G.R. Nos. 148712-15 – 465 Phil. 477 – 420 SCRA 520 – Criminal Law – Qualifying Circumstance; Treachery – Aggravating Circumstance; Ignominy – Accomplices; Elements
At around 6pm on December 28, 1999, in Bauang, La Union, two armed men entered the house of Jessie Barnachea, then 12 years old. Jessie was able to hide under a bed. The two malefactors then shot Carmelita Barnachea (mother of Jessie), Felix Barnachea (brother of Jessie), Rubenson Abance (cousin of Jessie), and Victorino Lolarga (uncle of Jessie). After being shot, Victorino’s penis was also cut by the malefactors.
Witnesses say that after the commotion inside the house, the two malefactors boarded a get away jeep which was earlier guarded by masked lookouts. The neighbors immediately radioed the police and the get away jeep was later apprehended. On board the said jeep were the two malefactors (Dominador Cachola and Ernesto Amay) and six other men namely: Nestor Marquez, Benjamin Laegen, Rodolfo Sagun, Rodemir Guerzo, Mellke Ignacio, and Nelson Echabaria.
Two hours after the incident, Jessie identified Cachola and Amay as the shooters. He said he recognized them because the two were unmasked when they entered the house. The next day, Jessie again identified Cachola and Amay in a police line-up. And on another day, Jessie again identified Cachola and Amay through photographs.
Eventually, Cachola and Amay were convicted for murder. The other 6 were convicted as accomplices to the crime. The court, in convicting the accused for murder, reasoned that treachery is present and that on the killing of Victorino, ignominy is present because his penis was cut off.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not ignominy was properly appreciated by the trial court as an aggravating circumstance.
2. Whether or not the 6 other co-accused are accomplices.
HELD:
1. No. The fact that Victorino’s penis was cut off does not immediately give rise to the aggravating circumstance of ignominy. In the first placed, it must be so alleged in the Information (this was not so in this case). Secondly, for ignominy to be appreciated, it is required that the offense be committed in a manner that tends to make its effect more humiliating, thus adding to the victim’s moral suffering. Where the victim was already dead when his body or a part thereof was dismembered, ignominy cannot be taken against the accused. Here, Victorino’s penis was cut off after he was already dead.
2. No. The 6 other accused are not proven to be accomplices to the crime. To hold a person liable as an accomplice, two elements must concur:
(1) community of design, which means that the accomplice knows of, and concurs with, the criminal design of the principal by direct participation; and
(2) the performance by the accomplice of previous or simultaneous acts that are not indispensable to the commission of the crime.
In the present case, neither element were proven. The mere presence of the six appellants in the company of appellants Cachola and Amay on board a jeep is not evidence of their knowledge of, or assent to, the criminal design to perpetuate the massacre. That they were found to be with appellants Cachola and Amay almost two hours after the commission of the crime does not constitute previous or simultaneous act.
Note that witnesses testified that the men guarding the get away jeep were masked. There is no solid proof that the 6 other accused found to be with Cachola and Amay were the same masked men at the time of the incident. No one identified them in court hence there is reasonable doubt in their favor.
