People v Yao circumstantial evidence adequately reinforced its theory that Petrus was the
G.R. No. 208170, August 20, 2014 perpetrator of the act.
Topic: Articles 16-20 CA – affirmed the conviction of both
Doctrine: Accomplices; Jurisprudence is instructive of the elements required, in Issue: WON the evidence proved the degree of responsibility of each accused for
accordance with Article 18 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), in order that a the crime of kidnapping for ransom.
person may be considered an accomplice.—Jurisprudence is instructive of the SC: Yes
elements required, in accordance with Article 18 of the RPC, in order that a person
may be considered an accomplice, namely, (1) that there be a community of There is no doubt that Petrus is liable as principal of the crime of kidnapping for
design; that is, knowing the criminal design of the principal by direct participation, ransom. Susana, on the other hand, is liable only as an accomplice to the crime as
he concurs with the latter in his purpose; (2) that he cooperates in the execution by correctly found by the lower courts. It must be emphasized that there was no
previous or simultaneous act, with the intention of supplying material or moral aid evidence proving that Susana participated in the decision to commit the criminal
in the execution of the crime in an efficacious way; and (3) that there be a relation act. The only evidence the prosecution had against her was the testimony of
between the acts done by the principal and those attributed to the person charged Alastair to the effect that he remembered her as the woman who gave food to him
as accomplice. or who accompanied his kidnapper whenever he would bring food to him every
breakfast, lunch and dinner. Jurisprudence is instructive of the elements required,
Facts: In January 2004 Alastair Onglingswam, a lawyer and businessman from in accordance with Article 18 of the RPC, in order that a person may be considered
the US, went out from Makati Shangrila Hotel where he was billeted and took a an accomplice, namely, (1) that there be a community of design; that is, knowing
taxi intending to go to Virra Mall, San Juan. When he awoke he was handcuffed the criminal design of the principal by direct participation, he concurs with the
and chained. A man wearing a red mask introduced himself as “John” and latter in his purpose; (2) that he cooperates in the execution by previous or
informed him that he was being kidnapped for ransom and that he will be allowed simultaneous act, with the intention of supplying material or moral aid in the
to make phone calls to his family and friends in order to raise US$600K as ransom execution of the crime in an efficacious way; and (3) that there be a relation
and Php20K a day as room and board fee. He was held in captive for 22days. He between the acts done by the principal and those attributed to the person charged
was allowed to communicate with his family almost daily to prove that he was still as accomplice.
alive and was served with meals almost 5x daily either by John or by another
Susana knew of the criminal design of her husband, Petrus, but she kept quiet and
accused Susan. He was rescued by members of the Police Anti-Crime and
never reported the incident to the police authorities. Instead, she stayed with Petrus
Emergency Response Task Force (PACER) when it received information that a
inside the house and gave food to the victim or accompanied her husband when he
taxi driver was victimizing passengers. PACER flagged down the taxi, the driver
brought food to the victim. Susana not only countenanced Petrus’ illegal act, but
turned out to be Petrus Yau, a British national, who was not able to produce any
also supplied him with material and moral aid. It has been held that being present
license or car registration. He was shown a photo of Alastair and asked if he knew
and giving moral support when a crime is being committed make a person
him and Petrus answered yes, that the man was being kept in his house. Petrus was
responsible as an accomplice in the crime committed. As keenly observed by the
placed under arrest and all belongings confiscated.
RTC, the act of giving food by Susana to the victim was not essential and
indispensable for the perpetration of the crime of kidnapping for ransom but
During the trial, Alastair positively identified Petrus Yao as his captor and taxi
merely an expression of sympathy or feeling of support to her husband. Moreover,
driver. Petrus and Susana, his wife, denied having committed the crime.
this Court is guided by the ruling in People v. De Vera, where it was stressed that
in case of doubt, the participation of the offender will be considered as that of an
RTC – convicted Petrus Yau as principal of the crime of kidnapping for ransom
accomplice rather than that of a principal.
and serious illegal detention, and Susana Yau, as accomplice. The RTC found the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses credible and sufficient, and stated that the
