People vs Nunag

Nunag held her by the hand and poked a knife at her stomach and threatened to kin her. Nunag then
placed something in her mouth and led her to a nearby ricefield, about 15 meters behind the house
of Carmen Laxamana. 1 Very soon thereafter, they were joined by the other accused Arnel Mandap,
Efren Salangsang, Danio Carpio and Diosdado Manalili, who were also very well known to her. After
conferring in whispers, Arnel Mandap and Efren Salangsang held her hands, while Danilo Carpio and
Diosdado Manalili held her feet, and forced her to he on the ground. She struggled to free herself, but the
accused held her tightly.
Mario Nunag then undressed her and had sexual intercourse with her, at the same time fondling her
breasts. She felt pain in her vagina. After Mario Nunag had finished, Arnel Mandap followed. After
Arnel Mandap had finished, she lost consciousness and regained it while Diosdado Manalili was
abusing her.
Then, the five accused left, after warning her not to report the incident to anybody, otherwise, they
would kill her, her parents and brothers. The complainant felt pains and aches all over her body,
especially in her breasts and vagina. 2 She rested for a while and when the pains had somewhat
subsided, she went home. She did not report the incident to anybody for fear of what the accused might
do to her and her family.

Held:
Consequently, each of the five (5) accused-appellants must be found guilty of three (3) distinct and
separate crimes of rape, the first three, namely, Mario Nunag, Arnel Mandap and Diosdado Manalili,
by direct act and participation and the other two, namely Danilo Carpio and Efren Salangsang, by
indispensible cooperation

People vs Baharan

The two
men insisted on getting off the bus. According to Andales, the bus
driver initially did not want to let them off the bus. Because a
Makati ordinance prohibited unloading anywhere except at
designated bus stops. Eventually, the bus driver gave in and
allowed the two passengers to alight. Moments after, Andales felt
an explosion.
Two men boarded a passenger bus. The bus conductor became suspicious of their act.

the spokesperson of the Abu Sayyaf Group Abu Solaiman

announced over radio station DZBB that the group had a
Valentines Day gift for former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
After the bombing, he again went on radio and warned of more
bomb attacks.
Members of the Abu Sayyaf Group namely Khaddafy Janjalani,
Gamal B. Baharan, Angelo Trinidad, Gappal Bannah Asali, Jainal
Asali, Rohmat Abdurrohim a.k.a. Abu Jackie or Zaky, and other
John and Jane Does were then charged with multiple murder and
multiple frustrated murder. Only Baharan, Trinidad, Asali, and
Rohmat were arrested, while the other accused remain at-large.
After being discharged as state witness, accused Asali testified that while
under training with the Abu Sayyaf in 2004, Rohmat, a.k.a Abu Jackie or Zaky, and
two other persons taught him how to make bombs and explosives. The trainees
were told that they were to wage battles against the government in the city, and that
their first mission was to plant bombs in malls, the Light Railway Transit (LRT),
and other parts of Metro Manila.
As found by the trial court, Asali, after his training, was required by the Abu
Sayyaf leadership, specifically Abu Solaiman and Rohmat, to secure eight kilos of
TNT, a soldering gun, aluminum powder, a tester, and Christmas lights, all of
which he knew would be used to make a bomb. He then recalled that sometime in
November to December 2004, Trinidad asked him for a total of 4 kilos of TNT that
is, 2 kilos on two separate occasions. Rohmat allegedly called Asali to confirm that
Trinidad would get TNT from Asali and use it for their first mission. The TNT was

allegedly placed in two buses sometime in December 2004, but neither one of them
exploded.
Asali then testified that the night before the Valentines Day bombing,
Trinidad and Baharan got another two kilos of TNT from him. Late in the evening
of 14 February, he received a call from Abu Solaiman. The latter told Asali not to
leave home or go to crowded areas, since the TNT taken by Baharan and Trinidad
had already been exploded in Makati. Thirty minutes later, Trinidad called Asali,
repeating the warning of Abu Solaiman. The next day, Asali allegedly received a
call from accused Rohmat, congratulating the former on the success of the mission.
[3]
According to Asali, Abu Zaky specifically said, Sa wakas nag success din yung
tinuro ko sayo.

WON the ROHMAT is guilty

Held: Art. 17. Principals. The following are considered principals:
1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act
2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it
3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which
it would not have been accomplished

Accused Rohmat is criminally responsible under the second paragraph, or

the provision on principal by inducement. The instructions and training he had
given Asali on how to make bombs coupled with their careful planning and
persistent attempts to bomb different areas in Metro Manila and Rohmats
confirmation that Trinidad would be getting TNT from Asali as part of their
mission prove the finding that Rohmats co-inducement was the determining cause
of the commission of the crime.[21] Such command or advice [was] of such nature
that, without it, the crime would not have materialized.

While the witness is eating at a restaurant he detected a smell of marijuana. He

went out of the restaurant and reported to the authority. They went back to the
restaurant and the officer confronted them and asked if they are smoking
marijuana.
While Camantigue was holding the two, Montealegre with this right hand and Capalad with his left
hand, Capalad suddenly and surreptitiously pulled out a knife from a scabbard tucked in the right
side of his waist and started stabbed Camantigue in the back. 2 Camantigue let loose Montealegre to
draw the gun from his holster but Montealegre, thus released, restrained Camantigue's hand to prevent
the latter from defending himself Montealegre used both his hands for his purpose 3 as Capalad continued
stabbing the Victim. 4 While they were thus grappling, the three fen to the floor and Capalad, freed from
Camantigue's grip, rose and scampered toward the door. Camantigue fired and, continuing the pursuit
outside, fired again. 5 Capalad fled into a dark alley. Camantigue abandoned the chase and asked to be
brought to a hospital. Capalad was later found slumped in the alley with a bullet wound in Ms chest.
Neither Camantigue nor Capalad survived, both expiring the following day. 6

Held:
The accused-appellant was correctly considered a co-principal for having collaborated with Capalad
in the killing of the police officer. The two acted in concert, with Capalad actually stabbing
Camantigue seven times and the accused-appellant holding on to the victim's hands to prevent him
from drawing his pistol and defending himself. While it is true that the accused- appellant did not
himself commit the act of stabbing, he was nonetheless equally guilty thereof for having prevented
Camantigue from resisting the attack against him. The accused-appellant was a principal by
indispensable cooperation under Article 17, par. 3, of the Revised Penal Code.

People vs Tolentino
Tolentino planned to kill the victim and told this plan to the victims step daughter
and niece. He said his purpose is to free the victims wife. The accused appellant
tried to stop him but he still executes his plan. After he attacked the victim he asked
the accused appellant which is also the victims niece to help him drag the victim to
the nearby river. Out of fear that he will also be attacked the accused appellant
unwillingly helped the accused. There the accused stabbed the victim the accused
appellate run towards the plantation. After the incident the accused warned them
not to disclose the incident to anyone. For they might be the next victim if this
happened.

Issue WON the accuse appellant has criminal liablity.

Held: NO,
Conspiracy:

(1) two or more persons came to an agreement, (2) the agreement concerned the commission
of a crime, and (3) the execution of the felony was decided upon.
In the case before us, we agree that the culpability of Tolentino was clearly
established, but we are also convinced that the evidence fails to show the
culpability of appellant beyond reasonable doubt. [23] Because, unquestionably, the
latter did not personally inflict any of the fatal flows, he can be held liable as a
principal, only if conspiracy is proven.
Accomplice:
To consider a person an accomplice in the commission of the offense, the following
must concur: (1) community of design -- knowing the criminal design of the principal
by direct participation, one concurs therein; (b) cooperation in the execution of the
offense by previous or simultaneous acts, with the intention of supplying material
and moral aid in the execution of the crime in an efficacious way; and (c) a relation
between the acts done by the principal and those attributed to the person charged
as accomplice.

In the case before us, appellant did not concur in or lend support to the nefarious
intent of Tolentino.[46] The mere fact that the former had prior knowledge of the latters

criminal design did not automatically make him an accomplice. [47] This circumstance,
by itself, did not show his concurrence in the principals criminal intent. [48]
That appellant helped Tolentino carry the victim from the house to the creek did
not necessarily demonstrate concurrence of wills or unity of purpose or action. [49] Quite
the contrary, the formers attempt to dissuade the latter from killing Sagario was
attested to by the prosecution witness. [50] With the nominal role appellant played in the
drama that had been thrust upon him, we cannot declare that he was an accomplice in
the crime charged.[51]
Accessory:

(1) profiting oneself or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime; (2)
concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in
order to prevent its discovery; and (3) harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of
the principals of the crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public functions
or when the offender 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. To
convict an accused as an accessory, the following elements must be proven:
(1) knowledge of the commission of the crime and (2) subsequent participation in it by
any of the three above-cited modes.
In his testimony,[55] appellant stated that because he was afraid his co-accused would hurt
him if he refused, he agreed to assist the latter in carrying the victim towards the
river. The fact that appellant left thereafter likewise indicated his innocence of the charge.
[56]
Verily, he adequately explained his conduct prior to the stabbing incident as one born
of fear for his own life.[57] It is not incredible for an eyewitness to a crime, especially if
unarmed, to desist from assisting the victim if to do so would put the formers life in peril.

The victim who was a student the baguio central university was forcibly abducted by four
men. The four abductors successfully raped the victim with the aid of each other.

Issue what is the degree of participation of each abductors

Held: It was likewise alleged that accused-appellant and his three co-accused
conspired, confederated and mutually aided one another in having carnal
knowledge of complainant by means of force and intimidation and against her
will.

The victim who was a domestic helper was abused by her employers. The
accuse poured boiling water at her.
Ruth likewise admitted having pulled Michelle's hair and banged her
head (inuumpog ang ulo), and that in the month of July 1997 alone they fought
at least six (6) times. She added that she was remorseful afterwards for what she
had done and treated Michelle's seared flesh with antibiotics and washed her
wounds with guava leaves. As if explaining the fresh-looking wounds on the body
of Michelle, Ruth said that Michelle sometimes scratched her wounds thereby
removing the scabs and exposing the fresh wounds. But by August 1997 Michelle
lost her appetite and her condition started to deteriorate. Not long thereafter, she
died. Ruth further testified, that when she was about to wake Michelle up in the
morning of 17 August 1997 she discovered Michelle's body already bent and
flexed forward (nakabaluktot) lying in bed, lifeless. So she panicked and
hurriedly placed the body in a box, which she then loaded inside the luggage
compartment of Ruby's car. According to Ruth, she was afraid that her 74-year
old mother who was suffering from a heart ailment would see the body, thus she
concealed the corpse in the trunk of the vehicle. When Ruby arrived that
evening, Ruth met her at the gate of their house and told her that she had a
problem. Ruth then asked Ruby to drive and promised to tell her about it on the
way. It was then that they were apprehended by elements of the Pasig Police
force.
[18]

[19]

[20]

Accused-appellant Ruby Mariano is the sister of accused-appellant Ruth

Mariano. As such, their relationship exempts appellant Ruby Mariano from criminal
liability under Art. 20 of The Revised Penal Code -

Art. 20. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability. - The penalties
prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are such with
respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural and
adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees,
with the single exception of accessories falling within the provisions of
paragraph 1 of the preceding article (underscoring supplied).
The reason for exemption is obvious; it is based on ties of blood and the
preservation of the cleanliness of one's name, which compels one to conceal crimes
committed by relatives so near as those mentioned in the above-quoted article. This
Court is thus mandated by law to acquit accused-appellant Ruby Mariano.

As for accused-appellant Ruby Mariano, the Court finds the evidence insufficient
to establish beyond reasonable doubt her guilt as an accomplice in the
commission of the said crime.Neither can she be held liable as an accessory
after the fact, as she is exempt from criminal liability by reason of her relationship
with her co-accused pursuant to Art. 20 of The Revised Penal
Code. Consequently, she is ACQUITTED of the crime charged and her
immediate release from custody is ordered unless she is being detained for some
other lawful cause. The Director of Prisons is DIRECTED to report to this Court
the action taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt hereof.