V. PENALTIES costs;
 in Criminal Case No.

86-51210, she was likewise convicted

People v. Reyes and imposed an indeterminate sentence of six years and one day of
prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen years, eight months and one
G.R No. 101127-31| August 7, 1992 | Judge | Reclusion perpetua; day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, together with the accessory
Duration; finality of judgment penalties, as well as to indemnify the offended party in the sum of
P15,750.00 and to pay the costs.
Doctrine: Since, however, in all the graduated scales of penalties in
the Code, as set out in Articles 25, 70 and 71, reclusion perpetua is Elevated to the CA for appellate review, said cases were forwarded by
the penalty immediately next higher to reclusion temporal, it follows the CA to the SC in view of
 In the meantime, it appears that
by necessary implication that the minimum of reclusion perpetua appellant is under provisional liberty on bail in the aforesaid criminal
is twenty (20) years and one (1) day with a maximum duration cases, including Criminal Case No. 86-51209, under a corporate
thereafter to last for the rest of the convict's natural life although, surety bond the penalty of reclusion perpetua involved
pursuant to Article 70, it appears that the maximum period for therein.
 Reyes was charged in the RTC of Manila, Branch 37, in
the service of penalties shall not exceed forty (40) years. It would
be legally absurd and violative of the scales of penalties in the Code three cases for violations of B.P. Blg. 22 and two(2) cases of estafa.
to reckon the minimum of reclusion perpetua at thirty (30) years since These cases were jointly tried and a decision thereon was rendered
there would thereby be a resultant lacuna whenever the penalty by Judge Gutierrez on March 12, [Link] by Oriental Assurance
exceeds the maximum twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal but is Corporation in the amount of P86,000.00. The Court notes that said
less than thirty (30) years. bond was provided pursuant to the order of the trial court dated May
16, 1991, hence prior to our resolution of October 15, 1991 quoted in
limine.
TC: Guilty
 CA: Bailable
 SC: Non-Bailable
NOTE: On October 22, 1975, PD No. 818 introduced the ff.
Issue: W/N a penalty higher than reclusion temporal but less than
amendment to Art 315 of the RPC
 "SECTION 1. Any person who
thirty (30) years may properly be categorized and considered as
embraced within the penalty of reclusion perpetua, as has been shall defraud another by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts
provided in PD 818, since commonly, reclusion perpetua and the as defined in paragraph 2(d) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal
other perpetual penalties are given a duration of thirty (30) years. = Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 4885, shall be punished by:
YES
 [Note: this isn’t the main issue in the case. The main issue is on 1st. The penalty of reclusion temporal if the amount of the fraud is
bail discussed after the dispositive of this digest. Actually the only over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such
necessary fact for the issue above is the note given after the facts] amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph
shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each
Facts: On the three cases for violations of B.P. Blg. 22, Reyes was additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed
convicted and sentenced to a total penalty of two years of shall in no case exceed thirty years. In such cases, and in
imprisonment and to pay a total fine of P96,290.00.
 As for the 2 connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed
cases of Estaffa: under the Revised Penal Code, the penalty shall be termed
reclusion perpetua;”
in Criminal Case No. 86-51209 she was found guilty and sentenced to
22yrs of reclusion perpetua with its accessory penalties, to indemnify Ratio: There is legal basis, both in law and logic, for PD No. 818 to
the complaining witness in the sum of P80,540.00 and to pay the declare that any penalty exceeding twenty (20) years, or the

1
maximum duration of reclusion temporal, is within the range of but is less than thirty (30) years.
reclusion perpetua.
 It will be observed that Article 27 of the Code 7
Dispositive: ACCORDINGLY, the Court hereby RESOLVES (1) to
provides for the minimum and maximum ranges of all the penalties in
ORDER the bondsman, Oriental Assurance Corporation, to surrender
the Code (except bond to keep the peace which shall be for such
accused-appellant Cresencia C. Reyes within ten (10) days from
period of time as the court may determine) from arresto menor to
notice to the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 37, and to
reclusion temporal, the latter being specifically from twelve years and
immediately inform this Court of such fact of surrender; and (2) to
one day to twenty years. For reclusion perpetua, however, there is
REQUIRE said Regional Trial Court, immediately after such
no specification as to its minimum and maximum range, as the
surrender, to order the transmittal of the accused-appellant to the
aforesaid article merely provides that "(a)ny person sentenced to
Bureau of Corrections through the Philippine National Police and to
any of the perpetual penalties shall be pardoned after
forthwith report to this Court its compliance therewith. SO ORDERED.
undergoing the penalty for thirty years, unless such person by
reason of his conduct or some other serious cause shall be
considered by the Chief Executive as unworthy of pardon."

The other applicable reference to reclusion perpetua is found in Article

70 of the Code which, in laying down the rule on successive service of
sentences where the culprit has to serve more than three penalties,
provides that "the maximum duration of the convict's sentence shall
not be more than three-fold the length of time corresponding to the
most severe of the penalties imposed upon him," and "(i)n applying
the provisions of this rule the duration of perpetual penalties (pena
perpetua) shall be computed at thirty years."]

[IMPORTANT] The imputed duration of 30yrs for reclusion perpetua,

therefore, is only to serve as the basis for determining the
convict's eligibility for pardon or for the application of the three-
fold rule in the service of multiple penalties.
 Since, however, in
all the graduated scales of penalties in the Code, as set out in Articles
25, 70 and 71, reclusion perpetua is the penalty immediately next
higher to reclusion temporal, it follows by necessary implication
that the minimum of reclusion perpetua is twenty (20) years and
one (1) day with a maximum duration thereafter to last for the
rest of the convict's natural life although, pursuant to Article 70,
it appears that the maximum period for the service of penalties
shall not exceed forty (40) years.

It would be legally absurd and violative of the scales of penalties in

the Code to reckon the minimum of reclusion perpetua at thirty (30)
years since there would thereby be a resultant lacuna whenever the
penalty exceeds the maximum twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal

2
People v. Ramirez With regards to treachery, Ramirez claims that the attack was not
sudden since there was an exchange of words between them before
G.R No. 138261 | 2001 | J. Panganiban | Reclusion perpetua; the stabbing.
 However, the brief exchange of words cannot negate
Duration; finality of judgment:
the treachery as established in the testimony of Bañez that the victim
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE: People of the Philippines ACCUSED- WAS NOT ARMED and SINCE HE WAS SITTING, he was thus
APPELLANT: Pedro Ramirez unable to PARRY the incoming attack.

Doctrine: People vs Diquit: "Since reclusion perpetua is an indivisible However, the SC disagrees with the trial court's pronouncement of
penalty, it has no minimum, medium or maximum periods. It is penalties. to suffer imprisonment of forty (40) years reclusion
imposed in its entirety regardless of any mitigating or aggravating perpetua." There was no justification or need for the trial court to
circumstances that may have attended the commission of the crime." specify the length of imprisonment, because reclusion perpetua is an
indivisible penalty.
RTC: Guilty of Murder with penalty of Reclusion perpetua 40 years
SC: Reclusion perpetua Since reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty, it has no minimum,
medium or maximum periods. It is imposed in its entirety regardless of
Issue: Whether or not the trial court properly sentenced Ramirez to any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended
reclusion perpetua of 40 years? NO. the commission of the crime.

Facts: The victim, Jojo Alkuino, attend the town fiesta of Ormoc City Dispositive: WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is AFFIRMED,
and went on a drinking spree with someone named Montano Bañez in except in regard to the penalty, which is hereby MODIFIED;
accordingly, appellant is sentenced to the indivisible penalty of
a nearby store.
 The accused, Pedro Ramirez suddenly approached reclusion perpetua. Costs against appellant.
them and ordered a beer. He then went closer to Jojo and hit him on
the right side of the body just below the ribs.

Jojo then died the following day because due to hypovolemic shock or
massive blood loss.
 The trial court then rendered the decision
sentencing Ramirez to reclusion perpetua of 40 years.
 During the
trial the accused challenged the testimonies of the prosecution as
they were marred by inconsistencies and also denied the alleged
presence of treachery.

Ruling:

Regarding the inconsistencies the court held that: This alleged

inconsistency pertains to a very trivial matter which does not in any
way affect the disposition of the case. It has been held that
inconsistencies referring only to minor details do not weaken the
credibility of witnesses. On the contrary, these inconsistencies are
signs that the witnesses were not rehearsed.
3
People vs. Joel “Anjoy” Buca One of the siblings saw this going on, and pulled his sister away from
the accused. The accused then told AAA not to tell anyone or he will
G.R No. 209587 | September 23, 2015 | Villarama | A.M. No. 15-08- kill her parents. The mother found out eventually when the accused
02-SC (2015), entitled Guidelines for the Proper Use of the Phrase left so they went to the police, the medical reports found suspicious
"Without Eligibility for Parole" in Indivisible Penalties sexual abuse.

Doctrine: Guidelines to the use of the phrase “Without Eligibility Ratio: First, the SC deals with questions of the law and will not disturb
for Parole” the factual findings of the case (except when facts are overlooked or
there is grave abuse). In the case at bar, The Court has held time and
1) In cases where the death penalty is not warranted, there is no again that testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature
need to use the phrase "without eligibility for parole" to qualify deserve full credence, considering that no young woman, especially of
the penalty of reclusion perpetua; it is understood that convicted tender age, would concoct a story of dePoration, allow an examination
persons penalized with an indivisible penalty are not eligible for of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subject to
parole
 When circumstances are present warranting the a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain
imposition of the death penalty, but this penalty is not imposed justice for the wrong committed against her. Youth and immaturity are
because of R.A. 9346, the qualiGcation of "without eligibility for generally badges of truth. It is highly improbable that a girl of tender
parole" shall be used to qualify reclusion perpetua in order to years, one not yet exposed to the ways of the world, would impute to
emphasize that the accused should have been sentenced to any man a crime so serious as rape if what she claims is not true.
suffer the death penalty had it not been for R.A. No. 9346.
It bears stressing that the precise date of the commission of the crime
TC: 3 separate charges/information on rape, 1 was dismissed due to of rape is not an essential element of the crime. Failure to specify the
failure of the prosecution to present evidence, 1 resulted to acquittal exact date when the rape was committed does not render the
due to prosecution’s failure to prove guilt via lack of evidence, and 1 Information defective.
 In the instant case, since the accused-
was where the accused was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of appellant committed simple rape, a crime penalized by reclusion
rape.
 CA: Affirm perpetua only, the dispositive portion of this decision should
plainly state that he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
SC: Affirm reclusion perpetua without any qualification. *PERTINENT TO
SYLLABUS*
Issue: WON accused is guilty of rape YES
 WON the accused may Dispositive:
be convicted of rape despite failure to allege the exac date in the
commission of the crime. YES WON the CA needed to qualify the WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, the appeal is hereby
conviction with “Without Eligibility for Parole. NO DISMISSED. The Decision dated June 17, 2013 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00888-MIN is AFFIRMED with a
Facts: On December 24, 2002, AAA (the victim) was with her younger clariGcation that the accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the
siblings in their house. At around 1 pm, the accused entered the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
house and ordered the siblings of AAA to go to another room and
sleep.
 When the accused and AAA were left alone, the accused
placed the victim on his lap, pulled down her panties, and forcibly
inserted his penis in her vagina.

4
People v. Ballabare Moreto, the group of Edito ganged up on Juan. Tessie’s husband,
Roque rushed to the scene and intervened which enabled Juan and
G.R No. 108871 | November 19, 1996 | J. Mendoza | Distinguish from Leonardo to rush inside Tessie’s house.
Life Imprisonment; Not reclusion perpetua:
Edito’s group, now numbering 11 pursued the 2 brothers and started
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE: PEOPLE OF THE hurling stones towards Tessie’s house. When they entered the yard of
PHILIPPINES
 ACCUSED-APPELLANT: GERRY BALLABARE & said house, they tried to attack Roque with a bolo and the 2 brothers
ran towards the back of the house. However, Eder Ballabare was able
EDER BALLABARE, accused; GERRY BALLABARE, accused-
to catch up with Juan and shot him twice (1st bullet hit him in the right
appellant
ear; 2nd bullet hit him in the forehead). On the other hand, Gerry
Doctrine: Ballabare fired at Leonardo hitting him on the upper left chest. After
this, the accused-appellant and his companions then fled.
The crime of illegal possession of firearm in its aggravated form is
punished by the penalty of death. Since the offense was committed on Ratio:
September 16, 1990, at a time when the imposition of the death
The trial court also erred in finding that the killing of Leonardo
penalty was prohibited,
Tacadao Jr by Ballabare was attended by treachery, thus qualifying
the penalty next lower in degree, i.e. , reclusion perpetua, should the offense to murder. In the case at bar, the fatal incident occurred at
instead be imposed. This is not the equivalent of the penalty of life four in the afternoon, in broad daylight. The victims could not have
imprisonment. While life imprisonment may appear to be the English been taken by surprise as the attack was preceded by stone-throwing
translation of reclusion perpetua, in reality, it goes deeper than that. and they had the opportunity of arming themselves, as they were
inside their sister's house and one of them in fact had injured one of
TC: double murder with the use of illegally possessed firearms; Gerry the attackers (Henry Fabregas). Considering the rule that treachery
was also charged in a separate information on violation of PD cannot be inferred but must be proven as fully and convincingly as the
crime itself, any doubt as to the existence of treachery in this case
1866
 CA: N/A
 SC: 1 homicide with 1 aggravating circumstance must be resolved in favor of the accused-appellant. Thus, accused-
and no mitigating circumstance and sentencing him to an appellant is guilty of homicide and not murder.
indeterminate term of 12 years of prision mayor, as minimum, to 20
years of reclusion temporal, as maximum and (2) violation of P.D. No. The crime of illegal possession of firearm in its aggravated form
1866 and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua; is punished by the penalty of death. Since the offense was
committed on September 16, 1990, at a time when the imposition
Issue: Whether or not reclusion perpetua is the same as life of the death penalty was prohibited,
imprisonment? = NO
the penalty next lower in degree, i.e. , reclusion perpetua, should
Facts: instead be imposed. This is not the equivalent of the penalty of
life imprisonment. While life imprisonment may appear to be the
Tessie Asenita: On September 16, 1990, she saw Edito Ballabare English translation of reclusion perpetua, in reality, it goes
was boxing Moreto Miason, a farmhand of her father. Edito was with deeper than that.
Antonio Ballabare, Henry Fabregas, a certain Wilson, and one Butsoy.
Miason also had companions who were Tessie’s brothers: Juan and While "life imprisonment" may appear to be the English
Leonardo Tacadao.
 When Juan tried to stop Edito from beating up translation of reclusion perpetua, in reality, it goes deeper than

5
that. First, "life imprisonment" is invariably imposed for serious
offenses penalized by special laws, while reclusion perpetua is
prescribed under The Revised Penal Code. Second, "life
imprisonment," unlike reclusion perpetua, does not carry with it
any accessory penalty: Third, "life imprisonment" does not
appear to have any denite extent or duration, while reclusion
perpetua entails imprisonment for at least thirty (30) years after
which the convict becomes eligible for pardon, although the
maximum period thereof shall in no case exceed forty (40) years.

Dispositive: WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court is

MODIFIED by nding accused- appellant guilty of (1) homicide with
one aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstance and
sentencing him to an indeterminate term of 12 years of prision mayor,
as minimum, to 20 years of reclusion temporal, as maximum and (2)
violation of P.D. No. 1866 and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua;
and by ordering him to pay the heirs of the deceased Leonardo
Tacadao, Jr. in the amount of P50,000.00 as indemnity.

SO ORDERED.

SEPARATE OPINION OF J. REGALADO:

I dissent, however, with the holding that said accused-appellant is

liable for and should be punished for two separate crimes of homicide
under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code and illegal possession of
rearm in its aggravated form under Presidential Decree No. 1866, for
the reasons extensively discussed in my dissent in People vs. Quijada
(G.R. Nos. 115008-09, July 24, 1996). I vigorously reiterate my views
therein and, applying the same to the present case, herein accused-
appellant should be punished only for a single crime of illegal
possession of rearm, but in its aggravated form due to the homicide
committed with the use thereof. As a legal and logical consequence,
therefore, said accused-appellant can no longer be punished all over
again for the same crime of homicide which was already used to
qualify or change the nature of and to thereby increase the penalty for
the former offense.

6
People vs. Mateo imprisonment (or lower but involving offenses committed on
the same occasion or arising out of the same occurrence that
Appeal in capital offenses gave rise to the more serious offense for which the penalty of
death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment is imposed).
Issue: W/N the case should be directly forwarded to the Supreme The practice finds justification in the 1987 Constitution – Article
Court by virtue of the Constitutional provision on automatic appeal VIII, Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following
where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or powers: 
 “(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on
death. No. The case is REMANDED and the records are forwarded
to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action. appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may
provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
 “x x x
Facts:
x x x x x x
 “(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty
1. Imelda Mateo is the daughter of Rosemarie Capulong. Rosemarie imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.” 

Capulong and appellant (stepfather) started to live together
without the benefit of marriage when Rosemarie was only two 2. The same constitutional article has evidently been a thesis for
years old. Imelda stayed with her mother and appellant in a Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section
house in Tarlac. 
 22 of Republic Act No. 7659, as well as procedural rules
contained in Section 3 of Rule 122,[11] Section 10 of Rule
2. Imelda recalled that each time the ten rape incidents occurred, her 122,[12]Section 13 of Rule 124[13] and Section 3 of Rule
mother, Rosemarie, was not at home. According to Imelda, 125[14] of the Rules of Court. 

she never reported any of the ten incidents to anybody
because the accused had threatened to kill her and her mother
3. It must be stressed, however, that the constitutional provision is not
if she were to disclose the matter to anyone. 

preclusive in character, and it does not necessarily prevent the
Court, in the exercise of its rule-making power, from adding an
3. Imelda stated that each of the ten rape incidents were committed in intermediate appeal or review in favor of the accused. 

invariably the same fashion. All were perpetrated inside the
house in Buenavista, Tarlac, during the night and, each time,
she would try to ward off his advances by kicking him but that 4. In passing, during the deliberations among the members of the
he proved to be too strong for her. These incidents occurred in Court, there has been a marked absence of unanimity on the
the presence of her three sleeping siblings who failed to wake crucial point of guilt or innocence of herein appellant. Some
up despite the struggles she exerted to fend off the advances. are convinced that the evidence would appear to be sufficient
She recalled that in all ten instances, appellant had covered to convict; some would accept the recommendation of
acquittal from the Solicitor General on the ground of
her mouth with a handkerchief to prevent her from shouting 

inadequate proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 

Ruling:
5. Indeed, the occasion best demonstrates the typical dilemma, i.e.,
1. Up until now, the Supreme Court has assumed the DIRECT the determination and appreciation of primarily factual matters,
APPELLATE REVIEW over all criminal cases in which the which the Supreme Court has had to face with in automatic
penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life review cases; yet, it is the Court of Appeals that has aptly

7
 been given the direct mandate to review factual issues. 


6. While the Fundamental Law requires a mandatory review by the

Supreme Court of cases where the penalty imposed is
reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or death, nowhere,
however, has it proscribed an intermediate review. 


7. If only to ensure utmost circumspection before the penalty of

death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment is
imposed, the Court now deems it wise and compelling to
provide in these cases a review by the Court of Appeals
before the case is elevated to the Supreme Court. 


8. Where life and liberty are at stake, all possible avenues to

determine his guilt or innocence must be accorded an
accused, and no care in the evaluation of the facts can
ever be overdone. A prior determination by the Court of
Appeals on, particularly, the factual issues, would
minimize the possibility of an error of judgment. 


9. If the Court of Appeals should affirm the penalty of death, reclusion

perpetua or life imprisonment, it could then render judgment
imposing the corresponding penalty as the circumstances so
warrant, refrain from entering judgment and elevate the entire
records of the case to the Supreme Court for its final
disposition. 


Dispositive: WHEREFORE, the instant case is REMANDED, and all

pertinent records thereof ordered to be FORWARDED, to the Court of
Appeals for appropriate action and disposition, consistent with the
discussions hereinabove set forth. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

8
People v. Rudy Fronda, 222 SCRA 71 (1993) George Peralta and Librado Duran to get him and further he was
ordered to get a spade and a crowbar. They were ordered to dig a
G.R. Nos. 102361-62 May 14, 1993 | BIDIN, J. | Principal by hole in the mountain, one (1) kilometer away from his house.
 On
indispensable cooperation?
March 21, 1989, the bodies or remains of the Balaan brothers were
DOCTRINE: Paragraph 3, Article 17, of the Revised Penal Code examined by the 17th Infantry Battalion. After which, the remains,
considers as principals by indispensable cooperation "those who (bones) were brought to the house of one Freddie Arevalo, a relative
cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without of the deceased, at Barangay Cataratan, where they were laid in state
which it could not have been accomplished". Its requisites are (1) for the wake.
participation of the subject accused in the criminal resolution and (2)
RTC: convicted the accused of murder as a principal by
performance by him of another act indispensable to the
indispensable cooperation. Appellant Fronda and Padua, and NPA
accomplishment of the crime.
members were the ones who pointed the house where the brothers
RTC Ruling: Murder as a principal by indispensable cooperation Balaan were to be found. Appellant accompanied the members of the
SC Ruling: Murder as an accomplice. armed group to said house, and tied the victims' hands, Appellant was
handed a hunting knife by one of the armed men when they left the
ISSUES: Whether or not appellant is considered as a principal by house, Appellant joined the members of the armed group in bringing
indispensable cooperation – NO. FACTS: the victims to a forested area in the mountains, It was appellant who
provided the spade and crowbar used in digging the hole where the
1. At about 6AM, the deceased Eduardo (Edwin) Balaan & Esminio Balaan brothers were buried, Appellant was the one who pointed the
Balaan who are brothers, were taken by 7 armed men in fatigue location where the victms' bodies buried, appellant, for a period of
uniform with long firearms, suspected to be NPA members, more than three (3) years, failed to report the incident to the
accompanied by accused Rudy Fronda and Roderick Padua from the authorities, and appellant did not in any way object, when he was
ordered to tie the hands of the victims.
house of one Ferminio Balaan.
 The said Rudy Fronda and Roderick
Padua are residents of the same barangay.
 The armed men tied the Accused Rudy Fronda shared the guilty purpose and encouraged and
hands of Edwin and Esminio at their back lying down face downward, abetted the crime by his actuations as above illustrated, even though
he may have taken no part in the execution. The chain of
in front of the house of Ferminio Balaan.
 The armed men together circumstances as narrated above will show that he has rendered the
with Roderick Padua and Rudy Fronda proceeded towards sitio required assistance intentionally and knowingly, which led to the
Tulong, Cataratan, Allacapan, Cagayan passing through the ricefields execution of the felony. His external acts more than explain his
(taking along with them the Balaan brothers)
 Accused Rudy Fronda participation as principal by indispensable cooperation. Such
testified that on the night of June 10, 1986, he was taken by the external overt acts, are more than significant enough constittuting
NPA's from his house, accompanied by Robert Peralta, alias Ka Jun convincing proof leading to the ineluctable finding that accused Rudy
and Roderick Padua, to look for the Balaan brothers. They were Fronda is guilty as such.
around 9 NPA's with then. They found Edwin Balaan and Esmineo
Balaan, at the house of Ferminio Balaan, a brother. They tied their Defense: Accused-appellant maintains that the prosecution was not
wrists/hands and brought them to the mountain at Sitio Tulong, able to present evidence to prove his participation in the killing of the
Cataratan, Allacapan, Cagayan. After that, the NPA's instructed them brothers Balaan. The defense submits that appellant was merely
to go home, but in the afternoon of the same day June 11, 1986, taken by the armed men as a "pointer" and as such, he could not be
Robert Peralta, alias Ka Jun, sent Elmer Martinez, Orlando Gonzales, considered as a principal by indispensable cooperation for the reason
that the armed men could have taken other persons to perform the
9
acts done by appellant. Furthermore, appellant interposes the the fact that without any justifiable reason he failed to report the
exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear (Art. 12 [6] RPC) incident to the authorities for a period of more than three (3) years.
claiming that all his acts were performed under the impulse of
uncontrollable fear and to save his life. Article 18 of the Revised Penal Code provides that an accomplice is
one who, not being a principal, "cooperates in the execution of the
RATIO: SC: No, appellant cannot be considered as a principal by offense by previous or simultaneous acts". Under this provision, a
indispensable cooperation but as an accomplice. person is considered as an accomplice if his role in the
The acts performed by appellant are not, by themselves, perpetration of the crime is of a minor character. To be convicted
indispensable to the killing of the brothers Balaan. As aforesaid to be as such, it is necessary that he be aware to the criminal intent of
considered as a principal by indispensable cooperation, there must be the principal and thereby cooperates knowingly or intentionally
direct participation in the criminal design by another act without which by supplying material or moral aid for the efficacious execution
the crime could not have been committed. We note that the of the crime.
prosecution failed to present any evidence tending to establish
appellant's conspiracy with the evil designs of the members of the Dispositive: Be that as it may, and after considering the attendant
NPA armed group. Neither was it established that appellant's acts circumstances, We hold that appellant is guilty beyond reasonable
were of such importance that the crime would not have been doubt as accomplice to the crime charged i.e. murder. As such, the
committed without him or that he participated in the actual killing. proper imposable penalty is one degree lower than that prescribed for
murder (Art. 52, Revised Penal Code). The penalty for murder is
Records show that appellant's participation in the commission of the reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death (Art. 248, RPC).
crime consisted of: (1) leading the members of the armed group to the One degree lower is prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion
house where the victims were found; (2) tying the victims' hands and temporal medium (Art. 61 (3), RPC). There being no mitigating nor
(3) digging the grave where the victims were buried. However, it has agravating circumstances which attended the commission of the
been established through the testimony of Alex Utrera, a former crime, the penalty impossable under the law should be applied in its
member of the NPA, that appellant was only picked-up by the armed medium period (Art. 64 [1], RPC) and applying the Indeterminate
men for the purpose of pointing the residence of the victims. The Sentence Law, appellant is hereby sentenced in each case to suffer
armed men never disclosed their purpose in looking for the brothers imprisonment ranging from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision
Balaan who were former members of the Armed Forces of the mayor as minimum to fourteen (14) years eight (8) months and one
Philippines nor did the armed men inform appellant of their plan to (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum.
abduct and kill the two brothers.
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the trial court is hereby
However, appellant's act of joining the armed men in going to the MODIFIED to the extent above indicated and AFFIRMED in all other
mountains, and his failure to object to their unlawful orders, or show aspects. Costs against appellant
any reluctance in obeying the same, may be considered as
circumstances evincing his concurrence with the objectives of the
malefactors and had effectively supplied them with material and moral
aid, thereby making him as an accomplice. He cannot with candor,
claim that he was unaware of the evil intentions of the armed men
which may have been the case had appellant merely guided the group
to locate the victims' abodes. On the contrary, appellant himself tied
the victims' hands and even joined the armed men in taking the
victims to the hills. Appellant's complicity is made more manifest by

10