Scribd
Upload
1K views2 pages

Case Digest - Vino vs. People 178 Scra 626

Vino was seen driving a bicycle with an unidentified passenger holding a carbine fleeing the scene immediately after the victim was shot. (1) Vino's conviction as an accessory can be maintained even if the alleged principal was acquitted, as the crime and Vino's role were established. (2) Though charged as a principal, Vino could be convicted as an accessory since the correct offense was charged and evidence showed his participation was as an accessory. (3) The trial of an accessory can proceed without the principal's result, as their responsibilities are distinct and the crime's commission was established.

Uploaded by

Ella Kriziana Cruz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views2 pages

Case Digest - Vino vs. People 178 Scra 626

Vino was seen driving a bicycle with an unidentified passenger holding a carbine fleeing the scene immediately after the victim was shot. (1) Vino's conviction as an accessory can be maintained even if the alleged principal was acquitted, as the crime and Vino's role were established. (2) Though charged as a principal, Vino could be convicted as an accessory since the correct offense was charged and evidence showed his participation was as an accessory. (3) The trial of an accessory can proceed without the principal's result, as their responsibilities are distinct and the crime's commission was established.

Uploaded by

Ella Kriziana Cruz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

VINO VS.

PEOPLE 178 SCRA 626

Facts:

March 21, 1985 at around 11pm, the father of the victim, Ernesto Tejada, heard two gunshots and
thereafter, the cry of his son the victim, Roberto Tejada, who was 10 meters away. The parents and
the siblings of the latter responded and called for help from their neighbors.
The father and the victim’s sibling, Julius, saw the appellant, Lito Vino, driving a bicycle coming from
south, with an unidentified companion who was holding an armalite. However, Julius had identified
the was who was holding an armalite as Jessie Salazar. Unfortunately, the latter was acquitted due to
lack of evidence which would proved that the assailant was Jessie Salazar.

Upon reaching Ernesto’s house, they stopped to watch Roberto.


Salazar pointed his armalite at Ernesto and his companions.
Thereafter, the two left.
Issue:
1. WON the conviction of the petitioner as an accessory be maintained,
considering that the alleged principal in this case was acquitted.
2. WON after the petitioner was charged in the info as a principal for
the crime of murder, can he thereafter be convicted as an accessory.
3. whether or not the trial of an accessory can proceed without
awaiting the result of the separate charge against the principal.
Ruling:
1. Yes. The
accessory was seen driving a bicycle with an unidentified
person as passenger holding a carbine fleeing from the scene of the
crime immediately after the commission of the crime of murder. The
commission of the crime and the participation of the principal or
assailant, although not identified, was established. In such case,
the Court holds that the accessory can be prosecuted and held liable
independently of the assailant.

NOTE: We may visualize another situation as when the principal died


or escaped before he could be tried and sentenced. Should the
accessory be acquitted thereby even if the commission of the offense
and the responsibility of the accused as an accessory was duly
proven? The answer is no, he should be held criminally liable as an
accessory.

2. YES.In this case, the correct offense of murder was charged in the
information. The commission of the said crime was established by the
evidence. There is no variance as to the offense committed. The
variance is in the participation or complicity of the petitioner.
While the petitioner was being held responsible as a principal in the
information, the evidence adduced, however, showed that his
participation is merely that of an accessory. The greater
responsibility necessarily includes the lesser. An accused can be
validly convicted as an accomplice or accessory under an information
charging him as a principal.
3. YES. The corresponding responsibilities of the principal,
accomplice and accessory are distinct from each other. As long as the
commission of the offense can be duly established in evidence the
determination of the liability of the accomplice or accessory can
proceed independently of that of the principal.

You might also like