March 09, 2010

Dear Madame Butterfly,

Good day, here is the legal opinion that you requested. Below are the facts that were
gathered based on the statements that you said, are as follows:
On March 3, 2018, at around 10:00 a.m. PO1 Robin and PO2 Jeric, in civilian clothes,
were on their way to Camp Crame, riding a motorcycle along Aurora Boulevard. While
they were at New Manila, a speeding blue Toyota, heading towards the same direction,
overtook them and the car in front of them, a maroon Hyundai Accent. When the Vios
reached alongside the Hyundai, the passenger in front seat of the Vios shot the Hyundai
driver named Cardo, as identified by the police and caused it to swerve and fall in the
canal in the road embankment. During the shooting a bystander named, Alyana, who was
standing near the road, was hit by stray a stray bullet. Later that day, Cardo and Alyana
died from fatal gunshot wounds they received. During the investigation conducted by the
police, they found out that the Vios was registered under the name of Don Emilio. Upon
inquiry, Don Emilio admitted that he is the owner of the Vios but clarified that it is one of
the several cars he owns in his car rental business, which he leased to Arjo. Later that
day, Arjo arrived in the shop on Don Emilio, where he was identified by the two police in
the scene where the crime committed as one of the assailants. Arjo was immediately
arrested and brought by the police in the Special Operation Groups headquarters. In
examining the crime scene the Quezon City Laboratory office recovered several bullets
and a caliber .45 firearms. it was also discovered that your son Arjo was with other
companies namely; Jhong, Antonio and Lucio, where among the four of them Lucio and
Antonio who were firing at the Hyundai while Arjo was merely driving only the Vios.
The issue is about whether or not your son Arjo is criminally liable for the death of
Cardo and Alyana. In my opinion, your son is criminally liable for the death of the said victim.
Due to the following reasons:
First, although your son is not the principal suspect in the commission of the crime but
being one who, actually or physically cooperated in the accomplishment of it, the liability
of your son will fall under accomplice liability. According to Revised Penal Code of the
Philippines under Article 18, accomplices are those persons who cooperate in the
execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts with the intention of supplying
material or moral aid in the execution of a crime in an efficacious way. One of the
examples of an accomplice liability is when a person serves as a getaway driver in crime
committed by the principal suspect. Second, even there is no conspiracy between the
accomplice and the principal suspect but as long as there is community of design between
them and the accomplice knows and aware of the intent, purpose or design of the
principal suspect. And approves and cooperate in the accomplishment of the crime by
giving assistance, he then be held criminally liable. In the case of your son and base on
the fact given by you, it seems that your son does not hesitate to cooperate or avoid in
cooperating in the crime. It is clear that your son is helping the other accused in
facilitating the completion of the crime bring the driver of the principal accused and he
does not act to attempt to avoid the completion of it, thus he cooperated in the execution
of the offense for its accomplishment wherefore he maybe subject as an accomplice in the
crime.
According on the previous decision of the Supreme Court in the case of People of the
Philippines vs. Bartolome Tampus and Ida Monteclaro; G.R. No. 181084.

The case is about rape where the mother of the victim is convicted for being one of
the accomplices in the crime. Based in the statement of the victim, it establishes that Ida,
mother of the victim, cooperated in the execution of the rape by Tampus when prior to
the act of rape by Tampus, Ida being the mother of the victim aided her daughter and
accompanied her to have a drinking session with the principal suspect and leave the two
in their house after her daughter is already at drunk. Idas acts show that she had
knowledge of and even gave her permission or consent to the plan of Tampus to have
sexual intercourse with her daughter. The Supreme Court ruled that Tampus as the
principal accused in the crime while the court find reasonable doubt that Idas
participation in the commission of the crime by previous acts but, not being indispensable
in the crime would fall under accomplice liability. Wherefore the court find that Ida
Montesclaros guilty beyond reasonable doubt as accomplice in the crime of rape and
punished her to suffer the penalty of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as
minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum.In the
case of your son, there is possibility that Arjo agreed and voluntarily participated in the
commission of the crime although he only acts as a driver getaway of the principal
accused. The act of your son in providing material or moral aid to other accused would
not exempt him from being criminally liable.

In the instance that your son is proved to be liable in the crime he committed. The
possible defense of your son that I could advice to you in order to mitigate or lessen his
criminal liability is to deny that he supported the crime before it was completed or he
discourage or repudiate the principal suspect from the completion of the crime. In
addition to it, you can use as a defense before the court that your son is a minor. Based on
the fact you said, your son is still young, gentle and kind, if your son could provide
enough evidence that he is still below 18 years of age it could have an implication to the
criminal liability that your son committed. According to the Juvenile Justice Welfare Act
of 2006 or R.A. 9344, if the accused is below 18 years of age and acted without
discernment on his part he may be exempted from criminal liability and only subject for
intervention program by the government.
In terms of the degree of criminal liability that would be prescribed by the court, it
would befall under Article 52 of the Revised Penal Code which stated that: Penalty to be
imposed upon accomplices in consummated crime is the penalty next lower in degree
than that prescribed by law for the consummated shall be imposed upon the accomplices
in the commission of a consummated felony. Aside from it, Arjo together with his co-
accused will have to pay a civil indemnity to the victim; it will be based by the court on
the classes of participation of the accused.
Lastly, this legal opinion that I made is based in the laws and previous decision of
courts with relation to the accomplice liability. I suggest that you should seek a lawyer
who is expert in criminal cases to counsel you so that you can raise furthermore your
concern and possible defense before the court. Hope it could enlighten you in the case.

Very truly yours,

Silvestre, Ephraim Zeus M.