The Supreme Court denied the petition of Lito Vino, who was found guilty as an accessory to murder in a separate trial from Jessie Salazar, who was acquitted as the principal in a different proceeding. The Court held that the identity of the principal is not material to prosecuting an accessory, and Vino's responsibility was established through witness testimony that placed him at the scene driving the getaway vehicle with Salazar carrying a weapon. While Salazar was acquitted due to insufficient evidence establishing him as the assailant, the crime of murder was still proven to have occurred, and Vino's role as an accessory was indubitable based on the evidence presented.
The Supreme Court denied the petition of Lito Vino, who was found guilty as an accessory to murder in a separate trial from Jessie Salazar, who was acquitted as the principal in a different proceeding. The Court held that the identity of the principal is not material to prosecuting an accessory, and Vino's responsibility was established through witness testimony that placed him at the scene driving the getaway vehicle with Salazar carrying a weapon. While Salazar was acquitted due to insufficient evidence establishing him as the assailant, the crime of murder was still proven to have occurred, and Vino's role as an accessory was indubitable based on the evidence presented.
The Supreme Court denied the petition of Lito Vino, who was found guilty as an accessory to murder in a separate trial from Jessie Salazar, who was acquitted as the principal in a different proceeding. The Court held that the identity of the principal is not material to prosecuting an accessory, and Vino's responsibility was established through witness testimony that placed him at the scene driving the getaway vehicle with Salazar carrying a weapon. While Salazar was acquitted due to insufficient evidence establishing him as the assailant, the crime of murder was still proven to have occurred, and Vino's role as an accessory was indubitable based on the evidence presented.
Lito Vino v People The identity of the assailant is of no material significance for the
purpose of the prosecution of the accessory. Even if the assailant
Crime of Murder The identity of the assailant or principal is of no cannot be identified the responsibility of Vino as an accessory is material significance for the purpose of the prosecution of the indubitable. accessory Hence, petition denied. Doctrine:
Facts:
Roberto left their house to go somewhere, while Ernesto father of Roberto was resting heard 2 gunshots, and heard Roberto cry out in load saying that he had been shot.
The family went down to see and Roberto. The neighbor responded by turning 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 a bicycle coming from the south.
Vino was the one driving the bicycle while Salazar was carrying an armalite. Upon reaching Ernesto's house, they stopped to watch Roberto. Salazar pointed his armalite at Ernesto and his companions.
Lito Vino and Sgt. Jesus Salazar were charged with murder
Upon arraignment, the accused Vino entered a plea of not guilty. RTC found ino guilty as an accessory to the crime of murder and imposing on him the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of 4 Years and 2 months of prision correccional as minimum to 8 years of prision mayor as maximum.
While the case against Salazar was remanded to the civil court as he was discharged from the military services and Jessie Salazar was acquitted by the trial court in a decision that was rendered on August 29, 1988.
Issue: whether or not a Vino can found guilty as an accessory to murder even that the Salazar was acquitted as principal in a separate proceeding.
whether or not the trial of an accessory can proceed without awaiting the result of the separate charge against the principal.
Held:
YES.There is no doubt that the crime of murder had been committed and that the evidence tended to show that Jessie Salazar was the assailant. That the petitioner was present during its commission or must have known its commission is the only logical conclusion considering that immediately thereafter, he was seen driving a bicycle with Salazar holding an armalite, and they were together when they left shortly thereafter. At least two witnesses, Ernesto and Julius Tejada, attested to these facts. It is thus clear that petitioner actively assisted Salazar in his escape. Petitioner's liability is that of an accessory.
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 proven in the separate case against Salazar who was charged as principal. However, he was acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt by the same judge who convicted Vino as an accessory.
The trial court held that the identity of the assailant (salazar) was not clearly established. It observed that only Julius Tejada identified Salazar carrying a rifle while riding on the bicycle driven by Vino, which testimony is uncorroborated, and that two other witnesses, Ernesto Tejada and Renato Parvian who were listed in the information, who can corroborate the testimony of Julius Tejada, were not presented by the prosecution.
There appears to be a miscarriage of justice in this case due to the ineptitude of the law enforcement agencies to gather material and important evidence and the seeming lack of concern of the public prosecutor to direct the production of such evidence for the successful prosecution of the case. the acquittal of the accused Salazar is predicated on the failure of the prosecution to adduce the quantum of evidence