G.R. No. L-2174; April 18, 1951
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Crecensio Raganit, Baldomero Collamar and Simeon Raganit, defendants. Crescensio Raganit alias Lagaday, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On the evening of August 22, 1945, Baldomero Collamar, Simeon Raganit, and appellant Crescensio Raganit entered the house of Cirilo Ariza. Baldomero shot and killed Cirilo Ariza, Gavina Ariza, and Eulalia Geraldo. When Lucas Diesma attempted to flee, Baldomero shot him, after which the appellant fired his carbine at the already dying Lucas. The three then left, with Simeon and the appellant carrying away a trunk containing clothes and money. Cirilo, Eulalia, and Lucas died from their wounds. The defense claimed the appellant was forced to accompany Baldomero and his brother Simeon under threat of being shot, was unarmed, remained in the yard, and was unaware of their criminal purpose. The case against Baldomero and Simeon was dismissed as they died before trial. The trial court found conspiracy was not proven and convicted the appellant of murder with robbery for shooting Lucas Diesma.

ISSUE

Whether the appellant is criminally liable for the acts committed, and if so, the degree of his liability and the proper penalty.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s judgment. It found that while pressure was employed on the appellant to accompany Baldomero and Simeon, it was insufficient to exempt him from criminal liability. The appellant should have known of his companions’ criminal designs given their armed condition and conduct. However, giving him the benefit of a reasonable doubt, the Court held he was guilty only as an accomplice, as the more tenable theory was that he remained downstairs while the crimes were committed upstairs. His failure to desert his companions or report the matter confirmed his guilty participation as an accomplice. The crime committed was robbery with multiple homicide. As the appellant was an accomplice and under eighteen years old at the time of the offense, the proper penalty is prision mayor. With two aggravating circumstances (nighttime and dwelling) and no mitigating circumstances, the penalty was imposed in its maximum period. The Court also corrected the trial court’s order regarding the value of the stolen articles, as there was no proof of such value. The appellant was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 2 years, 4 months, and 1 day of prision correccional to 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor, ordered to return the stolen articles, and to indemnify the heirs of each deceased in the sum of two thousand pesos.