GR 125812; (November, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 125812 November 28, 1996
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Abelardo Parungao, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Abelardo Parungao was charged with Robbery with Homicide and Serious Physical Injuries arising from a jailbreak at the Pampanga Provincial Jail on May 30, 1989. During the incident, detention prisoners escaped, killing two jail guards and seriously wounding another, and taking several firearms from the armory. Parungao was separately tried after his co-accused. The prosecution’s case relied on the testimony of prisoner Mario Quito, who claimed Parungao was the “mastermind,” and Jail Guard Pacheco, who testified he heard Parungao shout to an escapee, “Alright, go ahead and kill those son of a bitch,” during the assault on the guards.
Parungao raised the defense of denial and alibi, asserting he remained inside his cell throughout the incident. He claimed prosecution witnesses fabricated their testimonies because he had reported their drug trafficking activities within the jail. The trial court convicted him as a principal by inducement, sentencing him to life imprisonment.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant Parungao is guilty as a principal by inducement in the crime of Robbery with Homicide and Serious Physical Injuries.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Parungao. The Court held that to be liable as a principal by inducement under Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code, the inducement must be made prior to the commission of the crime and must be of such efficacious nature as to be the determining cause of the criminal act. The evidence failed to meet this standard. The alleged inciting statement was uttered only after the escapees had already beaten and killed the guards; thus, it could not have been the moving cause of the killings. Furthermore, conspiracy was not established beyond reasonable doubt, as there was no evidence of a prior agreement or concerted action. Parungao did not leave his cell, participate in the violence, or take any firearms. The Court found the evidence insufficient to overcome reasonable doubt, noting the possibility of fabricated testimony due to Parungao’s prior reporting of illegal activities in the jail.