PEOPLE vs.

AGPINAYs
FACTS:

Virgilio Paino (deceased) was a hireling of Julia Rapada, an operator of fishing boats. Virgilip
and 2 others went for afishing venture in the sea and returned to shore the following day whereupon,
they unloaded their catch and spread out their fishnet on the sand to dry. Thereafter, they mended
the net, with thread and small knives, under portable shed which is a territory of Romeo Agapinay
(accused). Meanwhile, Virgilio took the shed and placed it where he and 2 other companions were.
Moments later, Romeo Agapinay appeared and confronted Virgilio, and berated him for taking the
shed without his permission. Virgilio said that they were going to use it. Shortly, the two exchanged
words and tempers apparently flared. Romeo lunged at Virgilio with a hunting knife, six inches long,
that hit his right arm. Virgilio ran away but Delfin Agapinay (accused) and Fortunato Agapinay
(accused) met him and held on to his arms. Romeo approached him and dealt him a second stab
him at his back. Virgilio was able to run again mortally wounded, but Alex Agapinay, Cirilo Agapinay
and Dante Agapinay saw him and stoned him. Then all of a sudden Amor Flores (accused)
appeared on the way of Virgilio and plunged a knife at his back. It was then that Virgilio collapsed.
Meanwhile Julia Rapada (accused) cried, "Kill him and we will bury him." Virgilio was brought to the
hospital by his companions but later died. While the 6 accused Agpanays claim that Virgilio started
everything when Virgilio grabbed the atal (a piece of wood used to roll boats ashore) without
Romeos permission.

ISSUE:
Who are the co-principals? Who are the accomplice? Who are the principal by inducement?

RULING:
Co-principals. It is our (Court) considered opinion that only Romeo, Delfin, and Fortunato
should be held as principals in the crime of murder. Romeo is guilty, as he admitted in open court, by
direct participation, while Delfin and Fortunate are liable as principals by cooperation. In holding the
victim by his arms, both allowed Romeo to inflict upon him a stab wound.
Accomplice. Alex, Dante, and Cirilo, on the other hand, should be held as simple
accomplices for their acts of pelting the victim with rocks. Since the deceased had already sustained
two stab wounds, the act of hurling rocks at him was not indispensable to justify holding them legally
liable as principals.
There is no Principal by Inducement. With respect to Amor Flores, there was no clear
evidence that he plunge a knife at Virgilio because she was with Julia the whole time, meters away
from the crime scene. As regards, however, Julia Rapada, it is the opinion of this Court, and based
on the records, that she cannot be held liable (as a principal by inducement). Her words, Kill him
and we will bury him" amount but to imprudent utterances. In such case, while the: expression was
imprudent and the results of it grave in the extreme, she would not be guilty of the crime committed.
Therefore, in applying the principles laid down to concrete cases it is necessary to remember only
that the inducement must be made directly with the intention of procuring the commission of the
crime and that such inducement must be the determining cause of the crime.


PEOPLE vs. FRANSISCO DACILLO
FACTS:
One drizzly night, Rosemarie Tallada was seen standing near a bridge waiting for
someone. Later Dacillo, called her to his house. Witnesses Roche, who were in the adjacent house
singing with a karaoke machine, suddenly felt the floor shaking as if a scuffle was going on at the
other side of the wall. Roche peeped through a hole on the wall and saw Fransisco and Pacot (a
friend) were grappling Rosemarie who was gagged with a handkerchief. For a while they heard the
sound of Rosemarie being beaten up. Then everything became quiet. Later that evening, they saw
Fransisco and Pacot leaving his house. The next day, Pacot told Fransisco to throw the body instead
at the sea but Fransisco said to bury the body instead in a cemented tomb. At the same day,
Fransiscos actuations were found to be suspicious as he was carrying ready mixed cements in his
house. This puzzled the neighbors who eventually called the police. Later, they discovered the tomb
of the decomposing body of Tallada. Fransisco contends that Pacot did the killing and he has
nothing to do at all because why would he beat up the girlfriend of his friend Pacot.

ISSUE:
Was Fransisco and Pacot considered as principals in this case?
RULING:
Yes Fransisco and Pacot are co-principals in killing Rosemarie. Two or more persons taking
part in the commission of a crime are considered principals by direct participation if the following
requisites are present:
1. they participated in the criminal resolution and
2. they carried out their plan and personally took part in its execution by acts which directly tended to
the same end.
Both requisites were met in this case. Two or more persons are said to have participated in
the criminal resolution when they were in conspiracy at the time of the commission of the crime. The
two men planned how to dispose of the victims body; it was in fact appellants idea to pour concrete
on the body, prevailing over Pacots suggestion to just dump the body into the sea. It was appellant
himself who encased the body in cement and made sure that there were no leaks from which foul
odor could emanate. Both of them are principals that had conspired in the killing and, whether or not
he himself did the strangling or the stabbing, he was also liable for the acts of the other accused.








PEOPLE vs. AGAPITO DELA CRUZ
FACTS:
Agapito Dela Cruz (accused) was hired by Antonio Yu (victim, brother of the deceased) as
an overseer of his farm in Zamboanga. When following years, Antonio took over the farm as he
already decided to retire in Zamboanga but he was to carry burden due to the ill-supervision of
Agapito which almost pull down the farms production, this led him to be strict with Agapito. Agapito
feeling humiliated seeks revenge on the plan of killing Antonio Yu and kidnapping Yu Chi Chong the
brother of Antonio. So he asked for help from a person named Solinap which then contacted two
others namely Jumaidin and Asidin from Jolo, Sulu. So Solinap immediately fetched Jumaidin and
Asidin riding a watercraft to Sulu and back to Zamboanga. The next day Agapito was able to meet
them and welcomed them to their house, while Solinap was at the shore guarding the watercraft.
Agapito informed Juamidin and Asidin that they are to kill Antonio Yu and ransom Yu Chi Chong on
the amount of 50 thousand. They woke up 5:00 o'clock in the morning and led them towards the
place of ambush. Baddish, a former employee with Agapito in the farm, was instructed by Agapito to
go to the copra of Antonio Yu, and hitch a ride in the truck of Yu Chi Chong. The rest of the group
waited in the ambush spot. Baddish dropped his towel and asked Yu Chi Chong to stop the truck
and immediately the ambush was done as planned. But Agapito was not able to see Antonio Yu, and
instead just Yu Chi Chong. Still they proceeded and went to where the watercraft was parked as an
escape vehicle, but Yu Chi Chong in attempt to escape stuck with a wood, Jumaidin. Jumaidin in his
anger shot Yu Chi Chong to death and they still the continued to carry the dead body of Yu Chi
Chong and dropped it in the middle of the sea. In the watercraft was, Agapito, Jumaidin, Asidin and
Solinap.

ISSUE:
Is Agapito liable for being the principal by inducement?

RULING:

Yes, without him the crime would not have been conceived, much less committed. Clearly,
he was a principal by induction, with collective criminal responsibility with the material executors.
One is induced to commit a crime either by a command (precepto) or for a consideration (pacto) or
by any other similar act which constitutes the real and moving cause of the crime and which was
done for the purpose of inducing such criminal act and was sufficient for that purpose. The person
who gives promises, or offers the consideration and the one who actually commits the crime by
reason of such promise, remuneration or reward are both principals. In the case at bar, Agapito need
not take part in the commission of the offense. He induces other 3 to commit the crime is guilty as
principal even though it is Jumaidin who killed Yu Chi Chong and even Yu Chi Chong was not the
target individual as per the intention on killing. Agapito is a principal by inducement and conspiracy
being evident, he is, thereforeguilty of the same crime committed by the material executor (Jumaidin)
in furtherance of the offense which he induced them to commit.













US vs. PANGLIMA INDANAN
FACTS:
Panlgima Indanan was at the time of the commission of the crime, the headman of the
Governor. He is alleged to have committed the murder by inducement. The proofs tend to
demonstrate that on the 24th day of March, 1912, Indanan sent Induk to bring to the house of the
accused one Sariol (deceased). The following day, Induk, in obedience to the orders, brought Sariol
to the house, whereupon Indanan ordered the witnesses, Akiran and Suhuri, to tie Sariol. They
obeyed the order in the presence of Indanan, who was at the time lying upon a bed in the room. This
was about 4:30 in the afternoon. Sariol remained there with his hands tied behind his back until
night, when Indanan, in the presence of several witnesses, ordered Sariol to be taken to the Chinese
cemetery and there killed, Indanan asserting at the time that he had an order to that effect from the
governor. He gave strict orders to Akiran that he should be present at the time that Sariol was killed,
and that he should aid in killing him. To make sure of the work being well done, the Indanan ordered
Akiran to take his (the accused's) bolo with which to assist in the killing. Sariol was taken to the
cemetery, in an isolated spot a considerable distance from the road and about 200 yards from the
nearest house, and there killed. Kalyakan struck the first blow with his bolo, while Akiran joined in
and assisted thereafter. The deceased at the time he was killed had his hands tied behind his back.
On returning to the house of Indanan after the death of Sariol, Unding told Indanan that Sariol had
been killed, whereupon Indanan said that it was all right and appeared to be very much pleased.
Indanan was known to be the headman of the governor and although he is under the governor he
has always the final say, he is more like the person which every villager would not go against his will
or else DIE HAHAHAHA.

ISSUE:
Is Indanan liable for being the principal by inducement of the death of Sariol?

RULING:
Yes. One is induced directly to commit a crime either by command, or for a consideration, or
by any other similar act which constitutes the real and moving cause of the crime and which was
done for the purpose of inducing such criminal act and was sufficient for that purpose. In the case
before us, as we have seen, the accused falsely represented to the persons who actually committed
the crime that he had an order from the Government requiring the death of Sariol and that they were
under obligation to carry out that order. It is clear from the evidence that this inducement was offered
by the accused directly to the persons interested with the intention of moving them to do his bidding,
and that such representation was the moving cause of the fatal act. While it may be said, and is true,
that the personal commands of the accused were entirely sufficient to produce the effects which
actually resulted and that such commands may be considered the moving cause of the crime, still
there is no doubt, under the evidence, that the representation that the accused had in his possession
an order from the Government commanding the death of Sariol was also of material influence in
effecting the death; and where two fundamental causes work together for the production of a single
result and one of those causes would lead to a conviction upon one theory and the other upon
another, a conviction is sustainable upon either theory.







PEOPLE vs. MARTIN MANDOLADO and JULIAN ORTILLANO
FACTS:
Martin Mandolado and Julian Ortillano, draftees assigned with the Alpha Company, 3rd
Infantry Battalion, Second Infantry Division of the Philippine Army stationed at Pikit, North Cotabato,
were accused for the murder of HerminigildoTenorio and his driver Nolasco Mendoza in the
afternoon of October 3, 1977 at Sultan Kudarat, Maguindanao qualified with the aggravating
circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength. In the morning of
that date, Ortillano, Mandolado, ConradoErinada and Anacleto Simon, AFP trainees/draftees, were
passengers of a bus bound for Midsayap, North Cotabato. After reaching Midsayap, while still in
uniform, they decided to drink ESQ rum at the bus terminal. Erinada and Simon decided to join the
accused in going to Pikit, North Cotabato, the home base of the accused. After an hour of drinking,
Mandolado got drunk and went inside the public market. When he returned, he grabbed his .30
caliber machine gun and started firing. Companions tried to dissuade him but Mandolado just wont
stop. Troubled enough, Erinada and Simon ran away, hailed and boarded a passing Ford Fiera with
some passengers on board. The accused followed and also boarded the same vehicle. The soldiers
forced the driver to bring them to the Midsayap crossing. On the way, Mandolado got his knife and
tried to attack the driver. After appellants alighted at said crossing, the Ford Fiera sped away.
Mandolado fired his machine gun at the speeding vehicle, hitting the back of the drivers sister who
was also on board. At the said crossing, waiting for a ride, a privately owned jeep driven by Tenorio
passed by. The appellants shouted at the driver, to stop vehicle and allow them to board it. While
Mandolado and Ortillano were inside the jeep, they kept on firing their guns. Tenorio remarked: If
you will not stop firing your guns I will ram this jeep into something. When Mandolado learned that
the jeep was bound for Cotabato City and not Pikit, North Cotabato, he got so angry, cocked his gun
and ordered the driver to stop. While the jeep was coming to a full stop, Erinida and Simon got off
the jeep and ran towards their detachment camp which was just nearby. Then the killing transpired.
Mendoza and Tenorio were dead. (Past case by Monica)
ISSUE:
What degree of participation is martin mandolado held liable? Is Julian Ortiallano be an
accomplice in the crime?
RULING:
Martin Mandolado is held as principal by Direct Participation. Which proved that he did shot
and kill the victims, Tenorio and Mendoza, beyond peradventure of doubt. That when appellants
fired his .30 caliber machine gun at the victims Nolasco Mendoza and Herminigildo Tenorio, and
both of them died instantaneously. Mandolado materially executed the crime, appeared at the scene
and performs acts necessary in the commission of the offenses, which all requisites are present to
be a principal by direct participation.
Julain Ortiallano is an accomplice. By his acts, showed knowledge of the criminal design of
Mandolado. He was present when Mandolado tried to attack the driver of the Ford Fierra with a knife
and fired at the vehicle hitting a female passenger. When Mandolado got angry and "cocked" his gun
and ordered Tenorio to stop the jeep, their two other companions. Mandolado, Ortillano fired his
armalite while they were riding in the jeep of the victim And Ortillano's act of firing his gun towards
the ground manifested his concurrence with the criminal intent. In other words, Ortillano's
simultaneous acts supplied, if not material, moral aid in the execution of the crime in an efficacious
way. Ortillano's presence served to encourage Mandolado, the principal, or to increase the odds
against the victims.
PEOPLE vs. WILFREDO TOLENTINO and JONATHAN FABROS
FACTS:
On February 28, 1996 appellant Jonathan Fabros and his cousins, Sheila Guilayan and
Merwin Ledesma, were at their house in Luyahan, Pasonanca, Zamboanga City when their neighbor
Wilfredo Tolentino called them. When asked what it was all about, Wilfredo simply motioned to them
to come to his house located just across the road. Once they were inside the house, Wilfredo
immediately revealed his plan to kill Hernan Sagario (deceased), Sheila's stepfather. Wilfredo
explained that it was the only way to free Sheila's mother of the sufferings being caused by Hernan.
Wilfredo then instructed Merwin to go back to the house and get the bolo of Hernan. Merwin obliged,
got the bolo, and gave it to Wilfredo. Thereafter, they were told by Wilfredo to go home and wait for
Hernan. Around 8:30 in the evening, Hernan arrived. He went directly to the kitchen and fixed the
bag of rice he was carrying. Jonathan together with Sheila and Merwin, just stayed quiet in the living
room. Later, Wilfredo with a 2"x2" piece of wood in his hand entered the house. He then followed
Hernan towards the kitchen. When about an arms-length away from Hernan, Wilfredo, immediately
walloped Hernan on the right side of the neck sending the latter unconscious and falling face down
to the ground. Wilfredo immediately instructed appellant and Merwin to help him bring Hernan out of
the house. Lifting Hernan out of the house, Wilfredo held him by the neck while both appellant and
Merwin grasped his feet. They then carried Hernan towards the creek, upon reaching the creekside,
the three stopped, then Wilfredo successively stabbed Hernan on different parts of the body causing
the latter's instant death. After throwing the victim's lifeless body in the creek, the three immediately
left. Tolentino called Jonathan, Sheila and Merwin and warned them that if they will tell other people,
he will kill them. Out of fear, they just followed whatever Tolentino told them.
ISSUE:
Whether or not appellant (Jonathan Fabros) should be convicted as an accessory?

RULING:
*Wifredo Tolentino, is guilty as principal by direct participation.

Fabros cannot be convicted as an accessory. Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code defines
an accessory as one who had knowledge of the commission of the crime and did not participate in
its commission as principal or accomplice, yet took part subsequent to its commission by any of
three modes:
(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.

Under paragraph 2 of said codal provision, the concealment or the destruction of the body of
the crime or of the effects or the instruments thereof must have been done in order to prevent the
discovery of the crime. That, precisely, is wanting in the present case. In his testimony, 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. Verily, he adequately explained his conduct prior to the
stabbing incident as one born of fear for his own life. 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 former's life in peril.
The presumption of innocence in favour of appellant has not been overcome by proof
beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, he is acquitted.























JORGE TAER vs. CA and PEOPLE
FACTS:
Cirilo Saludes slept in the house of his compadre accused Jorge Taer, whereat he was
benighted. At about 2:00 o'clock dawn, accused Emilio Namocatcat and Mario Cago arrived at
Taer's house with two (2) male carabaos owned by and which Namocatcat wanted Taer to tend. The
said carabaos were left at Taer's place. After searching in vain for the carabaos at the vicinity, Dalde
and Palaca reported the matter to the police. Reyes informed Dalde that he saw the latter's lost
carabao at Datag, Garcia-Hernandez. Forthwith Dalde and Palaca went on that day to Datag and
there they found their missing carabaos tied to a bamboo thicket near the house accused Taer.
Upon query by Dalde and Palaca why their carabaos were found at his place, accused Taer, replied
that the carabaos reached his place tied together without any person in company. According to
accused Taer, what he told Dalde and Palaca was that the carabaos were brought to his place by
the accused Namocatcat who asked him to tell anybody looking for them that they just strayed
thereat. Taer was convicted for the crime of cattle rustling, later affirmed by the CA in toto, finding
the evidence of the prosecution that conspiracy indeed existed between Emilio Namocatcat and
Taer. Taer appealed arguing that the extent of his participation did not go beyond the participation of
the original defendants Saludes and Cago. Therefore, he submits that the acquittal of these two by
the trial court should also lead to his acquittal and the only evidence proving the alleged conspiracy
between him and Namocatcat was the confession of Namocatcat, however this should not be
considered as admissible because the same is hearsay under the rule of res inter alios acta

ISSUE:
Was Taers contention that he has no participation, tenable for being an accessory?

RULING:
Yes, Taer was an accessory. Without having participated either as principal or as an
accomplice, for he did not participate in the taking of the carabaos, he took part subsequent to the
commission of the act of taking by profiting himself by its effects. Taer is thus only an accessory after
the fact that:
Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without
having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its
commission in any of the following manners: 1. By profiting themselves or assisting the
offender to profit by the effects of the crime;."
By employing the two carabaos in his farm, Taer was profiting by the objects of the theft.
Thereby he is convicted as an accessory of the crime of cattle-rustling as defined and penalized by
PD No. 533 amending Arts. 308, 309, and 310 of the Revised Penal Code