAL FINDINGS:

1. Laceration of the right occipital, parietal and frontal lobes of the brains and subrachnoid hemorrhage,
and generalized pallor of the internal organs and tissues; and

2. Recovered from the stomach about a glassful of dark liquid with some rice and vegetables and
without alcoholic odor.

CAUSE OF DEATH

Gunshot wound, right occipital region, head. 6

On the other hand, Dr. Pedro P. Solis, Medico-Legal Officer of the Medical Center Manila, performed an operation
on and gave medical treatment to Reynaldo Bernardo. The report he prepared showed the following findings:

Abrasion, 3 cm. x 2 cm. scalp, frontal region, left side; 3 cm. 3.5 cm x 1cm. lateral aspect, frontal region, left
side. Wound, gunshot, circular in shape, 0.9 cm. in diameter, lateral aspect, neck left side, indise anterior triangle,
directed medially, downwards and slightly backwards, penetrating soft tissues of the neck, involving external jugular
vein, then making wound exist at right paravertebral area that the level of T3-T-4 and 3 cm. below the highest point
of the shoulder.7

Based on the above established facts, the trial court rendered judgment, the dispositive portion reading as
follows:

In view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered in the following cases to wit:

1. In People versus Felipe Garcia, Jr., Criminal Case No. 91-93374, judgment is hereby rendered finding
the Accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of "Frustrated Homicide" and hereby sentences said
Accused to an indeterminate penalty of from Four (4) Years and Two (2) months of Prision Correccional, as
Minimum, to Eight (8) Years and One (1) Day of Prision Mayor, as Maximum, and to pay to Reynaldo Bernardo
the amount of P115,631.00 as actual damages and P25,000.00 as moral damages;

2. In People versus Felipe Garcia, Jr. Criminal Case No. 91-93375, judgment is hereby rendered finding
the Accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of "Homicide" and hereby metes on him an
indeterminate penalty of from Eight (8) Years and One (1) Day of Prision Mayor, as Minimum to Fourteen (14)
 Years, Eight (8) Months and One (1) Day of Reclusion Temporal as maximum, and to pay to the heirs of
Fernando Leao the amount of P10,040.00 as actual damages and P50,000.00 by way of indemnity.8

Petitioner elevated his conviction to the Court of Appeals, which on 21 May 1998, affirmed in toto the decision of
the trial court.9 Hence, the present case, petitioner raising the following assignment of errors:

THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN EVALUATING EVIDENCE DIRECTED AGAINST SUSPECTS GERRY LUGOS
AND RENATO GARCIA - INFERENTIALLY AGAINST ACCUSED-APPELLANT FELIPE GARCIA, JR., UNDER THE PRINCIPLE
OF CONSPIRACY SO-CALLED.

II

THE LOWER COURT ERRED SERIOUSLY ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES
ESTABLISHED IN THE TRIAL AGAINST ACCUSED-APPELLANT AS CO-CONSPIRATOR THEREOF, AND,

III

THE LOWER COURT ERRED SERIOUSLY IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY AS CO-PRINCIPAL IN

HOMICIDE AND FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE GROUNDED ON CONSPIRACY WITH THIRD PERSONS "(GERRY LUGOS AND
RENATO GARCIA) WHO ARE MERE SUSPECTS AND STRANGERS IN THE TWO CASES AS THEY WERE NOT IMPLEADED
THEREIN NOR CHARGED AS JOHN AND RICARDO DOES IN EITHER OR BOTH INFORMATIONS." 10

Petitioner asserts that since he alone was named in the information, "it would seem by implication from the
narration in the information that it was being made to appear that the accused was in fact the gunman who acted in
conspiracy with unknown persons. The evidence later presented proved otherwise and it turned out that it was Renato
Garcia alone who shot and wounded Reynaldo Bernardo and shot and killed Fernando Leao. It was not, therefore, in
keeping with the evidence on record proper to convict the accused based merely on the theory that there was
conspiracy when no sufficient evidence to support such fact exist." 11

Contrary to petitioners argument, there is no irregularity in the information to warrant a reversal of the
conviction. All material facts and essential elements of the crimes, for which petitioner is charged, were alleged
therein. Conspiracy was alleged in the information. Thus, it is not necessary to allege with exactitude the specific act
of the accused, as it is a well-settled doctrine that in conspiracy the act of one is the act of all. 12

Neither is the fact that the two others allegedly in conspiracy with the petitioner were not named with
particularity, nor tried and convicted, of any moment. An information alleging conspiracy can stand even if only one
person is charged except that the court cannot pass verdict on the co-conspirators who were not charged in the
information.13

This Court does not doubt the guilt of the petitioner. The findings of a trial court on the credibility of witnesses
deserve great weight, given the clear advantage of a trial judge over an appellate magistrate in the appreciation of
testimonial evidence. Absent any showing that trial courts calibration of the credibility was flawed, we are bound by
its assessment.14

An examination of the records will reveal that the prosecution witnesses positively identified the accused.
Reynaldo Bernardo, who sustained injuries from a gunshot wound, narrated the incident as follows:

FISCAL PERALTA:

Where were you when this Fernando Leao told you that a gun was poked on (sic) him?

WITNESS:

I was in our house, sir.

FISCAL PERALTA:
 Can you still recall that (sic) time it was when this Fernando Leao told you that a gun was poked on (sic) him?

WITNESS:

I think about 11:30 oclock, sir.

FISCAL PERALTA:

And did you come to know as to what time or that date was that poking incident took place.

WITNESS:

On November 3, 1990, sir.

FISCAL PERALTA:

At what time was it, if you know?

WITNESS:

I was told at about 11:30 o'clock, sir.

FISCAL PERALTA:

You said that at around 11:40 o'clock in the evening at the corner of Mataas na Lupa and F. Muoz street, you were with two
(2) men, can you recall of any unusual incident that happened at that corner?

WITNESS:

We were shot sir. "Pinagbabaril kami."

FISCAL PERALTA:

Who shot you if you can still recall?

WITNESS:

Reneng Palayok and his two (2) other companions by the name of Peping Palayok and Jerry Lugos, sir.

FISCAL PERALTA:

How far were you in relation to the place where these men shot you?

WITNESS:

About seven (7) meters away, sir, it is very near.

FISCAL PERALTA:

Can you still recall the relative positions of these men whom you said shot you and your position at the time that (sic) shots
were fired?

ATTY. UY:

I object to the question, Your Honor, on the ground that the same is very leading.

FISCAL PERALTA:
 I will reform, Your Honor. You said that you were about more or less seven (7) meters away from the men. Now, my question
to you is, were you hit?

WITNESS:

Yes, sir.

FISCAL PERALTA:

And where were you hit?

WITNESS:

At my (sic) left side of my neck, sir.

FISCAL PERALTA:

And at the time that you were hit on the neck, where were these three (3) men at that time?

WITNESS:

They were on my left side, sir.

FISCAL PERALTA:

And what were these three (3) men actually doing at the time that they shot you?

WITNESS:

They were armed with guns, sir.

FISCAL PERALTA:

Have you known this Rene Palayok even before November 3, 1990?

WITNESS:

Yes, sir, since we were young.

FISCAL PERALTA:

What about this Peping Palayok, have you known also this Peping Palayok?

WITNESS:

Yes, sir, I have known him also since we were young.

FISCAL PERALTA:

How about this Jerry Lugos?

WITNESS:

Yes, sir, he is my childhood mate.

xxx

COURT:
 Granted.

FISCAL PERALTA:

Now, Mr. Witness, after you were hit on the left side of your neck, what happened next?

WITNESS:

I fell down, sir, face down.

FISCAL PERALTA:

And when you fell down, face down, can you still recall what happened next?

WITNESS:

After that, sir, I heard shots.

FISCAL PERALTA:

Now, if you see again that Peping Palayok whom you said was one of those who shot you, will you still be able to recognize
him?

WITNESS:

Yes, sir.

FISCAL PERALTA:

Will you please look inside the Court and point to him?

WITNESS:

That person, sir.

INTERPRETER:

Witness pointing to a person who, when asked, stated his name as Felipe Garcia, Jr.15

One of Bernardos companion, prosecution witness Arnold Corpuz, testified in this wise:

FISCAL PERALTA:

Could you please tell to this Honorable Court why you were not able to reach the house of Reynaldo Bernardo?

WITNESS:

Because there were three (3) male persons who were waiting "nakaabang" for us, sir.

FISCAL PERALTA:

Why did you say that these three (3) men were waiting or "nakaabang" for you?

WITNESS:

Because while we were walking, they were already there holding guns, sir.

FISCAL PERALTA:
 Do you know these persons who were holding guns?

WITNESS:

Yes, sir.

FISCAL PERALTA:

And who were these persons whom you said were waiting for you and holding guns?

WITNESS:

Reneng Palayok, Peping and Jerry Lugos, sir.

FISCAL PERALTA:

What is again the full name of this Rene(ng) Palayok, if you know?

WITNESS:

Renato Garcia, sir.

FISCAL PERALTA:

What about this Peping?

WITNESS:

Felipe Garcia, sir.16

In the face of petitioner's positive identification, petitioners defense of alibi cannot hold water. No jurisprudence
in criminal cases is more settled than the rule that alibi is the weakest of all defenses, and the same should be
rejected when the identity of the accused has been sufficiently and positively established by eyewitnesses to the
crime.17

The factual findings of the trial court that petitioner participated in the perpetration of the crime, such being
supported by evidence on record, will not be disturbed by this Court. However, we are of the persuasion that the
prosecution failed to prove with positive and competent evidence the fact that the act of the petitioner was direct or
actually necessary to the commission of the crime.

The existence of conspiracy cannot be presumed. Similar to the physical act constituting the crime itself, the
elements of conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. 18 The mere fact that the petitioner had prior
knowledge of the criminal design of the principal perpetrator and aided the latter in consummating the crime does not
automatically make him a co-conspirator. Both knowledge of and participation in the criminal act are also inherent
elements of an accomplice.19 In his commentaries on the Revised Penal Code, Chief Justice Ramon Aquino explains:

The guilt of an accomplice should be predicated on an act that was done in furtherance of the commission of the
crime by the principal. The accomplice must have known that the principal intended to commit a particular crime. In
other words, he should have community purpose with the principal. xxx 20

In the case of People vs. Tamayo,21 citing the Supreme Court of Spain, this Court made the following exposition
on the characteristics of an accomplice:

xxx It is an essential condition to the existence of complicity, not only that there should be a relation between
the acts done by the principal and those attributed to the person charged as accomplice, but it is furthermore
necessary that the latter, with knowledge of the criminal intent, should cooperate with the intention of supplying
material or moral aid in the execution of the crime in an efficacious way.
 In cases of doubt as to whether persons acted as principals or accomplices, the doubt must be resolved in their
favor and they should be held guilty as accomplices. 22 Such principle was applied by this Court in the case of People v.
Clemente:

In the case of appellants, Carlos and Pascual Clemente, while they joined their brother in the pursuit of the
fleeing Matnog, and in the attack on him as he fell, yet the prosecution eyewitness was unable to assert positively that
the two managed to hit the fallen man. There being no showing of conspiracy, and the extent of their participation in
the homicide being uncertain, they should be given the benefit of the doubt, and consequently they are declared to be
mere accomplices in the crime.23

After a circumspect examination of the evidence, we find that other than a showing that petitioner assisted
Renato Garcia in the slaying of Fernando Leao and the infliction of injuries upon Reynaldo Bernardo, the prosecution
failed to present other evidence which would positively establish the existence of conspiracy. Thus, this Court is of the
belief that petitioner-accused should only be held liable as an accomplice. This seems to be the more reasonable and
safer course.

Even if we were to agree with the trial court that conspiracy existed between accused-petitioner and two other
malefactors, in particular Renato Garcia, who was positively identified as the gunman, still this Court is of the
conviction that the petitioner should only be held liable as an accomplice. petitioners participation was hardly
indispensable. As the trial court pointed out, the petitioner merely acted as a "lookout." The testimony of Arnold
Corpuz is telling:

FISCAL PERALTA:

And what happened after you saw these three (3) men waiting for you armed with guns?

WITNESS:

They fired a gun once and "Kuya Boy" was hit, sir.

FISCAL PERALTA:

What part of the body of Boy was hit?

WITNESS:

Here, sir.

INTERPRETER:

Witness pointing to the left portion of his neck.

COURT:

I cannot understand that. You said that they fired once. How many fired?

WITNESS:

Only one, Your Honor.

FISCAL PERALTA:

Who was that person who fired the gun?

WITNESS:

Mang Rey or Rey Palayok, sir.

 FISCAL PERALTA:

And you said that there were three (3) of them. What did these Peping and Jerry Lugos do when Rene Palayok
fired a gun that hit your "Kuya Boy"?

WITNESS:

They were behind Mang Rene, sir.

FISCAL PERALTA:

You said that they were behind Rene Palayok. What did they do afterwards after Rene fired a gun that hit your
"Kuya Boy"?

ATTY. UY:

Very leading, Your Honor.

COURT:

May answer.

WITNESS:

They were looking around holding their guns as if they were acting as look outs, sir.

FISCAL PERALTA:

After your Kuya Boy was hit on the neck, what happened next?

WITNESS:

I saw Fernando went (sic) near his uncle so that he could lift his uncle, sir.

FISCAL PERALTA:

Was he able to lift his uncle Reynaldo Bernardo?

WITNESS:

Not anymore, sir, because there were continuous firing of guns about three (3) times.

FISCAL PERALTA:

What happened to Fernando Leao when there was a continuous firing for at least three (3) times?

ATTY. UY:

Leading, Your Honor.

COURT:

May answer.

WITNESS:
 He was hit on the back of his head, sir.

INTERPRETER:

Witness pointing to the right back portion of his head just behind his right ear.

FISCAL PERALTA:

And do you know who shot this Fernando Leao?

WITNESS:

Yes, sir. It was Mang Rene.

FISCAL PERALTA:

What did the companions of Rene Palayok do when Rene Palayok shot Fernando Leao?

ATTY. UY:

Very leading, Your Honor.

COURT:

May answer.

WITNESS:

They were acting as aide and they were following Rene Palayok, sir.24

As can be seen from the above testimony, petitioner's participation was hardly indispensable.1wphi1 In the
case of People v. Nierra,25 this Court made the following ruling:

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 co-conspirators they should be punished as
co-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.

WHEREFORE, the herein questioned decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the Regional Trial
Court is hereby MODIFIED to wit:

1. In People versus Felipe Garcia, Jr., Criminal Case No. 91-93374, judgment is hereby rendered finding
the Accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt as an ACCOMPLICE in the crime of "Frustrated Homicide" and
hereby sentences said Accused to an indeterminate penalty of Four (4) months of Arresto Mayor, as Minimum,
to Four (4) years and One (1) Day of Prision Correcional, as Maximum;

2. In People versus Felipe Garcia, Jr. Criminal Case No. 91-93375, judgment is hereby rendered finding
the Accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt as an ACCOMPLICE in the crime of "Homicide" and hereby metes
on him an indeterminate penalty of Two (2) Years of Prision Correccional, as Minimum, to Eight (8) Years and
One (1) Day of Prision Mayor, as Maximum.

No pronouncement as to cost.
 SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-35022 December 21, 1977

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RICARDO VERZOLA & JOSEFINA MOLINA, accused-
appellants.

ANTONIO, J.:

Appeal by Ricardo Verzola and Josefina Molina from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Abra, finding
them guilty of the crime of Murder and sentencing them, respectively, viz.: Verzola, as principal, to suffer the penalty
of life imprisonment, to indemnify the offended party in the amount of P12,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in
case of insolvency, and to pay 3/4 of the costs; and Molina, as an accessory after the fact, to suffer an indeterminate
penalty of six (6) years of prision correccional as maximum, and to pay 1/4 of the indemnity and costs.

At about 10:00 o'clock on the night of September 28, 1969, Bernardo Molina was clubbed to death by Ricardo
Verzola in the presence of appellant Josefina Molina inside Molina's house at Barrio Lipcan, Bangued, Abra. The body
of the victim was subsequently carried by the two appellee to the ground and left at the foot of the stairs. Appellant
Verzola then went to his house, changed his clothes and threw his bloodstained sweater undershirt and underwear,
including the piece of wood be used in clubbing the deceased, inside their toilet. Afterwards, he went to the municipal
building and reported to the police authorities that Bernardo had died in an accident. The police authorities. together
with the Municipal Health Officer, the Municipal Judge and a photographer went to Lipcan to conduct the investigation.
They found the body of the deceased Bernardo Molina sprawled at the foot of the bamboo ladder (Exhibit "I"). Blood
had oozed from the mouth, nose and ears. There were bloodstains on the floor of the bedroom of the house, on the
mat, as well as on the beddings of the deceased. The bloodstains led to the bamboo ladder where some of the stains
could be found on the steps of the ladder. When questioned by the police, Josefina revealed that the assailant of her
husband was Ricardo Verzola. Upon her request, she was brought to the Office of the Chief of Police of Bangued,
where at about 2:00 o'clock in the morning of September 29, 1969 she gave a written statement narrating the
circumstances surrounding the incident in question and pointing to appellant Verzola as the assailant of her husband
(Exhibits 'K" and "9"). In that extra-judicial statement, she stated that immediately after 10:00 o'clock in the evening
of September 28. 1969, appellant Ricardo Verzola went to their house in Barrio Lipcan, Bangued Abra. entered the
room where she was sleeping with her husband, Bernardo Molina, woke her up and had carnal knowledge of her; that
when Bernardo Molina woke up and attempted to rise from the floor, that was the moment when Verzola clubbed
Bernards, hitting him on the head several times that afterwards, she heard the sound of a body being dragged
downstairs and the voice of Verzola saying that he was leaving and warning her not to say anything about the
incident. She looked out of the door and saw her husband already lying prostrate at the foot of the stairs. This
statement was sworn to by her before Municipal Judge Francisco T. Valera.

At about 4:00 o'clock that same morning, appellant Verzola was picked up by the police and brought to the
municipal building, and there he also executed a written statement (Exhibit "L") admitting that he clubbed the victim
several times. Thus, in his extra-judicial confession of September 29, 1969, the following statements appear

6. Q:You stated that you killed Bernardo Molina inside his house, will (you)
relate the true events or what happened when you killed him?

A:Yes, sir.
 Last night at the stated hour in Barrio Lipcan, Bangued, Abra, inside the house of Bernardo Molina I went and
when I was under their house that was the time when I pricked with a bamboo twig just under the place where
Josephina Molina, wife of Bernardo Molina was laying down, and I noticed that she was awake, and not long
afterwards she came down and came to my place, and that was the time when we did everything that wanted both of
us to do, but before that in the night, Josephina Molina told me 'THAT HER HUSBAND WAS PLANNING TO KILL ME and
just after we were through what both of us did, Josephina went upstairs inside (the) house, and because I cannot
withstand anymore the plan of her husband to kill me that was why I went upstairs and I went direct inside their room
and I saw Bernardo Molina lying down sleeping, and that was the time when I clubbed him three times at the nape,
and when he did not move anymore that was the time when we both with Josephine Molina throw him downstairs of
their house. After that I went home.

7. Q:-What is the weapon that you used in clubbing Berno Molina'

A:-A wooden club which is rounded and about two palms in length, Sir.

Q:You stated that while you were under the house of Bernardo Molina and you pricked with bamboo twig in awakening Josephina
Molina and not long afterwards she came down and went to you hat is your relationship with Josephina Molina the wife of Bernardo
Molina?

A:Josephina Molina is my paramour.

Q:How long have you been in that relationship with Josephina Molina?

A:What I know is that it is already about 10 years, Sir. Because her daughter who is already 12 years old was still small.

Q:With this relationship that you have with Josephina Molina did not her husband Bernardo Molina notice, so that Josephina told
you that her husband was planning to kill you?

A:Probably he had already, Sir. Because that is what his wife told me.

Q:Who witnessed when you killed Bernardo Molina that you know'

A:It was only Josephina the wife of Bernardo Molina, Sir.

Q:What did Josephina say when you delivered club blows at her husband?

A:'That is enough he is dead, let us bring him down', that is what she said, Sir.

Q:Therefore, you want to say that you and Josephina Molina the wife of Bernardo helped each other in this killing?

AI told her when she was going up, I'LL GO AHEAD OF HIM and what she answered to me, IT IS UP TO YOU', Sir.

Q:And where was Josephina while you were clubbing Bernardo, if you remember?

A:She was there lying down, and when Bernardo did not move she said that is enough.

Q:What was your clothing when you went to club Bernardo Molina and also your trousers that you used?

A:-Sweater with long sleeves colored light gray and white shorts, Sir.

Q:Where are these sweater and shorts?

AI dropped it inside our toilet, Sir.

Q:-And where is that club that you said you used in clubbing Bernardo Molina?

AI also dropped it inside our toilet, Sir.

Q:Is it not correct that you kill Bernardo Molina because he surprised you while you were beside his wife inside their room that
night?

A:No, Sir.

Q:So that in this where you clubbed to death Bernardo Molina you admit as your guilt?

A:Yes, Sir.

Q:Do you have something more to add to this statement of yours?

A:-No more, Sir. Unless there are more questions to me.

Q:Were you forced, intimated, instructed or you were mauled in this where you made your statement?

A:No, Sir.

Q:-Do You want to sign this statement of yours?

AYes. Sir." (Exhibit "Translation")

After execution his aforesaid written statement, he was brought to the residence of Judge Francisco T. Valera.
Judge Valera sent the n out of his house, a Verzola of his constitutional rights, then read to him the contents of his
aforementioned extrajudicial confession After satisfying himself that the statement was given voluntarily, he
administered the oath to all appellant. Appellant Verzola then guided the po authorities to his house where, in their
presence, he retrieved from the toilet his bloodstained clothes as well as the piece of wood which he used in clubbing
the deceased.

Dr. Luis P. Bringas Municipal Health Officer of Bangued, Abra, who conducted the autopsy, testified that the died
not instantaneously as a result of cardio-respiratory failure caused by "cerebral compressions and hemorrhages". The
deceased sustained the following wounds:

LACERATED WOUND NO. I:7 Cm. in length with irregular borders or edges extremities, the
deeper tissues unevenly divided with tags of tissues showing in the wound. The edges and
surrounding parts bruised and some hairs were found in the wound. Situated 6 Cm. in level of the
posterior outer upper part of left Helix of the left ear, extending slantingly downwards below to middle
portion of Occipital region.

LACERATED WOUND NO. II:-6 Cm. in length situated 3 Cm. lateral to Lacerated Wound No. I,
placed horizontally form mid point of the Lacerated Wound. The characteristics of the wound is the
same as the above wounds.

LACERATED WOUND NO. III:-Same characteristics as of the above wounds. 5 Cm. in length
situated 2 Cm. below Lacerated Wound No. II, extending slightly to the right side.

LACERATED WOUND NO. IV:-4.5 Cm. in length same as the characteristics of the other wounds
above, but extending opposite Lacerated Wound No. I only from the right side." (Exhibit 'A").

He also declared that on the basis of the tion and direction of the w the t must have been behind the victim and
said wounds were while the victim was lying in prone position, face downwards.

Both appellants admit that ft was appellant Verzola who the fatal blows on the victim. Versola, however, after
impugning the (Exhibit "L'), claims that he did so in self- defense. Thus, V veracity of the facts contained in his
extrajudicial confession testified that while he was feeding his two cows in front of his house at about 10:00 o'clock on
the night of September 28, 1969, he heard cries for help coming from the direction of the house of Bernardo Molina-
Upon recognize it to be the voice of the wife of Bernardo, he proceeded to the couples house. Upon reaching the yard
of said house he heard the loud voice of a man. Thus that some intruder had entered the Molina's residence, he to am
himself. At the threshold of the ladder, he picked up a pan of a plow (Exhibit B) At the door of the room, he heard the
man say: 'Vulva of your mother, I will kill you." As he entered the room, he saw his co-appellant Josefina Mo in a
comer, being maltreated by Bernardo Molina. After noticed his presence, he said: "Vulva of your mother, I will kill all of
you." At that juncture, Bernardo stooped to pick up a bolo from the floor. As Bernardo was still bending towards the
Mm V struck him twice with the piece of wood, hitting the head of the victim, causing him to fall. After he had fallen,
he tried to revive the victim by ng the head of the latter on his lap will it, saying: "Hoy, Hoy, Hoy". He explained that
this was the reason why there were bloodstains on his clothes. When Josefina asked him what happened, he replied
that Bernardo met an accident. At his suggestion, they both carried the body of the victim down the stairs because
according to him they wanted to bring the body to the hospital. As the hospital was too far and it was too dark, they
left the body on the ground. After instructing Josefina to go and summon persons to help the victim , he went home.
After changing his clothes and throwing his bloodstained clothing inside their toilet, he went to the municipal building
in Bangued, Abra, and reported to the guard that there was a person who met an accident in Lipcan.

His co-appellant, Josefina Molina, also testified that during the first week of September, 1969 she had a quarrel
with her husband because of Bernardo's o theft men, namely, Bocarile Santos Beloy and appellant Ricardo Verzola;
that on the night in question, she and her husband had another quarrel and in the course thereof, she was boxed and
strangled by her husband, causing her. to shout for help; that after a while, as she was crouching in a comer of the
house, with her face covered, she heard a thud As she looked up, she noticed that Verzola was already inside their
room, squatting on the floor and holding on his lap the head of her husband, that while Verzola was shaking the head
of the deceased, he was saying: "Hoy, Hoy, Hoy." She c that out of fear, she assisted Verzola in carrying the body of
Bernardo at the foot of the stairs where Verzola left her. After looking at the wounds of her husband, she became
afraid and went up the house where her children were sleeping.

Both appellants c that they were not aware of the contents of their extra- judicial confessions as they were
made to sign them by the police authorities without being able to read their contents.

There can be no question that once an accused has admitted the killing of a human being, the burden is on him
to establish the existence of any circumstance which may justify the killing or at least attenuate the offense
committed. To establish his exculpation, or the justification for the act, he must prove such affirmative allegation by
clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence. 1 He must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the
weakness of that for the prosecution for even if that were weak, it could not be disbelieved after the accused himself
had admitted the killing. 2 It is evident that no such proof was adduced by appellant Verzola.

To begin with, the conduct of appellant Verzola lately after he committed the crime is incompatible with the
reaction of one who killed another in legitimate self-defense. Although he claims that he brought the victim down the
stairs in order to bring him to the hospital, yet when he was able to get a jeep he did not utilize it for that purpose but
instead used it in going to town. Moreover, although appellant Verzola was present at the scene of the crime when the
police authorities were investigating the case, he kept quiet about the incident. It was only from Josefina Molina that
the police learned for the first time that Verzola was the assailant of the deceased. Even then, Josefina had to request
the police authorities to bring her to the poblacion so that she could talk more freely about the killing For his part,
Verzola attempted to conceal his participation in the crime by hiding inside his toilet his bloodstained clothes and the
weapon that he used in clubbing the deceased . These actuations of appellant Verzola reveal a behaviour which is
incompatible with the reaction of one who acted in legitimate self-defense. 3 More significant however, are the
undisputed physical facts of the case, such as nature, character and location of the wounds sustained by the deceased
and the presence of the bloodstains on the beddings of the victim. These facts and circumstances belie the claim of
the appellant that he clubbed the victim in self- defense. On the contrary, they sufficiently indicate that the fatal
injuries were inflicted upon the victim when the latter was lying defenseless on the floor, as he was either sleeping or
was just beginning to wake up.

Although appellant Josefina Molina admitted in her extra-judicial statement (Exhibits "K", "K- 1 " to "K-91) that
she was the paramour of her co- appellant for over a year, there is no proof that she had knowledge of the criminal
design of her co-appellant. Neither has she cooperated with him by previous or simultaneous acts, much less is there
any showing that she supplied the principal with material or moral aid. Her only participation was in assisting her co-
appellant in bringing the body of the deceased to the ground. The question, therefore, is whether or not by said overt
act she could be held criminally responsible as an accessory.

An accessory does not participate in the criminal design, nor cooperate in the commission of the felony, but,
with knows of the commission of the crime, he subsequently takes part in three (3) ways: (a) by profiting from the
effects of the crime; (b) by concealing the body, effects or instruments of the crime in order to prevent its discovery;
and (c) by assisting in the escape or concealment of the principal of the crime, provided he acts with abuse of his
public functions or the principal 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. The main difference separating accessories after the
fact the responsibility of the accessories is subsequent to the consummation of the crime and subordinate to that of
the principal.

According to the trial court, " the bringing down of the body of the victim ... was to destroy the body of the
crime, or its effect that as to make it appear that the death of the victim was caused by an accident. We disagree.
There is no iota of proof that Josefina Molina ever attempted "to destroy the body of the crime" or to make it appear
that death of the victim was accidental. It must be noted that Josefina testified that she helped her co- appellant bring
the body of the deceased down the stairs because of fear. Even if she assisted her co-appellant without duress, simply
Verzola in bringing the body down the house to the foot of the stairs and leaving said body for anyone to see, cannot
be classified as an attempt to or destroy the body of the crime the effects or instruments thereof, must be done to
prevent the discovery of the crime. In the case at bar, the body was left at the foot of the stairs at a place where it
was easily visible to the public. Under such circumstances there could not have been any attempt on the part of
Josefina to conceal or destroy the body of the crime-

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the judgment, insofar as appellant Verzola is concerned, is hereby
AFFIRMED. The judgment against Josefina Molina is, however, reversed and said appellant is ACQUITTED with
proportionate costs de oficio.