Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1912 > March 1912 Decisions > G.R. No. 6783 March 1, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. LUIS REOGILON, ET AL

022 Phil 127:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 6783. March 1, 1912. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LUIS REOGILON and PAULINO DINGLE, Defendants-Appellants.

Bernabe de Guzman for Appellants.

Attorney-General Villamor for appellee

SYLLABUS


1. MURDER CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY; PRINCIPALS. — One who stands guard outside the window of a house while another enters and murders the occupant, for the purpose of keeping others away, or of warning his companion and fellow-conspirator of danger, takes a direct part in the commission of the crime of murder, and is guilty as a principal.


D E C I S I O N


CARSON, J. :


The defendants and appellants in this case were convicted of the crime of assassination as defined and penalized In article 403 of the Penal Code, the defendant Luis Reogilon as principal, and Paulino Dingle as an accomplice. Pending the proceedings in this court, Reogilon withdrew his appeal and the only question now presented for our consideration is the appeal of Paulino Dingle.

We are of opinion that the evidence of record fully sustains the contention of the prosecution in this case and the findings of the lower court as to the facts. The learned trial judge went very minutely into the evidence and we are in entire accord with his findings of fact; we shall not, therefore, review the evidence in detail.

It appears that on the night of October 5, 1910, the two defendants in this case went to the house of one Gregorio Ballesteros, a resident of the village of Natividad, district of San Jose de Barangobong, of the Province of Pangasinan, and that Luis Reogilon entered the house, cut the throat of Gregorio Ballesteros with a bolo, almost severing the head from the body at one stroke, whilst his codefendant Paulino Dingle remained outside on guard at the window with a drawn bolo: and that their victim died soon thereafter and was unable to speak or show any material sign of consciousness.

The trial judge, upon proof of these facts, held the defendant Paulino Dingle guilty as an accomplice. We are of opinion, however, that he should have been convicted as a principal.

Principals, under the definition of article 13 of the Penal Code, are those (1) who take a direct part in the commission of the act; (2) those who directly force or induce others to commit it; and (3) those who cooperate in the commission of the act by another, and without which it would not have been accomplished. We have frequently held that under this definition one who aids and abets in the commission of a crime by standing guard while others actually commit it, is guilty as a principal.

In standing guard to keep others away, or to warn his companion and fellow-conspirator of danger of discovery, the accused took "a direct part in the commission of the crime." The fact that he was standing at the window, outside the house, rather than inside, does not change his essential relation to the commission of the crime, and to his codefendant who was guilty of the specific material act which resulted in the death of their victim. He was in fact present, aiding and abetting in the commission of the crime.

"One who shares the guilty purpose and encourages and abets the crime by his presence at the time of its perpetration is guilty as principal even though he may have taken no part in its material execution." (U.S. v. Santos Et. Al., 2 Phil. Rep., 453.)

"Where it appears that the defendants, after conspiring together to kill the deceased, went to his house for the purpose of carrying out their common intent and prepared to cooperate to that end, and some of them actually killed the deceased, while the others posted themselves around the building ready to prevent his escape or render any assistance which might be necessary, all will be held equally guilty as principals, irrespective of the individual participation of each in the material act of the murder." (U.S. v. Bundal Et. Al., 3 Phil. Rep., 89.)

"When the object of the crime is robbery, for the execution of which the defendants prepared themselves and began with the killing of the victim, all are principals and liable for the consequence of the unlawful acts committed by any one of them, even though some of them have not actually participated in the execution thereof, where it is shown that they have agreed upon and planned the crime of robbery, were present intentionally when the overt acts were committed, accompanied the actual executor oś the crime to the place where said crime was to be carried out, cooperated in the consummation of the crime, and, finally, participated in the distribution of the effects robbed." (U.S. v. Santos Et. Al., 4 Phil. Rep., 189.)

We are of opinion, therefore, that the judgment of conviction of the defendant Paulino Dingle as an accomplice, and the penalty imposed upon him should be reversed, and we find the said Paulino Dingle guilty as principal of the crime of assassination with which he was charged, with the aggravating circumstances that the crime was committed at night, and in the house of the offended person, and the extenuating circumstance set forth in article 11 of the Penal Code. We, therefore, impose upon the said Paulino Dingle the penalty of cadena perpetua (life imprisonment), together with the accessory penalties prescribed by article 54 of the Penal Code, the payment of one-half of the costs of these proceedings, and jointly and severally with his codefendant Luis Reogilon the indemnification of the heirs of the deceased, Gregorio Ballesteros, in the sum of P1,000. So ordered.

Torres, Mapa, Johnson, Moreland, and Trent, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





March-1912 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 6783 March 1, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. LUIS REOGILON, ET AL

    022 Phil 127

  • G.R. No. 6183 March 2, 1912 - JUAN SAMBRANO v. BALDOMERO AR ZAGA, ET AL

    022 Phil 131

  • G.R. No. 5902 March 7, 1912 - P. P. ANGEL ORTIZ, ET AL v. Chinaman FELIX MELLIZA

    022 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. 6472 March 7, 1912 - MANUELA ROSARIO, ET AL. v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY

    022 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. 6092 March 8, 1912 - TAN CHIONG SIAN v. INCHAUSTI & Co.

    022 Phil 152

  • G.R. No. 6874 March 8, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. CAYETANO RAMAYRAT

    022 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. 6891 March 8, 1912 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL, ET AL.

    022 Phil 192

  • G.R. No. 7350 March 8, 1912 - EUGENIA SAVILLA v. ESTEBAN SABELLANO, ET AL.

    022 Phil 197

  • G.R. No. 5735 March 9, 1912 - ESTATE OF LUIS R. YANGCO v. ANTONINO DE ASIS

    022 Phil 201

  • G.R. No. 7189 March 9, 1912 - ADOLFO RAZLAG v. SANCHO BALANTACBO

    022 Phil 205

  • G.R. No. 6163 March 14, 1912 - SON CUI, ET AL v. ATANASIA M. GUEPANGCO, ET AL

    022 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. 6801 March 14, 1912 - JULIANA BAGTAS v. ISIDORO PAGUIO, ET AL.

    022 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 6962 March 14, 1912 - INES FELICIANO v. ELISA CAMAHORT

    022 Phil 235

  • G.R. No. 7117 March 14, 1912 - AGUSTINA RAFOLS v. EMILIA RAFOLS, ET AL.

    022 Phil 237

  • G.R. No. 6622 March 15, 1912 - PAULA DIRILO v. INOCENCIO ROPERES, ET AL.

    022 Phil 246

  • G.R. No. 7020 March 15, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. DAMIAN SANTA ANA, ET AL

    022 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. 7037 March 15, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE LAUREL, ET AL.

    022 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 6748 March 16, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. AMBROSIO FIGUEROA

    022 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. 6574 March 19, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. AGUSTIN CLEMENTE

    022 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 7027 March 20, 1912 - GEORGE E. WORCESTER v. BUCKNALL STEAMSHIP LINES

    022 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. 5935 March 22, 1912 - STRACHAN & MACMURRAY v. SEGUNDO EMALDI

    022 Phil 295

  • G.R. No. 6585 March 22, 1912 - EULALIO LAGARIZA v. COMMANDING GEN. OF THE DIV. OF THE PHIL.

    022 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. 6809 March 22, 1912 - GREGORIO PEÑALOSA v. DEMETRIO TUASON, ET AL.

    022 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. 7040 March 22, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. MAXIMINO GONZALEZ, ET AL.

    022 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 7203 March 22, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. CHUA PUETE, ET AL

    022 Phil 327

  • G.R. No. 7294 March 22, 1912 - G. URRUTIA & COMPANY v. PASIG STEAMER & LIGHTER CO.

    022 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. 7144 March 23, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. Co CHICUYCO

    022 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 6918 March 25, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. YAP KIN CO

    022 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. 7075 March 25, 1912 - RODRIGO ALBANO v. CORNELIO AGTARAP, ET AL.

    022 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. 7124 March 25, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. MARIA ASUNCION

    022 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. 7474 March 25, 1912 - HENRY ATHOLL EDWARDS v. H. B. McCOY

    022 Phil 598

  • G.R. No. 6286 March 26, 1912 - GAVINA FERNANDEZ v. EULOGIO TRIA

    022 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. 6579 March 26, 1912 - CHIENG AH SUI v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    022 Phil 361

  • G.R. No. 6694 March 26, 1912 - MARIANO NARCIDA, ET AL v. BURTON E. BOWEN

    022 Phil 365

  • G.R. No. 6729 March 26, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. GUILLERMO FIDELDIA

    022 Phil 372

  • G.R. No. 7165 March 26, 1912 - DAMASA LAFORGA, ET AL. v. BRUNO LAFORGA

    022 Phil 374

  • G.R. No. 6651 March 28, 1912 - PAULINO JACINTO v. JULIANA SALVADOR, ET AL.

    022 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 6733 March 28, 1912 - VICTORIANO S. LAZO v. MARIANO N. LAZO, ET AL.

    022 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. 6920 March 28, 1912 - ALEJANDRA IRLANDA v. CATALINA PITARGUE, ET AL.

    022 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. 7289 March 28, 1912 - ANDRES S. TOBIAS, ET AL. v. GABRIEL C. ENRICO, ET AL.

    022 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. 6164 March 29, 1912 - JUAN MARBELLA v. DOMINGO SAMSON, ET AL.

    022 Phil 400

  • G.R. No. 6664 March 29, 1912 - PEDRO GERALDO v. MATEO ARPON

    022 Phil 407

  • G.R. No. 6690 March 29, 1912 - SILVESTRA V. TENORIO v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY

    022 Phil 411

  • G.R. No. 6886 March 29, 1912 - GAUDENCIO TABOTABO v. GREGORIA MOLERO

    022 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. 6958 March 29, 1912 - GABRIELA SANTOS v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    022 Phil 424

  • G.R. No. 7089 March 29, 1912 - JOSE T. PATERNO v. PEDRO AGUILA, ET AL

    022 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. 7094 March 29, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. HILARIO DE LA CRUZ

    022 Phil 429

  • G.R. No. 7688 March 29, 1912 - MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD & LIGHT CO. v. SIMPLICIO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL

    022 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. 6859 March 30, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. NICOLAS MATINONG, ET AL.

    022 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. 6912 March 30, 1912 - JOSE ARGUELLES v. PEDRO SYYAP, ET AL

    022 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. 7386 March 30, 1912 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. PEDRO P. ROXAS

    022 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. 7180 March 30, 1912 - RAFAEL ENRIQUEZ, ET AL. v. A. S. WATSON & CO. LTD.

    022 Phil 623