People

 v.  Doble  
No.  L-­‐30028  
May  31,  1982  
Ponente:  De  Castro,  J.  
 
Plaintiff-­‐Appellee     :   People  of  the  Philippines  
Defendants       :   Cresencio  Doble,  et  al.  
Defendants-­‐Appellants   :   Cresencio  Doble,  Simeon  Doble  &  Antonio  Romaquin  
 
Facts  
• Late   in   the   night   of   June   13,   1966,   10   men,   almost   all   heavily   armed   with   pistols,  
carbines  and  thompsons,  left  the  shores  of  Manila  in  a  motor  banca  and  proceeded  
to  Navotas,  Rizal  to  rob  Prudential  Bank  &  Trust  Co.,  Navotas  Branch.    
• Said  bank  had  an  unusual  banking  hours  –  midnight  up  to  8AM.    
• Once   docked   and   taking   advantage   of   the   darkness   of   the   night,   8   men   disembarked  
from  the  banca  and  proceeded  to  their  mission.    
• At   around   12:30AM   of   June   14,   1966,   Cesar   Reyes   (assistant   cashier   of   the   bank),  
was  near  Melvin  Domingo  (teller)  when  two  men  entered  the  bank,  asking  that  their  
money  be  changed.  Reyes  replied  that  they  have  no  small  denominations.  Suddenly,  
three   armed   men   with   long   guns   barged   in   and   started   shooting   the   walls   and  
ceilings,  asked  everyone  to  lie  face  down,  and  then  demanded  the  key  to  the  vault.  
When  Reyes  answered  that  they  don’t  have  it,  the  armed  men  aimed  at  the  doors  of  
the   vault,   and   fired   upon   it   until   it   opened.   However,   they   couldn’t   get   the   money  
inside  as  the  compartments  were  locked  separately;  so  they  went  to  the  two  tellers  
and  took  whatever  they  could  lay  their  hands  on  (they  got  P10,439.95).  
• Just   beside   the   bank   was   a   police   outpost,   with   agents   of   the   law   were   on   duty  
watching  the  fish  landing.  As  they  heard  shots,  they  went  to  the  middle  of  the  road  
towards   the   bank,   and   encountered   the   accused   while   they   are   committing   the  
felony.   The   police   couldn’t   see   who   were   firing   the   shots   and   several   of   them   got  
shot,  and  three  of  them  died.  
• As  the  commotion  died  down,  the  8  men  then  returned  to  the  waiting  motor  banca  
with  ‘bayongs’  and  sped  away.    
• Many   people   got   killed   and   injured   in   the   said   robbery.     Among   those   who   got   killed  
were  Sgt.  Alcala,  Sgt.  Aguilos  and  Cpl.  Evangelista.  
• Only  5  of  the  10  men  (the  actual  men  who  went  to  the  bank  are  still  evading  capture)  
were   brought   to   trial,   the   rest   still   remain   at   large.     2   of   the   5   accused   were  
acquitted.     Only   Cresencio   Doble,   Simeon   Doble   and   Antonio   Romaquin   are  
appealing  in  the  charge  of  bank  robbery  committed  in  band,  with  multiple  homicide,  
multiple  frustrated  homicide  and  assault  upon  agents  of  persons  in  authority.  
 
Issue  /  Held  
1. WON  Simeon  Doble  is  an  accomplice  to  the  crime.  –  NO,  acquitted.  
2. WON   Crescencio   Doble   and   Antonio   Romaquin   are   principals   in   the   crime?   –   NO,  
only  accomplices.  
 
 
 
 
 
Ratio  
1. On  Simeon  Doble:  
ü Evidence   shows   only   that   the   malefactors   met   in   his   house   to   discuss   the   plan   to  
rob   the   bank.     This   circumstance   alone   doesn’t   conclude   his   guilt   beyond  
reasonable  doubt.    
ü The  facts  do  not  show  that  he  performed  any  act  tending  to  the  perpetration  of  
the   robbery,   nor   that   he   took   a   direct   part   therein   or   induced   other   persons   to  
commit,  or  that  he  cooperated  in  its  consummation  by  some  act  without  which  it  
would  not  have  been  committed.    
ü At  most,  his  act  amounted  to  joining  in  a  conspiracy,  which  is  not  punishable.  
ü Simeon  then  was  not  a  principal  both  by  agreement  and  encouragement  for  his  
non-­‐participation   in   the   commission   of   the   crime.     Nor   was   it   clearly   proven   that  
he  had  received  any  share  of  the  looted  money  as  to  make  him  an  accessory.  
2. On  Antonio  Romaquin  and  Crecencio  Doble:  
ü The  malefactors  who  waited  in  the  banca,  both  contend  that  their  extra-­‐judicial  
statements,   upon   which   their   conviction   was   principally   made   to   rest,   are  
inadmissible   for   having   been   allegedly   obtained   by   force   and   intimidation,  
torture   and   maltreatment,   and   in   violation   of   basic   constitutional   rights   to  
counsel  and  against  self-­‐incrimination.  
ü However,  it  must  be  noted  that  they  didn’t  present  any  medical  cert  to  attest  to  
the  injuries  allegedly  inflicted.  Also,  Celso  Aquino’s  testimony,  one  of  the  accused,  
admitted  that  no  violence  was  inflicted  on  him  to  procure  his  statement.  This  is  
evidence  enough  that  the  appellants  could  not  have  been  dealt  with  differently  as  
their  co-­‐accused  Aquino  who  was  allowed  to  give  his  statement  freely.  
ü The  extra-­‐judicial  statements  of  the  appellants  are  convincing  to  show  that  their  
liability  is  less  than  that  of  a  co-­‐principal  by  conspiracy  or  by  actual  participation.  
o Cresencio   was   merely   in-­‐charge   of   the   banca   and   had   no   knowledge   of   the  
concrete  plan  and  execution  of  the  crime.    The  mastermind  obviously  did  not  
extend   confidence   in   him   as   he   was   only   asked   to   provide   a   banca   just   a   few  
hours  before  the  commission  of  the  crime.    
o Nor   was   Romaquin   considered   a   principal   malefactor   as   there   was   a   gun  
pointed   at   him   by   Cresencio   to   prevent   him   from   fleeing   away   from   the  
scene,   evident   to   show   that   he   never   joined   in   the   criminal   purpose   and   that  
his  acts  were  not  voluntary.  
ü An   accomplice   is   one   who,   not   being   principal   as   defined   in   Art.   17   of   the   RPC,  
cooperates   in   the   execution   of   the   offense   by   previous   or   simultaneous   acts.    
There   must   be   a   community   of   unlawful   purpose   between   the   principal   and  
accomplice  and  assistance  knowingly  and  intentionally  given  to  supply  material  
and  moral  aid  in  the  consummation  of  the  offense.    In  this  case,  the  appellants’  
cooperation  is  like  that  of  a  driver  of  a  car  used  for  abduction  which  makes  the  
driver  a  mere  accomplice.  
ü But   it   isn’t   established   by   evidence   that   in   the   meeting   held   in   the   house   of  
Simeon  that  they  all  agreed  to  kill  and  not  just  rob.    The  finding  that  appellants  
are   liable   as   mere   accomplices   may   appear   too   lenient   but   evidence   fails   to  
establish   their   conspiracy   with   the   real   malefactors   who   actually   robbed   the  
bank  and  killed  several  people.  
 
Crime:   robbery   in   band.   Aggravating:   nighttime   and   the   use   of   a   motorized   banca.  
Mitigating:  none.