This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-08-20 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In the case at bench, Susana knew of the criminal design of her husband, Petrus, but she kept quiet and never reported the incident to the police authorities. Instead, she stayed with Petrus inside the house and gave food to the victim or accompanied her husband when he brought food to the victim. Susana not only countenanced Petrus' illegal act, but also supplied him with material and moral aid. It has been held that being present and giving moral support when a crime is being committed make a person responsible as an accomplice in the crime committed.[26] As keenly observed by the 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 merely an expression of sympathy or feeling of support to her husband.[27] Moreover, this Court is guided by the ruling in People v. De Vera,[28] where it was stressed that in case of doubt, the participation of the offender will be considered as that of an accomplice rather than that of a principal. | |||||
|
2013-10-01 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The defenses raised by Perpenian are not sufficient to exonerate her criminal liability. Assuming arguendo that she just came to the resort thinking it was a swimming party, it was inevitable that she acquired knowledge of the criminal design of the principals when she saw Chan being guarded in the room. A rational person would have suspected something was wrong and would have reported such incident to the police. Perpenian, however, chose to keep quiet; and to add to that, she even spent the night at the cottage. It has been held before that being present and giving moral support when a crime is being committed will make a person responsible as an accomplice in the crime committed.[61] It should be noted that the accused-appellant's presence and company were not indispensable and essential to the perpetration of the kidnapping for ransom; hence, she is only liable as an accomplice.[62] Moreover, this Court is guided by the ruling in People v. Clemente, et al.,[63] where it was stressed that in case of doubt, the participation of the offender will be considered as that of an accomplice rather than that of a principal. | |||||