THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. DEMETRIO CAIMBRE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. EDILBERTO JUSTIMBASTE, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Edilberto Justimbaste, Demetrio Caimbre and Vicente Caimbre were charged with
murder in the Court of First Instance of Leyte. Upon arraignment, Demetrio
Caimbre pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of homicide and was sentenced
accordingly. After trial upon a plea of not guilty, Edilberto Justimbaste and
Vicente Caimbre were convicted, as co-principals by inducement, of the crime of
murder, and each sentenced to life imprisonment, to indemnify, jointly and
severally, the heirs of the deceased Angel Olimpo in the amount of P6,000.00,
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay
proportionately the costs.

From said decision, only Edilberto Justimbaste interposed the present
appeal.

The prosecution evidence shows that at about 10:00 o’clock in the evening of
May 4, 1956, Angel Olimpo and Fausto Broa arrived at the house of Esteban
Caimbre at Sitio Cabaluran, Dagami, Leyte, and sat themselves on a mortar.
Shortly thereafter, Demetrio Caimbre arrived, sat on the same mortar and then,
without any provocation, slashed Angel Olimpo with a bolo. Olimpo ran to a
nearby palay seed bed pursued by Demetrio up to the border of the ricefield
where he was overtaken by his pursuer who slashed him) again several times with
his bolo and then left him in the ricefield. During the pursuit appellant told
Demetrio: “You had better killed him”. Upon the suggestion of Fausto Broa, the
victim was removed from the ricefield and taken to higher ground. When Vicente
Caimbre noticed that he was still alive, he told his brother, Demetrio: “Finish
him, finish him”. Whereupon, Demetrio cut Olimpo’s neck, saying: “He would be
lucky if he could still survive”.

Upon the above facts—and considering that in a criminal case all doubts
should be resolved in favor of the accused— we are of the opinion that the
appealed decision should be reversed and appellant Justimbaste acquitted.

In the first place, the determining causes of the crime appear to have been
Demetrio’s own determination to kill and his brother’s inducement and not that
which allegedly came from appellant when he uttered the words: “You had better
killed him”. It is true that thereafter Demetrio overtook his victim and started
attacking him anew with his bolo, but he afterwards left him prostrate in the
ricefield from which place he was later taken to higher ground. It was then
that, noticing that the victim was still alive, Demetrio’s brother urged him to
finish him up, and, obeying the suggestion, Demetrio severed the head of his
victim from the trunk. In this connection it does not affirmatively appear that
the wounds already inflicted upon Angel Olimpo before his head was cut off were
necessarily mortal.

In the second place, in determining whether the acts or utterances of an
accused are sufficient to make him guilty as co-principal by inducement, it must
be shown that the inducement was of such a nature and made in such a way as to
become the determining cause of the crime, and that such inducement was offered
precisely with the intention of producing the result. In other words, it must
appear that the inducement was made directly with the intention of procuring the
commission of the crime and that such inducement was the determining cause
thereof. In the present case, there is nothing to show that appellant had any
reason at all to have Angel Olimpo killed. On the other hand, even before he
allegedly uttered the words attributed to him, Demetrio Caimbre had already
boloed his victim several times and when the latter ran away he pursued him
until he overtook him in a nearby palay seed bed where he slashed him again
several times with his bolo. Obviously he needed no exhortation from appellant
to .persuade him to kill his victim. To this we must add the circumstance that
there is no evidence to show that appellant had sufficient moral influence over
Demetrio Caimbre as to make the latter obey him blindly.

Wherefore, the appealed decision is hereby reversed and appellant Edilberto
Justimbaste is acquitted, with his proportionate share of the costs de
oficio.

Paras, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes,
J.B.L., Barrera, Gutierrez David, and Paredes, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed.