G.R. No.
L-30028 May 3l, 1982
PEOPLE V. DOBLE
FACTS:
Late at night 10 men, almost all of them heavily armed, left the shores of Manila in a
motor banca and proceeded to Navotas, Rizal to rob the Navotas Branch of the
Prudential Bank.The said bank had an unusual banking hours from midnight till 8AM.
Once in Navotas and taking advantage of the darkness of the night, eight (8) men
disembarked from the banca and proceeded to their mission. Once inside, they started
firing at the bank ceiling, walls and door of the vault. The 8 men returned to the waiting
motor banca with about P10k then sped way. As result of the shooting, many people got
killed and injured. Among those who got killed and injured were agents of the law.
Only five of the ten men were brought to trial, the rest still remain at large. Two of the
accused were acquitted. It is only Cresencio double Simeon Doble and Antonio
Romaquin appealing in the charge of bank robbery committed in band, with multiple
homicide, multiple frustrated homicide, and assault upon agents of persons in authority.
ISSUE:
Whether or not three of the accused can be considered as accomplices of the crime?
RULING:
o As to appellant Simeon, the evidence shows only that the malefactors met in his
house to discuss the plan to rob the Prudential Bank. This circumstance, standing
alone, does not conclude his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The facts do not
show that he performed any act tending to the perpetration of the robbery, nor
that he took a direct part therein or induced other persons to commit, or that he
cooperated in its consummation by some act without which it would not have
been committed. At most, his act amounted to joining in a conspiracy which is not
punishable. Mere knowledge, acquiescence, or approval of the act, without
cooperation or agreement to cooperate, is not enough to constitute one a party to
a conspiracy, but that there must be intentional participation in the transaction with a
view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose
o Simeon then was not a principal both by agreement and encouragement, for his non-
participation in the commission of the crime. Nor was it clearly proved that Simeon
received a part of the looted money as to make him an accessory. As recommended
by the SolGen, Simeon Double is entitled to acquittal with no sufficient evidence
to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt
o Next, as regards to the case of appellants Romaquin and Cresencio Doble, the
malefactors who waited in the banca both contended that their extrajudicial
statements upon which their conviction was principally made to rest, are inadmissible for
having been allegedly obtained by force and intimidation, and in violation of basic
constitutional rights to counsel and against self-incrimination.
o However, it must be noted that they didn’t present any medical cert. to attest to the
injuries allegedly inflicted. More so that their testimonies match each other and it
should also be noted that Celso Aquino’s testimony, as one of the accused, admitted
that no violence was inflicted on him to procure his statement. This is evidence enough
that the appellants could not have been dealth w/ differently as their co-accused Aquino
who was allowed to give his statement freely.
o The extrajudicial statements of the appellants are convincing to show that their
liability is less than that of a co-principal by conspiracy or by actual participation.
Cresencio was merely in charge of the banca and had no knowledge of the concrete
plan and execution of the crime.
o The mastermind obviously did not extend confidence in him as he was only asked to
provide a banca just a few hours before the commission of the crime. Nor was
Romaquin considered as principal malefactor as there was a gun pointed at him by
cresencio to prevent him from fleeing away from the scene, evident to show that he
joined in the criminal purpose and that his acts were not voluntary.
