PEOPLE v.

DOBLE
[114 SCRA 131 (1982)]

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/p i s t o l s , c a r b i n e s a n d t h o m p s o n s , l e f t t h e
s h o r e s o f M a n i l a i n a m o t o r b a n c a & proceeded to Navotas,Rizal to rob the beach-
bank Prudential Bank & Trust Co. Saidbank wad an unusual banking hours, open from midnight
till 8AM. Once docked inNavotas and taking advantage of the darkness of the night, 8 men
disembarked fromthe banca and proceeded to their mission. Once inside, they started firing
at thebank’s ceiling, walls & door of the vault. The 8 men then returned to the
waitingm o t o r b a n c a w / a b o u t P 1 0 . 5 K & s p e d a w a y . A s a r e s u l t o f t h e s h o o t i n g ,
m a n y 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 5a c c u s e d w e r e a c q u i t t e d . I t i s
o n l y C r e s e n c i o D o b l e , S i m e o n D o b l e a n d A n t o n i o Romaquin appealing in the charge
of bank robbery committed in band, w/
multipleh o m i c i d e , m u l t i p l e f r u s t r a t e d h o m i c i d e a n d a s s a u l t u p o n a g e n t s o f p e r s
o n s i n authority.

HELD:
First, as to appellant Simeon, evidence shows that the malefactors met in hishouse to discuss the plan
to rob the bank. This circumstance alone doesn’t concludehis guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The facts
do not show that he performed any acttending to the perpetration of the robbery, nor that he took a
direct part therein orinduced other persons to commit, or that he cooperated in its consummation by someact w/o
w/c it would not have been committed. At most, his act amounted to joiningin a conspiracy w/c
is not punishable. Simeon then was not a principal both
byagreement and encouragement for his non-
participation in the commission of thecrime. 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
isentitled to acquittal w/ no sufficient evidence to establish his guilt beyond reasonabledoubt.Next, as
regards Romaquin & Doble, the malefactors who waited in the banca, bothcontend that their extra-
judicial statements upon w/c their conviction was
principallym a d e t o r e s t , a r e i n a d m i s s i b l e f o r
having been allegedly obtained by force andintimidation, torture and maltreat
m e n t , a n d i n v i o l a t i o n o f b a s i c c o n s t i ’ l r t s t o counsel and against self-
incrimination. However, it must be noted that they didn’tpresent any medical cert to
attest to the injuries allegedly inflicted. More so thatt h e i r t e s t i m o n i e s m a t c h e a c h
o t h e r ’ s . A n d i t s h o u l d a l s o b e n o t e d t h a t C e l s o Aquino’s testimony, as one of the
accused, admitted that no violence was inflicted onhim to procure his statement. This is evidence
enough that the appellants could nothave been dealt w/ differently as their co-accused Aquino
who was allowed to givehis statement freely.The extra-judicial statements of the appellants
are convincing to show that theirliability 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
concretep l a n a n d e x e c u t i o n o f t h e c r i m e . T h e m a s t e r m i n d o b v i o u s l y d i d
n o t e x t e n d confidence in him as he was only asked to provide a banca just a few hours
beforethe commission of the crime. Nor was Romaquin considered a principle malefactoras there
was a gun pointed at him by Cresencio to prevent him from fleeing awayfrom the scene,
evident to show that he never joined in the criminal purpose and that his acts were
not voluntary.An
accomplice
i s o n e w h o , n o t b e i n g p r i n c i p a l a s d e f i n e d i n A r t 1 7 R P C , cooperate
s in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts. Theremust be a community of
unlawful purpose between the principal and accomplice andassistance knowingly and intentionally given
to supply material and moral aid in theconsummation 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 thatthey all
agreed to kill and not just rob. The finding that appellants are liable as mereaccomplices 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 accomplicesfor the crime of robbery in band. The penalty imposable upon
appellants is prisionm a y o r m i n . T h e c o m m i s s i o n o f t h e c r i m e w a s a g g r
b y n i g h t t i m e & t h e u s e o f a motorized banca. There being no MC, both appellants
should be sentenced to anindeterminate penalty of prision correccional from 5 yrs, 4 mos, 21 days
to 8 yrs of prision mayor as maximum.