THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS vs. JOSE TAMAYO, ET AL
G.R. No. L-18289 November 17, 1922
Facts:
It appears in evidence that on the
morning of the day mentioned in the complaint the deceased, Catalino Carrera,
in company with his brother, Francisco Carrera, and a youth of thirteen years,
named Juan
Gonzales, who was living with the deceased, repaired to a
field belonging to the deceased, in the barrio of San Felipe, municipality of
Binalonan, to do agricultural work, preparatory to the planting of palay. While
the three mentioned were busy as above stated, the five appellants herein
arrived to begin work preparing another plot of land for cultivation, adjacent
to or near the paddy upon which the deceased was at work. The five appellants
found that no water was available for watering the land which they intended to
prepare, because all the water in the canal was being appropriated by the
deceased. Seeing that their request for water was disregarded, the anger of the
appellants was aroused, and Hilario Tamayo advanced towards the irrigating
ditch, and toward the deceased, with the intention, so Hilario states, of
breaking the dam with his hands, thereby releasing the water so that it would
continue its course in the ditch. When Hilario Tamayo found himself confronted
by the deceased in a threatening attitude, he at once closed in upon the
deceased and, seizing him firmly by the neck, began choking him, with the
result that the deceased was rendered incapable of effectual resistance. As
soon as Hilario had been thus drawn away from the deceased, Ramon Tamayo at
once took Hilario's place and continued choking the deceased until the latter
had become visibly weak; and it was at this moment that Jose Tamayo, a son of
Ramon, ran up and delivered a blow with a bamboo stick on the side of the head
of the deceased just above the left ear. The deceased at once gave down, but
Ramon Tamayo continued to choke him for a few moments until life was extinct.
The physician who examined the cadaver found that the longitudinal blow on the
side of the head had broken through the skin and fractured and depressed the
skull over a length of eight centimeters. Death was evidently caused by the
direct shock produced by the blow.
Issue:
Whether or not Ramon Tamayo can be convicted as an
accomplice in the homicide committed in this case by Jose Tamayo
Held:
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. In this connection it becomes
important to note that both Basilia Orensia and Francisco Carrera repeatedly
testify that after the deceased had received the fatal injury, Ramon Tamayo
continued to hold and choke the deceased, then evidently on the ground, until
after life was extinct. if true, it shows that Ramon Tamayo approved of the
blow struck by his son Jose Tamayo. Sufficient to make Ramon responsible as an
accomplice.