Vino v. People
Vino v. People
his assailant.
G.R. No. 84163, October 19, 1989
The autopsy report of his body shows the following -
LITO VINO, PETITIONER, VS. THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS. "Gunshot wound
POE Sub Scapular-5-6- ICA. Pal
RESOLUTION
1 & 2 cm. diameter left.
GANCAYCO, J.: Slug found sub cutaneously,
2nd ICS Mid Clavicular line left.
The issue posed in the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner of the
resolution of this Court dated January 18, 1989 denying the herein petition is
CAUSE OF DEATH
whether or not a finding of guilt as an accessory to murder can stand in the
light of the acquittal of the alleged principal in a separate proceeding.
Tension Hemathorax”[1]
At about 7:00 o'clock in the evening of March 21, 1985, Roberto Tejada left
Lito Vino and Sgt. Jesus Salazar were charged with murder in a complaint
their house at Burgos Street, Poblacion, Balingao, Pangasinan to go to the
filed by PC Sgt. Ernesto N. Ordoño in the Municipal Trial Court of
house of Isidro Salazar to watch television. At around 11:00 P. M., while
Balungao, Pangasinan. However, on March 22, 1985, the municipal court
Ernesto, the father of Roberto, was resting, he heard two gunshots.
indorsed the case of Salazar to the Judge Advocate General's Office (JAGO)
Thereafter, he heard Roberto cry out in a loud voice saying that he had been
inasmuch as he was a member of the military, while the case against Vino
shot. He saw Roberto ten (10) meters away so he switched on the lights of
was given due course by the issuance of a warrant for his arrest. Ultimately,
their house. Aside from Ernesto and his wife, his children Ermalyn and Julius
the case was indorsed to the fiscal's office who then filed an information
were also in the house. They went down to meet Roberto who was crying and
charging Vino of the crime of murder in the Regional Trial Court of Rosales,
they called for help from the neighbors. The neighbors responded by turning
Pangasinan.
on their lights and the street lights and coming down from their houses. After
meeting Roberto, Ernesto and Julius saw Lito Vino and Jessie Salazar riding
Upon arraignment, the accused Vino entered a plea of not guilty. Trial then
a bicycle coming from the south. Vino was the one driving the bicycle while
commenced with the presentation of evidence for the prosecution. Instead of
Salazar was carrying an armalite. Upon reaching Ernesto's house, they
presenting evidence in his own behalf, the accused filed a motion to dismiss
stopped to watch Roberto. Salazar pointed his armalite at Ernesto and his
for insufficiency of evidence to which the prosecutor filed an answer. On
companions. Thereafter, the two left.
This is not a case of a variance between the offense charged and the offense The next issue that must be resolved is whether or not the trial of an
proved or established by the evidence, and the offense as charged is included accessory can proceed without awaiting the result of the separate charge
in or necessarily includes the offense proved, in which case the defendant against the principal. The answer is also in the affirmative. The
shall be convicted of the offense proved included in that which is charged, or corresponding responsibilities of the principal, accomplice and accessory are
of the offense charged included in that which is proved.[5] distinct from each other. As long as the commission of the offense can be
duly established in evidence the determination of the liability of the
In the same light, this is not an instance where after trial has begun, it appears accomplice or accessory can proceed independently of that of the principal.
that there was a mistake in charging the proper offense, and the defendant
cannot be convicted of the offense charged, or of any other offense The third question is this - considering that the alleged principal in this case
necessarily included therein, in which case the defendant must not be was acquitted can the conviction of the petitioner as an accessory be
discharged if there appears to be a good cause to detain him in custody, so maintained?
that he can be charged and made to answer for the proper offense.[6]
In United States vs. Villaluz and Palermo,[7] a case involving the crime of
In this case, the correct offense of murder was charged in the information. theft, this Court ruled that notwithstanding the acquittal of the principal due
The commission of the said crime was established by the evidence. There is to the exempting circumstance of minority or insanity (Article 12, Revised
no variance as to the offense committed. The variance is in the participation Penal Code), the accessory may nevertheless be convicted if the crime was in
or complicity of the petitioner. While the petitioner was being held fact established.
responsible as a principal in the information, the evidence adduced, however,
showed that his participation is merely that of an accessory. The greater Corollary to this is United States vs. Mendoza,[8] where this Court held in an
responsibility, necessarily includes the lesser. An accused can be validly arson case that the acquittal of the principal must likewise result in the
convicted as an accomplice or accessory under an information charging him acquittal of the accessory where it was shown that no crime was committed
as a principal. inasmuch as the fire was the result of an accident. Hence, there was no basis
for the conviction of the accessory.
At the onset, the prosecution should have charged the petitioner as an
accessory right then and there. The degree of responsibility of petitioner was In the present case, the commission of the crime of murder and the
responsibility of the petitioner as an accessory was established. By the same
token there is no doubt that the commission of the same offense had been scene of the crime immediately after the commission of the crime of murder.
proven in the separate case against Salazar who was charged as principal. The commission of the crime and the participation of the principal or
However, he was acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt by the same assailant, although not identified, was established. In such case, the Court
judge who convicted Vino as an accessory. The trial court held that the holds that the accessory can be prosecuted and held liable independently of
identity of the assailant was not clearly established. It observed that only the assailant.
Julius Tejada identified Salazar carrying a rifle while riding on the bicycle
driven by Vino, which testimony is uncorroborated, and that two other We may visualize another situation as when the principal died or escaped
witnesses, Ernesto Tejada and Renato Parvian, who were listed in the before he could be tried and sentenced. Should the accessory be acquitted
information, who can corroborate the testimony of Julius Tejada, were not thereby even if the commission of the offense and the responsibility of the
presented by the prosecution. accused as an accessory was duly proven? The answer is no, he should be
held criminally liable as an accessory.
The trial court also did not give due credit to the dying declaration of the
victim pinpointing Salazar as his assailant on the ground that it was not Although in this case involving Vino the evidence tended to show that the
shown the victim revealed the identity of Salazar to his father and brother assailant was Salazar, as two witnesses saw him with a rifle aboard the
who came to his aid immediately after the shooting. The court a quo also bicycle driven by Vino, in the separate trial of the case of Salazar, as above
deplored the failure of the prosecution and law enforcement agencies to discussed, he was acquitted as the trial court was not persuaded that he was
subject to ballistic examinations the bullet slug recovered from the body of positively identified to be the man with the gun riding on the bicycle driven
the victim and the two empty armalite bullet empty shells recovered at the by Vino. In the trial of the case against Vino, wherein he did not even adduce
crime scene and to compare it with samples taken from the service rifle of evidence in his defense, his liability as such an accessory was established
Salazar. Thus, the trial court made the following observation: beyond reasonable doubt in that he assisted in the escape of the assailant
from the scene of the crime. The identity of the assailant is of no material
"There appears to be a miscarriage of justice in this case due to the ineptitude significance for the purpose of the prosecution the accessory. Even if the
of the law enforcement agencies to gather material and important evidence assailant can not be identified the responsibility of Vino as an accessory is
and the seeming lack of concern of the public prosecutor to direct the indubitable.
production of such evidence for the successful prosecution of the case."[9]
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is denied and this denial is
Hence, in said case, the acquittal of the accused Salazar is predicated on the FINAL.
failure of the prosecution to adduce the quantum of evidence required to
generate a conviction as he was not positively identified as the person who SO ORDERED.
was seen holding a rifle escaping aboard the bicycle of Vino.
Narvasa, (Chairman), and Medialdea, JJ., concur.
A similar situation may be cited. The accessory was seen driving a bicycle Cruz and Griño-Aquino, JJ., see dissenting opinion.
with an unidentified person as passenger holding a carbine fleeing from the