People V Roche

People v.
Roche malefactors were committing the crime, their actions impliedly showed
G.R. No. 115182, April 6, 2000 unity of purpose among them, a concerted effort to bring about the death
of the victim. In a great majority of cases, complicity was established by
Topic: Articles 16-20 proof of acts done in concert, i.e., acts which yield the reasonable
inference that the doers thereof were acting with a common intent or
Doctrine: Accomplices; Requisites.—Neither can accused-appellant be held liable design. Therefore, the task in every case is determining whether the
as an accomplice for the crime charged. The following requisites must concur in particular acts established by the requisite quantum of proof do
order that a person may be considered an accomplice: (a) community of design, reasonably yield that inference.
i.e., knowing that criminal design of the principal by direct participation, he
Indeed, there is no proof to show accused-appellant, together with Dorico
concurs with the latter in his purpose; (b) he cooperates in the execution of the
Caballes, had resolved to attack Roderick Ferol. Instead, we think the assault on
offense by previous or simultaneous acts; and, (c) there must be a relation between
Roderick Ferol was an impulsive act by Dorico Caballes borne out of the desire to
the acts done by the principal and those attributed to the person charged as
get even with him for the offense committed against his brother. In no way can
accomplice.
such act be attributed to accused-appellant.
Facts: An information for the murder of Roderick Ferol was filed against accused- Neither can accused-appellant be held liable as an accomplice for the crime
appellant Restituto Roche and three others, namely, Marcelino Fallore, Francisco charged. The following requisites must concur in order that a person may be
Gregorio, and one John Doe. The Court found that the prosecution evidence has considered an accomplice:
established beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of accused Restituto Roche for the
(a) community of design, i.e., knowing that criminal design of the
crime of murder but could not make a pronouncement as to the guilt of accused
principal by direct participation, he concurs with the latter in his purpose;
Dorico Caballes because he remained at large and therefore could not be
arraigned. Finding that the prosecution evidence failed to establish the guilt of (b) he cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or
accused Francisco Gregorio and Marcelino Fallore, both accused were acquitted. simultaneous acts; and,
Issue: Whether or not the accused-appellant should held liable for the killing of (c) there must be a relation between the acts done by the principal and
Roderick Ferol on the ground of conspiracy? those attributed to the person charged as accomplice.
There is no evidence to show that accused-appellant performed any previous or
SC: No. In the case at bar, Rogelio Rossel testified that he did not see Restituto simultaneous act to assist Dorico Caballes in killing Roderick Ferol. In fact, it has
Roche at the time Dorico Caballes was stabbing Roderick Ferol. Apart from not been proven that he was aware of Dorico Caballes' plan to attack and kill
Helen Amarille and Rodel Ferol, whose testimonies are highly suspect, no other Roderick Ferol. Absent any evidence to create the moral certainty required to
witness was presented to prove that accused-appellant directly participated in the convict accused-appellant, we cannot uphold the trial court's finding of guilt. "Our
commission of the offense or performed an act which would show community of legal culture demands the presentation of proof beyond reasonable doubt before
purpose with Dorico Caballes. Even if it is assumed as true that accused-appellant any person may be convicted of any crime and deprived of his life, liberty, or even
was responsible for telling Dorico Caballes it was Roderick Ferol who had tripped property. The hypothesis of his guilt must flow naturally from the facts proved and
him (Restituto), this would not suffice to find accused-appellant in conspiracy with must be consistent with all of them." This is certainly not the case here.
Dorico Caballes. As we ruled in People v. Elijorde:
. . . Conspiracy must be proved as indubitably as the crime itself through
clear and convincing evidence, not merely by conjecture. To hold an
accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be
shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the
complicity. Hence, conspiracy exists in a situation where at the time the

People V Roche

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People V Roche

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People V Roche

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v.

You might also like