[ G.R. No. L-8809. December 29, 1956 ] 100 Phil. 663
[ G.R. No. L-8809. December 29, 1956 ]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. DAMASO QUEDES, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE. D E C I S I O N
PADILLA, J.:
On 20 September 1951, a criminal complaint charging Damaso Quedes, Nemesio Pradas, Victoriano Pradas and five other unidentified persons with robbery in band was subscribed and sworn to by the sergeant of police of tlje municipality of Ligao, province of Albay, before the Justice of the Peace Court of the said municipality (criminal case No. 438). As the defendants waived their right to preliminary investigation the Justice of the Peace Court forwarded the case to the Court of First Instance. On 29 October 1951 the corresponding information charging the defendants with robbery in band was filed by the Provincial Fiscal in the Court of First Instance of Albay. The information reads, as follows:
That on or about 2:30 o’clock in the morning of September 15, 1951, in the municipality of Ligao, province of Albay, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, conspiring together and helping one another for a common purpose and all armed with bolos, by means of violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, take and carry away with intent of gain and against the will of the owner thereof, ten (10) sacks of copra valued at P200.00, belonging to Jesus Alsua, to his damage and prejudice in the said sum of P200.00, Philippine currency. (Criminal case No. 1070.)
Upon arraignment the defendants entered a plea of not guilty. On 10 January 1952 the Provincial Fiscal filed a motion to dismiss the information for the reason that after a thorough reinvestigation he found out that, with the exception of Damaso Quedes, the other defendants charged in the information did not take part in the commission of the crime and that an information for theft charging the real offenders including Damaso Quedes had been filed in the Justice of the Peace Court of Ligao, Albay. On 12 January 1952 the Court dismissed the case. On 28 November 1951 the Chief of Police of Ligao, Albay filed a sworn complaint in the Justice of the Peace Court charging Silvino Mendoza, who on the day of trial had not been apprehended and is still at large, Hilario Oropesa, Glicerio Alferez and Jose Planviergen with theft of ten sacks of copra belonging to Jesus Alsua. On 20 December 1951 the compliant was amended to include Damaso Quedes as accessory after the fact," and the amendment reads, as follows:
That the said Damaso Quedes having knowledge of the commission of the crime as alleged and described above unlawfully, illegally and feloniously, subsequently took part in its execution by helping in disposing of the fruits of the crime thereby assisting the said Silvino Mendoza, Hilario Oropesa, Glicerio Alferez and Jose Planviergen to profit By the effects of the above described crime and to prevent its discovery. (Criminal Case No. 451.)
The defendant Damaso Quedes filed a motion to quash on the ground that he had been put once in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. Motion to quash was denied. On 29 December 1951, after trial, the Justice of the Peace Court found Hilario Oropesa guilty of theft as principal; Damaso Quedes guilty of theft as accessory after the fact and sentenced him to suffer 2 months and 1 day of arresto mayor, to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P121.20, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay 2/5 of the costs; and dismissed the case against Jose Planviergen and Glicerio Alferez. The defendant Damaso Quedes appealed to the Court of First Instance of Albay. On 15 January 1953 the Assistant Provincial Fiscal filed an information charging Damaso Quedes with theft as accessory after the fact. The information reads:
That on or about the 15th day of September, 1951, in the municipality of Ligao, province of Albay, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, having full knowledge of the commission of the crime of theft of ten sacks of copra from the hacienda of Jesus Alsua by Silvino Mendoza who is still at large, Hilario Oropeza who had been convicted in the lower court but did not appeal, Glicerio Alferez and Jose Planviergen whose case against them was dismissed, and without having participated therein either as principal or accomplice, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take part in said crime after the commission thereof, to wit: by then and there buying from the aforementioned persons the stolen ten sacks of copra which amount to ONE HUNDRED TWENTY ONE PESOS AND TWENTY CENTAVOS (P121.20), Philippine Currency, thereby profiting himself and assisting the offenders to profit by the effects of the said crime. (Criminal case No. 1276.)
The defendant filed a motion to quash the information on the ground that he was being put twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. On 12 January 1955 the Court dismissed the case against the defendant with costs de oficio. The State has appealed. The first information charging the defendant and seven others with robbery in band alleges that “conspiring together and helping one another for a common purpose and all armed with bolos, by means of violence and intimidation, (they) did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, take and carry away with intent of gain and against the will of the owner thereof, ten (10) sacks of copra valued at P200.00 belonging to Jesus Alsua.” On the other hand, the second information charging the defendant with theft as accessory after the fact recites that “having full knowledge of the commission of the crime of theft of ten sacks of copra from the hacienda of Jesus Alsua” he “did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take part in said crime after the commission thereof, to wit: by then and there buying from the aforementioned persons the stolen ten sacks of copra* * *.” The first information charges the defendant with taking and carrying away unlawfully by means of violence and intimidation ten sacks of copra; whereas the second information charges the defendant with taking part in the crime after the commission thereof by then and there buying the ten sacks of copra /rom the persons who he knew had stolen the same. The evidence necessary to support a conviction for robbery in band is different from that which is required to sustain a conviction for theft as accessory after the fact. Under the first information the defendant Damaso Quedes could not have been convicted as accessory after the fact of robbery in band, because the defendants charged with having committed it did not in fact commit the crime. Evidence to show his part in the crime after the commission thereof would have no support, because the persons who committed the crime and from whom he bought the amount of copra knowingly that it was robbed or stolen were not brought to court charged with the crime. Timely objection on proper ground to the introduction of evidence tending to show that he purchased the ten sacks of copra from persons other than his co-defendants would be sustained. Hence the defendant Damaso Quedes was not placed nor could he be deemed to have been put in danger of being convicted of the crime of robbery in band either as principal or as accessory after the fact under the first information. The order appealed from is reversed and the case remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in accord with law. Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., and Endencia, JJ., concur.