PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDGAR VILLANUEVA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Villanueva

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted two brothers, Wilson Villanueva and Edgar Villanueva, for the killing of Amando Mandane. The trial court convicted Wilson as principal in murder and Edgar as an accomplice. Only Edgar appealed, and the question before the Supreme Court is narrow but instructive: when does a person who did not himself strike the fatal blow become an accomplice in the felony of another? The case matters because it fixes the requisites of complicity and shows how a single act, here the flicking of a lighter, can be read as criminal cooperation rather than innocent conduct.

Procedural History

The accused were charged with murder before the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon, Branch 52. Upon arraignment they pleaded not guilty, and after trial the court rendered judgment on April 1, 1993. It found Wilson Villanueva guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of murder and imposed reclusion perpetua with its accessories. It found Edgar Villanueva guilty beyond reasonable doubt as an accomplice and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of four years, two months and one day of prision correccional as minimum to ten years of prision mayor as maximum. Both were ordered to indemnify the heirs of Amando Mandane jointly and severally in the amount of 50,000 pesos, with 7,000 pesos in actual and compensatory damages and 30,000 pesos in moral damages.

Both accused brought their appeal to the Supreme Court. Wilson abandoned his appeal, and the Court dismissed it, with judgment entered on July 25, 1994. The appeal of Edgar Villanueva remained, and the Court resolved it on the merits. The Office of the Solicitor General filed a manifestation and motion in lieu of its brief recommending Edgar's acquittal, on the ground that his guilt as an accomplice was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Facts

At about half past six in the evening of March 1, 1985, Amando Mandane and Ronald Aviso joined Edgar Villanueva, who had invited them to drink for his birthday. They went to the house of Edgar's brother Wilson, uphill at Tres Marias in Donsol, Sorsogon. Wilson was not there when they arrived, but they drank just the same. Edgar brought out gin and beer, and after the beer was consumed he invited his companions to the dance at the plaza, preparatory to the town fiesta. The three walked downhill toward the plaza at about nine o'clock in the evening, side by side, Edgar on the left, Amando in the middle, and Ronald on the right.

As they walked along Tres Marias Drive, Edgar suddenly lighted his lighter. Shortly after, Wilson appeared from nowhere and hacked Amando, who cried out and slumped to the ground. Edgar rushed to his brother's side and joined him. Ronald tried to lift Amando but Wilson hacked him on the right shoulder, and Edgar struck him on the right side of his waist. Ronald ran for his life. Two men trailing behind, Pacifico Herrera, Junior and Romeo Balane, saw the fallen man and were themselves threatened with bolos by the two brothers, so they fled. A couple passing on the road, Osias Gabarda and Elena Gabarda, saw Wilson holding a bolo beside the dead man, and Wilson told Osias to lower his flashlight.

Amando Mandane died from the hack wounds. The trial court found no evidence of a planned assault and ruled out conspiracy, but held Edgar liable as an accomplice because of his acts of lighting the lighter and siding with his brother. Edgar appealed, insisting that he flicked the lighter only to light the dark road.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in declaring Edgar Villanueva an accomplice of his brother Wilson Villanueva in the crime of murder.
• Whether or not the act of flicking the lighter, together with his subsequent conduct, constituted cooperation in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts.

Applicable Provisions

The decision applies the concept of the accomplice under the Revised Penal Code, and the Court states its requisites as follows:

In order that a person may be considered an accomplice, the following requisites must concur: (1) community of design; that is, knowing the criminal design of the principal by direct participation, he concurs with the latter in his purpose; (2) that he cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts, with the intention of supplying material and moral aid in the execution of the crime in an efficacious way; and (3) that there be a relation between the acts done by the principal and those attributed to the person charged as an accomplice.

These requisites are the test the Court applies to Edgar's conduct, and they supply the rule that decides the appeal.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court did not err. Edgar's participation as an accomplice was clearly established. The Court found that his act of flicking his lighter was a pre-arranged signal for his brother Wilson to attack. It asked why he would carry a lighter when, by his own admission, he was a non-smoker, and it found the claim that he used it for illumination a weak excuse because the way was clearly lit by the moon. It quoted with approval the trial court's observation that one does not have to be very intuitive to sense that the lighting of the lighter was a signal to an assailant hovering in the unlighted place nearby that the persons with him were the target.

On the second issue, the Court held that Edgar cooperated both by a previous and by a simultaneous act. He lighted the lighter before the attack, and he then followed his brother in hacking Ronald Aviso on the right side of his waist, in a determined move to finish what his brother had started. The Court also rejected the challenge to the credibility of Ronald Aviso, accepting the trial court's explanation that his inability to recount everything at once was due to the shock of a traumatic experience, being both a witness and a victim, and that this did not impair his intrinsic credibility.

The Court restated the governing principle in these terms:

An accomplice must therefore have knowledge of the criminal intention of the principal, and his complicity is evidenced by a simultaneous or previous act which contributes to the commission of the felony, as an aid thereto, whether physical or moral.

It added that the participation of an accomplice presupposes that the principal and the accomplice acted in conjunction and directed their efforts to the same end.

Doctrine

An accomplice is one who, knowing the criminal design of the principal by direct participation, concurs in that purpose and cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts, with the intention of supplying material and moral aid in an efficacious way, and there must be a relation between the acts of the principal and those attributed to the accomplice. Knowledge of the principal's criminal intention is essential, and complicity may be shown by acts that aid the felony physically or morally. A seemingly innocuous act, such as lighting a lighter in the dark, may be treated as a signal and as cooperation when the circumstances show it was meant to aid the attack. The accomplice's liability rests on cooperation, not on conspiracy, so the absence of a planned assault does not exonerate him.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court in full, with costs against the accused-appellant Edgar Villanueva.

Remember This

Memorize the three requisites of an accomplice: community of design, cooperation by previous or simultaneous acts with intent to supply material or moral aid, and a relation between the principal's acts and those of the accomplice. Examiners use this case to test whether a seemingly innocent act can amount to complicity, and to distinguish an accomplice from a conspirator where no prior plan is proven.