Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • People Vs Corbes

    Uploaded by

    Rand Roy Mosquiola
    62 views1 page
    Six armed men robbed a corporation, taking cash and shooting and killing a security guard. Daniel Corbes and Manuel Vergel were found guilty as principals by conspiracy for their role as lookouts and driver of the getaway vehicle. The Supreme Court ruled that Corbes and Vergel were not principals by conspiracy for the crime of robbery with homicide. As their role was not indispensable and it was not proven they agreed to kill to successfully carry out the robbery, their liability was reduced to accomplices of robbery only.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    2. People vs Corbes

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Six armed men robbed a corporation, taking cash and shooting and killing a security guard. Daniel Corbes and Manuel Vergel were found guilty as principals by conspiracy for their role as lookouts and driver of the getaway vehicle. The Supreme Court ruled that Corbes and Vergel were not principals by conspiracy for the crime of robbery with homicide. As their role was not indispensable and it was not proven they agreed to kill to successfully carry out the robbery, their liability was reduced to accomplices of robbery only.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    62 views1 page

    People Vs Corbes

    Uploaded by

    Rand Roy Mosquiola
    Six armed men robbed a corporation, taking cash and shooting and killing a security guard. Daniel Corbes and Manuel Vergel were found guilty as principals by conspiracy for their role as lookouts and driver of the getaway vehicle. The Supreme Court ruled that Corbes and Vergel were not principals by conspiracy for the crime of robbery with homicide. As their role was not indispensable and it was not proven they agreed to kill to successfully carry out the robbery, their liability was reduced to accomplices of robbery only.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    People vs. Corbes GR No.

    113470
    (Conspiracy, Revised Penal Code)

    FACTS:

    At about nine o'clock in the morning of 17 November 1990 six (6) armed men entered the premises of the
    Caloocan Consortium Corporation at No. 305 Cordero Street, Caloocan City, and took away from the
    establishment P169,000.00 in cash and P4,500.00 from Mateo Figuracion, an employee therein. They
    also took with them the .38 calibre revolver of security guard Timoteo Palicpic whom they shot to death.
    The malefactors then ran towards 8th Avenue where Daniel Corbes and Manuel Vergel had parked their
    getaway vehicle, a blue passenger jeep. They then sped away.

    The six others remained at large while Vergel and Corbes were found guilty as principals by conspiracy of
    the crime of robbery with homicide. On appeal, they alleged that they did not participate in the killing of
    Timoteo Palicpic because they were not present when the crime of robbery and homicide was committed,
    they merely served as lookouts and driver of a get away vehicle.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not Corbes and Vergel were principals by conspiracy of the crime of robbery with homicide.

    RULING:

    NO, Corbes and Vergel were not principals by conspiracy of the crime of robbery with homicide.

    Where the quantum of proof required to establish conspiracy is lacking, the doubt created as to
    whether accused acted as principal or accomplice will always be resolved in favor of the milder form of
    liability, that of a mere accomplice… only because their role in the commission of the crime was not
    indispensable.

    In this case, we reduce appellants' liability to the crime of robbery only. It was not established by
    the evidence that the other accused, who are at large, had agreed to kill if necessary to carry out
    successfully the plan to rob. On the contrary, the records show that one of the robbers berated the
    gunman for having shot the security guard. Therefore, what appellants may be said to have joined was
    merely the criminal design to rob, which makes them accomplices. Their complicity must accordingly be
    limited to the robbery, not to the killing of Timoteo Palicpic. Waiting only at the parked jeep at 8th Avenue
    could not have given them the opportunity to prevent the killing, as is required of one seeking relief from
    liability for assaults committed during the robbery.

    NOTE:

    The Court had occasion to rule that the jeep driver, who was unaware of the killing perpetrated
    inside the building as he stayed always near his jeep, could not be deemed a co-conspirator in the killing
    of the guards, as the killing was not part of the original plan but arose only during the exigency of the
    moment.

    You might also like