SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 256 11/10/22, 2:39 PM

*
G.R. No. 115431. April 18, 1996.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs. JOSE TORREFIEL, accused-appellant.

Criminal Law; Alibi; It is well-settled that the defense of alibi

cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused.·It is
well-settled that the defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive
identification of the accused. Furthermore, for alibi to prosper, the
accused must establish not only that he was somewhere else when
the crime was committed but that it was also physically impossible
for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its
commission.
Same; Conspiracy; For collective responsibility to be established,
it is not necessary that conspiracy be proved by direct evidence of a
prior agreement to commit the crime, as only rarely would such an
agreement be demonstrable since in the nature of things criminal
undertakings are rarely documented by agreement in writing.·This
contention we also find untenable, conspiracy being clearly manifest
in this case as was correctly found by the Court of Appeals. For
collective responsibility to be established, it is not necessary that
conspiracy be proved by direct evidence of a prior agreement to
commit the crime as only rarely would such an agreement be
demonstrable since in the nature of things criminal undertakings
are rarely documented by agreement in writing. Conspiracy may be
inferred from the acts of the accused immediately prior to, during
and right after the shooting of the victim which indicate their
common intention to commit the crime.
Same; Same; Where conspiracy has been adequately shown, all
the accused are answerable as co-principals regardless of the degree
of their participation.·Conspiracy having been adequately shown,
all the accused are answerable as co-principals regardless of the
degree of their participation. In fact, it is not necessary to ascertain
the individual participation in the final liquidation of the victims or

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001846043edd5fde7c229000d00d40059004a/p/AQK842/?username=Guest Page 1 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 256 11/10/22, 2:39 PM

to ascertain the precise modality or extent of participation of each

individual conspirator as the applicable rule is that the act of one
conspirator is the act of all of them. It hardly matters, therefore,

______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

370

370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Torrefiel

that accused-appellant did not actually participate in the killing of

Reynaldo Mangilog or of Leopoldo Mangilog.
Same; Murder; Aggravating Circumstances; Treachery; There is
treachery where one victim was shot while he was serving the
assailants coffee or shortly thereafter while the other victim was shot
and stabbed to death while he was taking a bath.·As alleged in the
informations and as correctly observed by the Solicitor General, the
killing of the victims was qualified by treachery. Leopoldo Mangilog
was shot while he was serving the accused coffee or shortly
thereafter. Reynaldo Mangilog, on the other hand, was shot and
stabbed to death while he was taking a bath. It may be added that
the victims were naturally unarmed at that time and their
execution was done so early in the morning, that is, when they had
practically just awakened. Under the circumstances, the victims
were clearly not in any position to defend themselves from the
sudden and unexpected attack of the accused. These circumstances
are manifestly indicative of the presence of the conditions under
which treachery may be appreciated, i.e., the employment of means
of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend
himself or to retaliate, and that said means of execution was
deliberately or consciously adopted.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Abuse of Superior Strength; Aid of
Armed Men; Treachery absorbs the circumstances of abuse of
superior strength and aid of armed men.·The Court of Appeals
appreciated abuse of superior strength, aid of armed men and

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001846043edd5fde7c229000d00d40059004a/p/AQK842/?username=Guest Page 2 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 256 11/10/22, 2:39 PM

evident premeditation as aggravating circumstances. These

findings are factual and the rule is that findings of the Court of
Appeals upon factual questions are conclusive and ought not to be
disturbed unless shown to be contrary to the evidence on record,
and, in this case, there is no such showing. However, we believe,
and so hold, that treachery absorbs the circumstances of abuse of
superior strength and aid of armed men, as it appears that the
accused saw to it that they were armed and far outnumbered the
victims precisely to ensure the accomplishment of their criminal
objective.

APPEAL from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of

Kalibo, Aklan, Br. 8.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

371

VOL. 256, APRIL 18, 1996 371

People vs. Torrefiel

Cyril A. Tagle for accused-appellant.

HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.:

Accused-appellant Jose Torrefiel; Hilario Masgong alias

„Mark‰; Casiano Masgong alias „Manny‰; Saturnino Suyod
alias „Ka Eddie‰; „Jerry Delicano alias „Ka Cocoy‰; Luciano
Solanoy, Jr., alias „Ka Balot‰; Noel Semira alias „Ka Nido‰;
Ricky David alias „Ka Macky‰; and Alex Francisco alias
„Ka Jing,‰ were charged in Criminal Cases Nos. 2909 and
2910 for Murder and in Criminal Case No. 2911 for
Robbery before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, Kalibo,
Aklan. These cases were, upon agreement of the parties,
jointly tried, since they arose from the same incident and
involved the same parties. The trial proceeded as against
the accused-appellant Jose Torrefiel only, the rest of the
accused having remained at large. 1
After trial, the court a quo convicted accused-appellant
in each of the cases, the dispositive portions of which are
quoted hereinbelow:

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001846043edd5fde7c229000d00d40059004a/p/AQK842/?username=Guest Page 3 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 256 11/10/22, 2:39 PM

In Criminal Case No. 2909 for Murder:

„WHEREFORE, this Court finds the accused, Jose Torrefiel, guilty

beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and hereby
sentences the accused to a penalty of imprisonment of Seventeen
(17) years, Four (4) months and One (1) day to Eighteen (18) years
and Eight (8) months.
The accused is hereby ordered also to indemnify the family of the
victim the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) by
2
way of damages. x x x‰

In Criminal Case No. 2910 for Murder:

„WHEREFORE, this Court finds the accused, Jose Torrefiel,

guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and hereby

_______________

1 Penned by Judge Emma C. Labayen, RTC, Branch 8, Kalibo, Aklan.

2 Decision of the RTC, Record, p. 205.

372

372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Torrefiel

sentences the accused to a penalty of imprisonment of Seventeen

(17) years, Four (4) months and One (1) day to Eighteen (18) years
and Eight (8) months.
The accused is hereby ordered also to indemnify the family of the
victim the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) by
3
way of damages. x x x‰

In Criminal Case No. 2911 for Robbery:

„WHEREFORE, this Court finds the accused Jose Torrefiel

guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery and
sentences the accused to suffer the penalty of Twelve (12) years and
4
One (1) day to Fourteen (14) years and Eight (8) months. x x x.‰

Accused-appellant Jose Torrefiel, appealed to the Court of

Appeals. After considering the evidence and the law
involved, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of
conviction in all the cases but refrained from entering

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001846043edd5fde7c229000d00d40059004a/p/AQK842/?username=Guest Page 4 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 256 11/10/22, 2:39 PM

judgment in Criminal Cases Nos. 2909 and 2910 for

murder, having ascertained that the proper imposable
penalty for each of said crimes is reclusion perpetua, and
instead, certified these two (2) cases to us for final
determination pursuant to Section 13 of Rule 124 of the
1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure.
The facts as correctly5
summarized by the prosecution in
its Brief are as follows:

„On May 26, 1989 at about 5:00 oÊclock in the morning at Barangay
Naligusan, Ibajay, Aklan, Realidad Mangilog woke up early to
prepare their breakfast. Her husband Leopoldo Mangilog and her
son Reynaldo were about to join her downstairs, when someone
knocked at the kitchen backdoor. (TSN, March 21, 1990, pp. 3-4)
It was Leonardo who opened the door. When the door was opened
appellant Jose Torrefiel armed with a bolo and a hand gun entered
the house first followed by Masiano Masgong, Hilario Masgong,
Alex Francisco, Saturnino Suyod and Noel alias „Nido‰ in

_______________

3 Decision of the RTC, Record, p. 131.

4 Decision of the RTC, Record, p. 106.
5 Rollo, pp. 87-89.

373

VOL. 256, APRIL 18, 1996 373

People vs. Torrefiel

that order, who were all armed with long firearms. (TSN, Ibid., p. 5)
The group greeted Leopoldo as „How are you Tay?‰ to which the
latter answered „as usual.‰ Leopoldo even served the newcomers
with coffee, but because the coffee was not sufficient for them,
Realidad asked Hermogenes Calizo, who was then the errand boy of
the Mangilog (sic), to buy coffee from the store. (TSN, Id., pp. 5-6)
The group of appellant Torrefiel did not even touch or taste the
coffee served them by Leopoldo. Instead, appellant, Casiano
Masgong and Satur Suyod aimed their guns at Leopoldo and
6
started shooting him to death (TSN, Id., p. 6). Simultaneous to the
shooting of Leopoldo inside the house by the group of appellant was
the shooting and stabbing of Reynaldo who was then taking a bath

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001846043edd5fde7c229000d00d40059004a/p/AQK842/?username=Guest Page 5 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 256 11/10/22, 2:39 PM

inside the bathroom located outside of the house by the other

members of the group who did not enter the house. (TSN, Id., p. 7)
After the killing of Leopoldo and Reynaldo, the accused
ransacked the house and took P500.00 cash, wrist watch, kitchen
wares, grocery items, chickens and guitar. (TSN, Id., p. 10)
Before the accused left the house of the victims, they even fired
their guns at random. They were blaming the victims to be
responsible to the incident why the military was running after
them. They were also telling the people along the road that the fish
is okey and could be ready to be butchered. (Id., p. 11)

Accused-appellant invoked the defense of alibi, claiming

that at about 7:00 oÊclock in the morning of May 26, 1989,
he was at the house of Barangay Captain Benedicto Puod
in Barangay Agbalogo, Makato, Aklan, which can be
reached in an hour and a half (1 1/2) from Barangay
Naligusan, Ibajay, Aklan, the scene of the incident. He had
gone on vacation to Barangay Agbalogo on May 22, 1989
and attended the fiesta on May 25, 1989. He had remained
in the said barangay since then upon the advice of his wife
not to return to Barangay Naligusan, Ibajay, Aklan,
appellantÊs place
7
of residence, as the situation there was
somewhat hot. Benedicto Puod con-

_______________

6 On further questioning, witness Realidad Mangilog named Satur

Suyod, Casiano Masgong and Hilario Masgong as the persons who
gunned down her husband and failed to mention the name of appellant
as one of the assailants. (TSN, March 21, 1989, pp. 8 & 21)
7 TSN, October 11, 1996, pp. 12-13.

374

374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Torrefiel

firmed appellantÊs claim as to his whereabouts in the

morning of May 26, 1989, recounting that he and appellant
were, indeed, together drinking alcoholic drinks from 7:00
to 11:00 oÊclock in the
8
morning on the occasion of the
birthday of his child. In addition, Pedro Tosio as a witness

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001846043edd5fde7c229000d00d40059004a/p/AQK842/?username=Guest Page 6 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 256 11/10/22, 2:39 PM

testified as to the presence of appellant at his house in

Barangay Agbalogo in the morning until about 5:00 oÊclock
in the afternoon of May 25, 1989, the day of the fiesta,
declaring further that 9he also saw appellant pass by his
house on May 26, 1989.
In his appeal, accused-appellant interposed the following
assignment of errors:

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-

APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF MURDER IN
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 2909.

II

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-

APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF MURDER IN
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 2910.

III

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-

APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF ROBBERY IN
10
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 2911.

On the first and third assignment of errors, accused-

appellant maintains his defense of alibi, stressing that, not
being around at the time and place of the incident as he
was at Barangay Agbalogo, Makato, Aklan, he could not
have murdered Leopoldo Mangilog and robbed the
Mangilogs of

_______________

8 Id., p. 5.
9 TSN, November 15, 1990, pp. 3-4.
10 AppellantÊs Brief filed with the Court of Appeals, Rollo, pp. 25-26.

375

VOL. 256, APRIL 18, 1996 375

People vs. Torrefiel

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001846043edd5fde7c229000d00d40059004a/p/AQK842/?username=Guest Page 7 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 256 11/10/22, 2:39 PM

their personal belongings.

We are not persuaded.
It is well-settled that the defense of alibi cannot prevail
11
over the positive identification of the accused.
Furthermore, for alibi to prosper, the accused must
establish not only that he was somewhere else when the
crime was committed but that it was also physically
impossible for him to have 12been at the scene of the crime at
the time of its commission.
That accused-appellant had been positively identified as
one of the culprits by prosecution witness Realidad
Mangilog cannot be doubted. The Mangilogs and the
accused-appellant had known each other for years as
neighbors. Accused-appellant whose parents reside in
Barangay Agbalogo, Makato, Aklan, established residence
in Barangay Naligusan, Ibajay, Aklan when he got married
to a resident there. Since his house is only about one
hundred and fifty (150) meters away from that of the
Mangilogs, there were occasions when accused-appellant
would visit the Mangilogs, usually for coffee, and that
Leopoldo Mangilog would also go to the accused-appellantÊs
house. Indeed, eyewitness Realidad Mangilog knows the
accused-appellant so well that she could not have been
mistaken in identifying appellant as one of those armed
men responsible for the death of her husband and son on
that fateful morning of May 26, 1989. She testified thus:

„Q. When your husband open (sic) the door, was there
somebody who got inside?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where were you at that time?
A. I am (sic) at that time at the door dividing the sala
and the dining room.
xxx xxx xxx

_______________

11 People v. Barte, 230 SCRA 401, 408 [1994]; People v. Dominguez,

217 SCRA 170, 184 [1993]; People v. Calope, 229 SCRA 413, 421 [1994].
12 People v. Dominguez, supra, 183; People v. Cabuang, 217 SCRA 675,
684 [1993]; People v. Agcaoile, 206 SCRA 606, 612 [1992].

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001846043edd5fde7c229000d00d40059004a/p/AQK842/?username=Guest Page 8 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 256 11/10/22, 2:39 PM

376

376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Torrefiel

xxx xxx xxx

Q. Were you able to recognized (sic) those persons who
entered your house?
A. I can recognized (sic) Jose Torrefiel leading the group
and Masiano Masgong alias Manny, Alex Francisco
followed by Satur or Saturnino Suyod
13
and the other
one was Noel Semira alias Nido.‰

Moreover, the two other prosecution witnesses, Coreto

Maguirang and Hermogenes Calizo, confirmed the presence
of accused-appellant in Barangay Naligusan, Ibajay, Aklan
at the time of the incident in question. Maquirang testified
that while he watched over his carabao which was grazing
on May 26, 1989 at around 5:00 oÊclock in the morning, he
saw the appellant and his group as they passed by him
from a distance of about ten (10) meters heading towards
the direction of the house of Leopoldo 14
Mangilog in
Barangay Naligusan, Ibajay, Aklan. He could not be
mistaken as to appellantÊs identity since he had on several
occasions seen
15
appellant together with the same group of
armed men. Calizo, on the other hand, claimed that he
had seen appellant face to face in the house of the
Mangilogs that same morning of May 26, 1989 shortly
before the subject incident occurred since at that time he
was living in said house. He only happened to be sent out
by Realidad Mangilog to buy coffee so he did not get 16to see
the actual killing of Leopoldo and Reynaldo Mangilog.
It is significant to note that no improper motive can be
imputed to Realidad Mangilog as would make her testify
falsely against accused-appellant;
17
hence her testimony is
worthy of full faith and credit.
Evidently complementing the positive identification of
accused-appellant as one of the perpetrators of the crimes

_______________

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001846043edd5fde7c229000d00d40059004a/p/AQK842/?username=Guest Page 9 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 256 11/10/22, 2:39 PM

13 TSN, March 21, 1990, pp. 4-5.

14 TSN, March 20, 1990, p. 5.
15 Id., p. 8.
16 TSN, September 18, 1990, pp. 4-5.
17 People v. Tabao, 240 SCRA 758, 770 [1995]; People v. Nitcha, 240
SCRA 283, 293 citing People v. Rostata, 218 SCRA 657 [1993].

377

VOL. 256, APRIL 18, 1996 377

People vs. Torrefiel

charged is his failure to prove that it was physically

impossible for him to be at Barangay Naligusan, Ibajay,
Aklan at the time of the incident, assuming that his claim
that he went to the house of Barangay Captain Puod at
7:00 oÊclock in the morning of May 26, 1989 was true. As
testified to by appellant himself, it would take just one and
a half (1 1/2) hours to reach Barangay Naligusan, Ibajay,
Aklan from Barangay Agbalogo, Makato, Aklan. Needless
to state, it would not at all be impossible for appellant to be
at Barangay Agbalogo at 7:00 oÊclock in the morning or
some two hours after the crimes were committed at
Barangay Naligusan.
In his second assignment of error, accused-appellant
contends that he had nothing to do with the killing of the
victim Reynaldo Mangilog, obviously relying on the
testimony of Realidad Mangilog to the effect that Reynaldo
Mangilog was shot and stabbed to death by the members of
appellantÊs group who stationed themselves outside the
house.
This contention we also find untenable, conspiracy being
clearly manifest in this case as was correctly found by the
Court of Appeals. For collective responsibility to be
established, it is not necessary that conspiracy be proved
by direct
18
evidence of a prior agreement to commit the
crime as only rarely would such an agreement be
demonstrable since in the nature of things criminal
undertakings
19
are rarely documented by agreement in
writing. Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the
accused immediately prior to, during and right after the
shooting of the victim which indicate their common

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001846043edd5fde7c229000d00d40059004a/p/AQK842/?username=Guest Page 10 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 256 11/10/22, 2:39 PM

20
intention to commit the crime.
The record shows that: (1) all the accused which include
accused-appellant arrived together at the scene of the
killings; (2) they were all fully armed; (3) three of them
simultaneously shot to death Leopoldo Mangilog, while an
undetermined number shot and stabbed to death Reynaldo
Mangilog; (4) the

_______________

18 People v. Tami, 244 SCRA 1, 22 [1995].

19 People v. Yabut, 226 SCRA 715, 719 [1993].
20 People v. Umbrero, 196 SCRA 821, 829 [1991]; People v. Dalanon,
237 SCRA 607, 619 [1994].

378

378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Torrefiel

attack on the two victims was executed simultaneously;

and (5) the accusedÊs statement to the effect that the
victims were responsible for the fact that the military men
were running after them. This tends to establish a motive
on their part to kill the victims. All these indubitably
indicate a concerted effort on the part of the accused on a
common design to kill the victims.
Conspiracy having been adequately shown, all the
accused are answerable as co-principals
21
regardless of the
degree of their participation. In fact, it is not necessary to
ascertain the individual 22 participation in the final
liquidation of the victims or to ascertain the precise
modality or extent of participation of each individual
conspirator as the applicable rule is 23that the act of one
conspirator is the act of all of them. It hardly matters,
therefore, that accused-appellant did not actually
participate in the killing of Reynaldo Mangilog or of
Leopoldo Mangilog.
As alleged in the informations and as correctly observed
by the Solicitor General, the killing of the victims was
qualified by treachery. Leopoldo Mangilog was shot while

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001846043edd5fde7c229000d00d40059004a/p/AQK842/?username=Guest Page 11 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 256 11/10/22, 2:39 PM

he was serving the accused coffee or shortly thereafter.

Reynaldo Mangilog, on the other hand, was shot and
stabbed to death while he was taking a bath. It may be
added that the victims were naturally unarmed at that
time and their execution was done so early in the morning,
that is, when they had practically just awakened. Under
the circumstances, the victims were clearly not in any
position to defend themselves from 24
the sudden and
unexpected attack of the accused. These circumstances
are manifestly indicative of the presence of the conditions
under which treachery may be appreciated, i.e., the
employment of means of execution that gives the person
attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate,
and that said means of execution was deliberately or
consciously

_______________

21 People v. Solon, 244 SCRA 554, 562 [1995].

22 People v. Asuncion, 179 SCRA 396, 401 [1989].
23 People v. De Roxas, 241 SCRA 369, 377 [1995].
24 People v. Lualhati, 234 SCRA 325, 332 [1994].

379

VOL. 256, APRIL 18, 1996 379

People vs. Torrefiel

25
adopted.
The Court of Appeals appreciated abuse of superior
strength, aid of armed men and evident premeditation as
aggravating circumstances. These findings are factual and
the rule is that findings of the Court of Appeals upon
factual questions are conclusive and ought not to be
disturbed
26
unless shown to be contrary to the evidence on
record, and, in this case, there is no such showing.
However, we believe, and so hold, that treachery absorbs
the circumstances of abuse of superior strength and aid of
armed men, as it appears that the accused saw to it that
they were armed and far outnumbered the victims
precisely 27to ensure the accomplishment of their criminal
objective.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001846043edd5fde7c229000d00d40059004a/p/AQK842/?username=Guest Page 12 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 256 11/10/22, 2:39 PM

Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the

prescribed penalty for murder is reclusion temporal in its
maximum period to death. Since we find accused-appellant
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder
qualified by treachery in Criminal Cases Nos. 2909 and
2910 and that the generic aggravating circumstance of
evident premeditation was also attendant, the penalty of
reclusion perpetua should be imposed in each case,
applying Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code and
considering the proscription against the imposition of the
death penalty at the time the crimes were committed.
WHEREFORE, the decisions of the trial court are
hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the
accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua for each case of murder (Criminal Cases
Nos. 2909 and 2910).

_______________

25 People v. Suitos, 220 SCRA 419, 430 [1993]; People v. Bernardo, 222
SCRA 502, 508-509 [1993]; People v. Verchez, 233 SCRA 174, 183 [1994].
26 Mercado v. Court of Appeals, 234 SCRA 98, 102 [1994].
27 People v. Amondina, 220 SCRA 6, 11 [1993], citing People v. Mori, 55
SCRA 382.

380

380 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Philippine National Bank vs. Se, Jr.

SO ORDERED.

Padilla (Chairman), Bellosillo, Vitug and Kapunan,

JJ., concur.

Judgments affirmed with modification.

Notes.·In the absence of conspiracy, each of the

accused is responsible only for the consequences of his own
acts. (People vs. Jorge, 231 SCRA 693 [1994])
When homicide is committed as a consequence or on the
occasion of the robbery, all those who took part as

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001846043edd5fde7c229000d00d40059004a/p/AQK842/?username=Guest Page 13 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 256 11/10/22, 2:39 PM

principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as

principals of the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide although they did not actually take part in the
homicide. (People vs. Cobre, 239 SCRA 159 [1994])

··o0o··

© Copyright 2022 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001846043edd5fde7c229000d00d40059004a/p/AQK842/?username=Guest Page 14 of 14