PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JEANETTE (GINETTE) YANSON-DUMANCAS
G.R. No. 13352728 December 13, 1999
Facts:
Jeanette Yanson Dumancas was swindled in a fake gold bar transaction losing P352,000 to Danilo Lumangyao and his cohort. On this occasion Mario Lamis brought out the plan to abduct Danilo Lumangyao and Rufino Gargar, Jr. They went to the office of Col. Nicolas Torres at PNP Headquarters where they met the colonel who told them that if you find these two people (referring to Lumangyao and Gargar) to bring and hide them at Dragon Lodge Motel. Moises Grandeza together with Gargar Jr. proceeded to the house of Bardot where they found Lumangyao and thereafter the three of them went to Tinolahan Eatery. It was there that Divinagracia and Fernandez manhandled Lumangyao and Gargar. Jeanette then investigated the two victims on the whereabouts of the money that they swindled from her and the two answered that it was already spent. It was then that Jeanette ordered Doming (Geroche) to take care of the two (Lumangyao and Gargar). From DHacienda Motel, the group rode on the red toyota land cruiser. They proceeded to Hda. Pedrosa in Brgy. Alijis. When they arrived there the two victims were ordered to alight and sit by the side of the road. Geroche then asked Moises Grandeza to hold the hands of Lumangyao and then Gargar behind their backs. After that, Gargallano was the first to shoot. He shot Gargar at the back of his head using a baby armalite. Then Geroche followed suit by shooting Lumangyao with a .45 cal. Pistol at his right lower jaw. Thereafter, the two dead bodies were loaded on board the land cruiser and brought to Hda. Siason where Pecha and Hilado buried them in the shallow grave they dug.
Issue:
Whether or not sufficient evidence was adduced by the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Jeanette indeed directly inducing them to commit the crime.
Held:
In order that a person may be convicted as principal by inducement, the following must be present: (1) the inducement be made with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime, and (2) such inducement be the determining cause of the commission by the material executor. By the foregoing standards, the remark of Jeanette to take care of the two does not constitute the command required by law to justify a finding that she is guilty as a principal by inducement. Furthermore, the utterance, which was supposedly the act of inducement, should precede the commission of the crime itself. In the case at bar, the abduction, which is an essential element of the crime charged (kidnapping for ransom with murder) has already taken place when Jeanette allegedly told accused-appellant Geroche to take care of the two. Said utterance could, therefore, not have been the inducement to commit the crime charged in this case.