G.R. No. L-5502
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GUILLERMO ROMULO, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
March 7, 1910

FACTS:
Adrian Herren, a surveyor, was murdered on April 16, 1909, while returning from work with his four native assistants: Guillermo Romulo, Celerino de la Cruz, Buenaventura Canape, and Fidel Veloz. The information against Veloz was dismissed, and he was used as a witness.

The evidence showed that Romulo struck Herren with a hatchet, felling him. Canape then struck Herren multiple times with a heavy stick, and both Romulo and Canape used bolos to further mutilate the helpless victim. The body was subsequently hidden in a clump of cane. Romulo and Canape bore enmity towards Herren.

Regarding De la Cruz, the evidence failed to show any direct or indirect participation in the actual commission of the crime. There was no indication that he had prior knowledge of the attack or could have prevented it. He was present when the crime occurred and when the body was concealed. He accompanied Romulo and Canape back to Majayjay and slept in the same house. The following morning, De la Cruz went to the municipal president and falsely reported that Herren had gone ahead of them the previous day, while they remained to finish their work. The Court noted this was “manifestly for the purpose of concealing the commission of the crime, and aiding the murderers, his companions, to escape detection and capture.”

The Court of First Instance found Romulo, Canape, and De la Cruz guilty of assassination. Romulo and Canape were sentenced to death, and De la Cruz to life imprisonment. All three appealed.

ISSUE:
1. Whether Guillermo Romulo and Buenaventura Canape are guilty as principals of assassination.
2. Whether Celerino de la Cruz is guilty as a principal or accomplice in the crime of assassination.
3. Alternatively, whether Celerino de la Cruz is guilty as an accessary after the fact.

RULING:
1. Guillermo Romulo and Buenaventura Canape were found guilty as principals of the crime of assassination. The Court affirmed the judgment of conviction and the death sentence imposed upon them, finding their guilt established beyond a reasonable doubt with aggravating circumstances.
2. Celerino de la Cruz was not found guilty as a principal or accomplice. The Supreme Court held that his mere presence during the commission of the crime, without prior concert or conspiracy, and without any active participation, encouragement, or aid, was not sufficient to establish his guilt as a principal or accomplice. The Court cited precedents emphasizing that passive presence or failure to denounce a crime, without more, does not constitute principal or accomplice liability.
3. However, Celerino de la Cruz was found guilty as an accessary after the fact (encubridor). His culpability stemmed not from his mere presence or failure to denounce the crime, but because he “volunteered false information which tended affirmatively to deceive the prosecuting authorities and thus to prevent the detection of the guilty parties and to aid them in escaping discovery and arrest.” This act falls under Article 15, paragraph 3 (2) of the Penal Code, which defines an accessary after the fact as one who, with knowledge of a crime (like assassination), and without participation as a principal or accomplice, subsequently assists in the escape or concealment of the culprit.

The judgment of conviction against De la Cruz as principal was reversed. He was found guilty as an accessary after the fact of assassination and sentenced to eight years and one day of presidio mayor.