G.R. No. L-26909 February 22, 1974
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GUILLERMO BONGO, RUPERTO CONTREDAS and MANUEL FRANCISCO, accused; RUPERTO CONTREDAS, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused Ruperto Contredas, along with Guillermo Bongo, was convicted of murder for the killing of Marianito Dillamas. The prosecution’s eyewitness, Diolito Esmabe, testified that on a moonlit night, he saw Bongo shoot Dillamas through the wall of a house using a lantaka (a local gun). Contredas was seen crouching behind Bongo, looking at the point where the gun was inserted. After the shooting, both fled. Contredas raised an alibi, claiming he was at home eating supper, but the trial court found Esmabe’s positive identification credible and convicted Contredas as a co-principal. Bongo did not appeal his conviction.
Before trial, Contredas raised a jurisdictional challenge on appeal, arguing the municipal judge’s warrant for his arrest was void for non-compliance with Section 87 of the Judiciary Law. The law required the judge to personally examine witnesses under oath using searching questions and answers before issuing a warrant. The record showed the complaint was supported by sworn witness statements, but it was not clear if the judge conducted the required personal examination.

ISSUE

The issues are: (1) whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over Contredas despite the alleged defect in the arrest warrant; and (2) whether Contredas’s criminal liability should be that of a principal or an accomplice.

RULING

On the jurisdictional issue, the Supreme Court ruled that any defect in the preliminary examination or the issuance of the warrant of arrest was waived. Contredas voluntarily posted bail, was released, and, with counsel, pleaded not guilty at arraignment without moving to quash the information on jurisdictional grounds. Raising the issue for the first time on appeal constituted a waiver. The Court, however, admonished municipal judges to strictly comply with statutory requirements for issuing warrants.
On the criminal liability, the Court modified the trial court’s judgment. While Esmabe’s testimony established Contredas’s presence at the crime scene, crouching behind Bongo, there was no direct evidence of a prior conspiracy to kill. The Court applied the principle that when doubt exists whether a participant is a principal or an accomplice, the milder form of responsibility prevails. Contredas’s act of accompanying Bongo and observing the shooting constituted cooperation, but it was not indispensable to the commission of the murder, as Bongo could have executed it alone. Therefore, Contredas was held liable only as an accomplice to murder, qualified by treachery and aggravated by dwelling.
The penalty for an accomplice to murder is one degree lower than reclusion perpetua to death. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, Contredas was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of ten years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen years of reclusion temporal, as maximum. His civil liability for indemnity was correspondingly adjusted.