People v.

Fronda, 222 SCRA 71 (1993) (Garcia)

G.R. Nos. 102361-62 May 14, 1993 | BIDIN, J. | Principal by indispensable cooperation? RTC: convicted the accused of murder as a principal by indispensable
cooperation. Appellant Fronda and Padua, and NPA members were the ones who
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE: People of the Philippines pointed the house where the brothers Balaan were to be found. Appellant accompanied
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: Rudy Fronda the members of the armed group to said house, and tied the victims' hands, Appellant
was handed a hunting knife by one of the armed men when they left the house,
DOCTRINE: Paragraph 3, Article 17, of the Revised Penal Code considers as Appellant joined the members of the armed group in bringing the victims to a forested
principals by indispensable cooperation "those who cooperate in the commission of area in the mountains, It was appellant who provided the spade and crowbar used in
the offense by another act without which it could not have been accomplished". Its digging the hole where the Balaan brothers were buried, Appellant was the one who
requisites are (1) participation of the subject accused in the criminal resolution and pointed the location where the victms' bodies buried, appellant, for a period of more
(2) performance by him of another act indispensable to the accomplishment of the than three (3) years, failed to report the incident to the authorities, and appellant did
crime. not in any way object, when he was ordered to tie the hands of the victims.

RTC Ruling: Murder as a principal by indispensable cooperation Accused Rudy Fronda shared the guilty purpose and encouraged and abetted the crime
SC Ruling: Murder as an accomplice. by his actuations as above illustrated, even though he may have taken no part in the
execution. The chain of circumstances as narrated above will show that he has rendered
the required assistance intentionally and knowingly, which led to the execution of the
ISSUES: Whether or not appellant is considered as a principal by indispensable felony. His external acts more than explain his participation as principal by
cooperation – NO. indispensable cooperation. Such external overt acts, are more than significant enough
FACTS: constittuting convincing proof leading to the ineluctable finding that accused Rudy
1. At about 6AM, the deceased Eduardo (Edwin) Balaan & Esminio Balaan who Fronda is guilty as such.
are brothers, were taken by 7 armed men in fatigue uniform with long
firearms, suspected to be NPA members, accompanied by accused Rudy Defense: Accused-appellant maintains that the prosecution was not able to present
Fronda and Roderick Padua from the house of one Ferminio Balaan. evidence to prove his participation in the killing of the brothers Balaan. The defense
2. The said Rudy Fronda and Roderick Padua are residents of the same submits that appellant was merely taken by the armed men as a "pointer" and as such,
barangay. he could not be considered as a principal by indispensable cooperation for the reason
3. The armed men tied the hands of Edwin and Esminio at their back lying down that the armed men could have taken other persons to perform the acts done by
face downward, in front of the house of Ferminio Balaan. appellant. Furthermore, appellant interposes the exempting circumstance of
4. The armed men together with Roderick Padua and Rudy Fronda proceeded uncontrollable fear (Art. 12 [6] RPC) claiming that all his acts were performed under
towards sitio Tulong, Cataratan, Allacapan, Cagayan passing through the the impulse of uncontrollable fear and to save his life.
ricefields (taking along with them the Balaan brothers)
5. Accused Rudy Fronda testified that on the night of June 10, 1986, he was RATIO: SC: No, appellant cannot be considered as a principal by indispensable
taken by the NPA's from his house, accompanied by Robert Peralta, alias Ka cooperation but as an accomplice. The acts performed by appellant are not, by
Jun and Roderick Padua, to look for the Balaan brothers. They were around themselves, indispensable to the killing of the brothers Balaan. As aforesaid to be
9 NPA's with then. They found Edwin Balaan and Esmineo Balaan, at the considered as a principal by indispensable cooperation, there must be direct
house of Ferminio Balaan, a brother. They tied their wrists/hands and brought participation in the criminal design by another act without which the crime could not
them to the mountain at Sitio Tulong, Cataratan, Allacapan, Cagayan. After have been committed. We note that the prosecution failed to present any evidence
that, the NPA's instructed them to go home, but in the afternoon of the same tending to establish appellant's conspiracy with the evil designs of the members of the
day June 11, 1986, Robert Peralta, alias Ka Jun, sent Elmer Martinez, Orlando NPA armed group. Neither was it established that appellant's acts were of such
Gonzales, George Peralta and Librado Duran to get him and further he was importance that the crime would not have been committed without him or that he
ordered to get a spade and a crowbar. They were ordered to dig a hole in the participated in the actual killing.
mountain, one (1) kilometer away from his house.
5. On March 21, 1989, the bodies or remains of the Balaan brothers were Records show that appellant's participation in the commission of the crime consisted
examined by the 17th Infantry Battalion. After which, the remains, (bones) were of: (1) leading the members of the armed group to the house where the victims were
brought to the house of one Freddie Arevalo, a relative of the deceased, at Barangay found; (2) tying the victims' hands and (3) digging the grave where the victims were
Cataratan, where they were laid in state for the wake. buried. However, it has been established through the testimony of Alex Utrera, a
former member of the NPA, that appellant was only picked-up by the armed men for
the purpose of pointing the residence of the victims. The armed men never disclosed
their purpose in looking for the brothers Balaan who were former members of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines nor did the armed men inform appellant of their plan
to abduct and kill the two brothers.

However, appellant's act of joining the armed men in going to the mountains, and his
failure to object to their unlawful orders, or show any reluctance in obeying the same,
may be considered as circumstances evincing his concurrence with the objectives of
the malefactors and had effectively supplied them with material and moral aid, thereby
making him as an accomplice. He cannot with candor, claim that he was unaware of
the evil intentions of the armed men which may have been the case had appellant
merely guided the group to locate the victims' abodes. On the contrary, appellant
himself tied the victims' hands and even joined the armed men in taking the victims to
the hills. Appellant's complicity is made more manifest by the fact that without any
justifiable reason he failed to report the incident to the authorities for a period of more
than three (3) years.

Article 18 of the Revised Penal Code provides that an accomplice is one who, not
being a principal, "cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or
simultaneous acts". Under this provision, a person is considered as an accomplice
if his role in the perpetration of the crime is of a minor character. To be convicted
as such, it is necessary that he be aware to the criminal intent of the principal and
thereby cooperates knowingly or intentionally by supplying material or moral aid
for the efficacious execution of the crime.

Dispositive: Be that as it may, and after considering the attendant circumstances, We hold that
appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt as accomplice to the crime charged i.e. murder. As
such, the proper imposable penalty is one degree lower than that prescribed for murder (Art. 52,
Revised Penal Code). The penalty for murder is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to
death (Art. 248, RPC). One degree lower is prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion
temporal medium (Art. 61 (3), RPC). There being no mitigating nor agravating circumstances
which attended the commission of the crime, the penalty impossable under the law should be
applied in its medium period (Art. 64 [1], RPC) and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
appellant is hereby sentenced in each case to suffer imprisonment ranging from eight (8) years
and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen (14) years eight (8) months and one
(1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the trial court is hereby MODIFIED to the extent above
indicated and AFFIRMED in all other aspects. Costs against appellant