378 Phil. 341
MELO, J.:
All thirteen accused (excluding Edgar Hilado, who was then still at large) entered pleas of NOT GUILTY upon arraignment conducted on February 14, 1994 (per Certificates of Arraignment, Record Vol. I-A, pp. 372-384). After a joint trial (excluding accused Edgar Hilado, who upon arraignment on April 11, 1994, pleaded NOT GUILTY [Record, Vol. II, p. 866], was tried separately), judgment was rendered acquitting Charles Dumancas, Police Officers Jose Pahayupan and Vicente Canuday, Jr., but convicting the rest of the accused for the crime charged, to wit:CRIMINAL CASE NO. 94-15562
The undersigned hereby accuses JEANETTE YANSON-DUMANCAS, CHARLES DUMANCAS, (BOTH AS PRINCIPALS BY INDUCTION), POLICE COL. NICOLAS M. TORRES (AS PRINCIPAL BY INDUCTION AND BY DIRECT AND/OR INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION), POLICE INSPECTOR ADONIS C. ABETO, POLICE OFFICERS MARIO LAMIS Y FERNANDEZ, JOSE PAHAYUPAN, VICENTE CANUDAY, JR. DOMINADOR GEROCHE Y MAHUSAY, JAIME GARGALLANO, ROLANDO R. FERNANDEZ, EDWIN DIVINAGRACIA, TEODY DELGADO, ALL AS PRINCIPALS BY PARTICIPATION, CESAR PECHA, and EDGAR HILADO, BOTH AS ACCESSORIES, of the crime of KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM WITH MURDER, committed as follows:
That during the period beginning in the late morning of August 6, 1992 and ending the late evening of the following day in Sitio Pedrosa, Barangay Alijes, Bacolod City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and concurring in a common criminal intent and execution thereof with one another, save for the accessories, for the purpose of extracting or extorting the sum of P353,000.00, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, to wit:
Acting upon the inducement of spouses Jeanette Yanson-Dumancas and Charles Dumancas, under the direction cooperation and undue influence, exerted by P/Col. Nicolas M. Torres, taking advantage of his position as the Station Commander of the Philippine National Police, Bacolod City Station, with the direct participation and cooperation of Police Inspector Adonis C. Abeto, other police officers Vicente Canuday, Jr., Jose Pahayupan, Mario Lamis, civilian (police) agents Rolando R. Fernandez, Edwin Divinagracia, Teody Delgado, Jaime Gargallano, also taking advantage of their respective positions, and Dominador Geroche, concurring and affirming in the said criminal design, with the use of motor vehicle abduct, kidnap and detain one RUFINO GARGAR, JR. and shortly thereafter at around 11 o'clock in the evening of August 7, 1993 (1992), failing in their aforesaid common purpose to extort money and in furtherance of said conspiracy, with evident premeditation and treachery nocturnity and the use of motor vehicle, did then and there shot and kill the said victim, while being handcuffed and blindfolded; that accused Cesar Pecha and Edgar Hilado, with knowledge that said Gargar was victim of violence, did then and there secretly bury the corpse in a makeshift shallow grave or the purpose of concealing the crime of murder in order to prevent its discovery for a fee of P500.00 each; aforesaid act or acts has caused damage and prejudice to the heirs of said victim, to wit:CONTRARY TO LAW.
P50,000.00 -as indemnity for death; 50,000.00 -actual damages; 300,000.00 -compensatory damages (lost income); 100,000.00 -moral damages; 50,000.00 -exemplary damages. (pp. 1-3, Record Vol. I)CRIMINAL CASE NO. 94-15563
The undersigned hereby accused JEANETTE YANSON-DUMANCAS, CHARLES DUMANCAS (BOTH AS PRINCIPALS BY INDUCTION), POLICE COL. NICOLAS M. TORRES (AS PRINCIPAL BY INDUCTION AND BY DIRECTION AND/OR INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION), POLICE INSPECTOR ADONIS C. ABETO, POLICE OFFICERS MARIO LAMIS Y FERNANDEZ, JOSE PAHAYUPAN, VICENTE CANUDAY, JR., DOMINADOR GEROCHE Y MAHUSAY, JAIME GARGALLANO, ROLANDO B. FERNANDEZ, EDWIN DIVINAGRACIA, TEODY DELGADO, ALL AS PRINCIPALS BY PARTICIPATION, CESAR PECHA and EDGAR HILADO, BOTH AS ACCESSORIES, of the crime of KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM WITH MURDER, committed as follows:
That during the period beginning in the late morning of August 6, 1992 and ending the late evening of the following day in Sitio Pedrosa, Barangay Alijes, Bacolod City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and concurring in a common criminal intent and execution thereof with one another, save for the accessories, for the purpose of extracting or extorting the sum of P353,000.00, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, to wit:
Acting upon the inducement of spouse Jeanette Yanson-Dumancas and Charles Dumancas, under the direction, cooperation and undue influence, exerted by P/Col. Nicolas M. Torres, taking advantage of his position as the Station Commander of the Philippine National Police, Bacolod City Station, with the direct participation and cooperation of Police Inspector Adonis C. Abeto, other police officers Vicente Canuday, Jr., Jose Pahayupan, Mario Lamis, civilian (police) agents Rolando R. Fernandez, Edwin Divinagracia, Teody Delgado, Jaime Gargallano, also taking advantage of their respective positions, and Dominador Geroche, concurring and affirming in the said criminal design, with the use of motor vehicle abduct, kidnap and detain one DANILO LUMANGYAO and shortly thereafter at around 11 o'clock in the evening of August 7, 1993 (1992), failing in their aforesaid common purpose to extort money and in furtherance of said conspiracy, with evident premeditation and treachery nocturnity and the use of motor vehicle, did then and there shot and kill the said victim, while being handcuffed and blindfolded, that accused CESAR PECHA and EDGAR HILADO, with knowledge that said Lumangyao was victim of violence, did then and there secretly bury the corpse in a makeshift shallow grave for the purpose of concealing the crime of murder in order to prevent its discovery for a fee of P500.00 each; aforesaid act or acts has caused damage and prejudice to the heirs of said victim, to wit:CONTRARY TO LAW.
P50,000.00 -as indemnity for death; 50,000.00 -actual damages; 300,000.00 -compensatory damages (lost income); 100,000.00 -moral damages; P50,000.00 -exemplary damages.
(pp. 1-3, Record Vol. I-A)
Wherefore, finding the first nine (9) Accused herein -All ten accused filed their respective notices of appeal, and are now before us on review. After going through the voluminous record of the case, the Court adopts the following summary of facts by the court a quo, to wit:GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT AS PRINCIPALS and CESAR PECHA as accessory in the two (2) informations filed in these cases, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered against them, as follows:
- JEANNETTE (GINNETTE) YANSON - DUMANCAS
- POL. COL. NICOLAS TORRES
- POL. INSP. ADONIS ABETO
- POL. OFFICER MARIO LAMIS Y FERNANDEZ
- DOMINADOR GEROCHE Y MAHUSAY
- JAIME GARGALLANO
- ROLANDO R. FERNANDEZ
- EDWIN DIVINAGRACIA
- TEODY DELGADO and
- CESAR PECHA
1. In CRIMINAL CASE NO. 94-15562, each of the Accused charged as principal is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, with all the accessories of the law; to indemnify, jointly and severally, the Heirs of Rufino Gargar Jr. in the amount of P50,000.00 as indemnity for death; P25,000.00 as actual damages; P300,000.00 for compensatory damages (lost income); P100,000.00 in moral damages and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages; and to pay the cost. Accused CESAR PECHA who is charged as an accessory is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of two (2) years four (4) months and one (1) day of Prision Correccional as minimum to eight years and one day of Prision Mayor as maximum and to pay one-tenth of the cost;
2. In CRIMINAL CASE NO. 94-15563, each of the Accused charged as principal is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, with all the accessories of the law, indemnify jointly and severally, the Heirs of DANILO LUMANGYAO in the amount of P50,000.00 as indemnity for death; P25,000.00 as actual damages; P100,000.00 as compensatory damages (lost income); P100,000.00 as moral damages; P50,000.00 as exemplary damages; and to pay the cost. Accused CESAR PECHA who is charged as an accessory is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of two (2) years four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to eight (8) years and one (1) day of Prision Mayor as maximum and to pay one-tenth of the cost.
Accused CHARLES DUMANCAS, Police Officers JOSE PAHAYUPAN and VICENTE CANUDAY JR. are hereby Acquitted of the crime charged for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt, with cost de officio.
SO ORDERED.(pp. 272-273, Rollo.)
February 20, 1992After a thorough review of the factual findings of the trial court vis-à-vis the evidence on record, we find ourselves unable to agree with the conclusions arrived at by the trial court convicting all 10 accused-appellants; rather, we concur in the suggestion of the Solicitor General, that accused-appellants Jeanette Yanson-Dumancas and Police Inspector Adonis Abeto should be acquitted. Too, by reason of his supervening death, accused-appellant Police Col. Nicolas Torres is acquitted. The judgment of conviction of the rest of the accused-appellants is to be affirmed.
Jeanette Yanson Dumancas was swindled in a fake gold bar transaction losing P352,000 to Danilo Lumangyao and his cohort.
10:30 A.M. August 5, 1992 present in the house of Rolando Fernandez were:a) Dominador GerocheOn this occasion Mario Lamis brought out the plan to abduct Danilo Lumangyao and Rufino Gargar, Jr. because they swindled the Dumancas family.
b) Rolando Fernandez
c) Jaime Gargallano
d) Edwin Divinagracia
e) Teody Delgado
f) Mario Lamis and
g) Moises Grandeza
4:30 P.M. August 5, 1992
The group of:a) Dominador Gerochewent to the office of Col. Nicolas Torres at PNP Headquarters where they met the colonel who told them that if you find these two people (referring to Lumangyao and Gargar) to bring and hide them at Dragon Lodge Motel.
b) Mario Lamis
c) Rolando Fernandez
d) Jaime Gargallano
e) Edwin Divinagracia
f) Teody Delgado
g) Moises Grandeza
8:30 A.M., August 6, 1992
State witness Moises Grandeza went to the house of Helen Tortocion to invite Danilo Lumangyao and Rufino Gargar Jr. to "Tinolahan Eatery" at Shopping Center Terminal but found only Gargar Jr. as Lumangyao went to the house of a certain Bardot at BBB Avenue, this City.
Moises Grandeza together with Gargar Jr. proceeded to the house of Bardot where they found Lumangyao and thereafter the three of them went to "Tinolahan Eatery".
9:00 - 10:00 A.M. August 6, 1992
The three arrived at "Tinulahan Eatery". Waiting for them were:a) Dominador GerocheThen a) Fernandez b) Geroche and c) Lamis entered "Tinulahan" and handcuffed Lumangyao and Gargar.
b) Jaime Gargallano
c) Edwin Divinagracia
d) Rolando Fernandez
e) Teody Delgado; and
f) Mario Lamis
Waiting in the red Toyota Land Cruiser (Plate No. 689) were:a) Gargallano10:30 A.M. August 6, 1992
b) Divinagracia; and
c) Delgado
Lumangyao and Gargar were brought to the Office of Jeanette at Ceres Compound on board red toyota land cruiser by:a) Moises GrandezaIt was there that a) Divinagracia and b) Fernandez manhandled Lumangyao and Gargar. Jeanette then investigated the two victims on the whereabouts of the money that they swindled from her and the two answered that it was already spent.
b) Gargallano
c) Lamis
d) Geroche
e) Divinagracia
f) Delgado, and
g) Fernandez
It was then that Jeanette ordered Doming (Geroche) to take care of the two (Lumangyao and Gargar).
3:00 P.M. August 6, 1992
From Ceres Compound and while the group, together with the two victims, were already at Dragon Lodge Motel, thereafter,a) Abetoarrived and investigated the two victims regarding the whereabouts of the gold bar and the two replied that it was with Helen Tortocion.
b) Pahayupan, and
c) Canuday
4:00 P.M. August 6, 1992a) Moises Grandezawent to the office of Col. Torres to inform him that Lumangyao and Gargar were already captured. So Col. Torres ordered them to keep the two victims so that nobody would see them. After receiving this instructions they went back to Dragon Lodge. Meanwhile, Geroche again interrogated the victims on where the money was - if there was still any let and Geroche received the same negative reply.
b) Fernandez, and
c) Geroche
Past 6:00 p.m. August 6, 1992
The group, with the two captives transferred to D'Hacienda Motel.
9:00 P.M. August 6, 1992
At D'Hacienda Motel, Jeanette and Charles Dumancas, together with Rose Ines arrived. Jeanette and Rose Ines investigated the victims where they kept the money that they swindled and the two gave the same reply that it was already gone. Jeanette then reiterated her order to Geroche to take care of the two.
9:30 P.M. August 6, 1992
The group transferred to Moonlight Inn Motel.
3:00 A.M. August 7, 1992
The group transferred again to Casamel Lodge Motel.
10:00 A.M. August 7, 1992
The group returned to D'Hacienda Motel and it was there that the plan was pursued to liquidate the two victims at 12:00 midnight.
The persons who conceived of this plan were:a) Geroche, andsearched the residence of Helen Tortocion for the gold dust and simulated gold bar per search warrant 014-92 (Exh. "D") but the search was fruitless.
b) Fernandez
4:30 P.M. August 7, 1992
1) Canuday
2) Abeto
3) Dudero
4) Lesaca, and
5) Arollado
7:30 P.M. August 7, 1992
The group, including the victims, partook of supper which was charged to Roy Yanson.Then a) Abetoentered the room and asked Fernandez what they are going to do with the two victims to which Fernandez, replied that he will be responsible for the two.
b) Canuday, and
c) Pahayupan
11:00 P.M. August 7, 1992a) Gerocherode on the red Toyota Land Cruiser to conduct Geroche to his house. The victims were left behind.
b) Lamis
c) Fernandez, and
d) Moises Grandeza
From his house Geroche took an armalite rifle and the group then went back to D'Hacienda Motel.
12:00 P.M. August 7, 1992a) Fernandez, andFrom D'Hacienda Motel, the group rode on the red toyota land cruiser. They proceeded to Hda. Pedrosa in Brgy. Alijis. When they arrived there the two victims were ordered to alight and sit by the side of the road. Geroche then asked Moises Grandeza to hold the hands of Lumangyao and then Gargar behind their backs. After that -
b) Lamis
blindfolded and handcuffed Lumangyao and Gargar (Exh. "A" and "A-1") and have them board a vehicle, with
a) Gargallano the driver
b) Geroche sitting in front, and with
c) Moises Grandeza also seated inside.a) Gargallano was the first to shoot. He shot Gargar at the back of his head (Exh. K) using a baby armalite. ThenThereafter, the two dead bodies were loaded on board the land cruiser and brought to Hda. Siason where Pecha and Hilado buried them in the shallow grave they dug.
b) Geroche followed suit by shooting Lumangyao with a .45 cal. Pistol at his right lower jaw (Exh. L).
August 8, 1992
In Sitio Cabalagnan were recovereda) Three (3) empty shells of armalite rifle and one .45 cal. Empty shell (Exh. "G", "G-2")August 9, 1992
In Hda. Siason were recovered
a) the dead bodies of Rufino Gargar, Jr. and Danilo Lumangyao
b) Both of the two victims hands were handcuffed (Exh. "A" and "A-1").
The same group again went to see Col. Torres in his office and reported the extermination of the two and Col. Torres promptly gave the instruction that "you who are here inside, nobody knows what you have done but you have to hide because the NBI are after you.
August 10, 1992a) Lamiswent back to the office of Col. Torres and this time he told the group "to hide because the NBI are now investigating".
b) Geroche
c) Fernandez
d) Divinagracia
e) Gargallano
f) Delgado, and
g) Moises Grandeza
4:00 P.M. August 12, 1992
The same group that liquidated Lumangyao and Gargar again went back to the office of Col. Torres where they were asked by Col. Torres to escort him to Ceres Compound because he would like to borrow money from Ricardo Yanson as Col. Torres said that he has huge debts to pay. Col. Torres was able on this occasion, to meet Ricardo Yanson.
On this same day,a) Moises Grandezawere picked up in a land cruiser by the driver of the Yansons' to go to the house of Fernandez where Geroche will give the money to the group. Each member of the group, after the check, which was drawn by Yanson, was encashed were given the amount of P1,700.00 each.
b) Lamis, and
c) Geroche
August 13, 1992
Nenita Bello went to the office of Col. Torres to plead for his help in regard to the death of her relatives Lumangyao and Gargar but was promptly turned down by Colonel Torres with the curt remark that her case was very difficult because it involves the "military" and some "big times".
The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Bacolod City also passed, on this day, Resolution No. 328, series of 1992 urging the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to conduct an investigation on the death of "salvage victims" Danilo Lumangyao and Rufino Gargar, Jr. as soon as possible (Exh. "I").
September 24, 1992
The bodies of Rufino Gargar Jr. and Danilo Lumangyao were exhumed at Brgy. Buenavista Cemetery, Balintawak, Escalante, Negros Occidental and autopsies were conducted (Exhs. "M" and "N") by Dr. Ricardo Jaboneta, Medico Legal Officer of the NBI.a) Found on the body of Rufino Gargar, Jr. (per examination report, Exh. "M") among others, were ligature marks, wrist joint, right side (Exh. "M-2", andAs to Danilo Lumangyao, the exhumation report (Exh. "N" disclose
b) Gunshot wound (Exh. "M-1")a) Ligature marks, right wrist (Exh. "N-2") and among others, andAfter the National Bureau of Investigation, Bacolod Office, conducted its investigation, the State Prosecutors of the Department of Justice took over and the result were the filing of these two criminal cases of Kidnapping with Murder against the above-named accused.
b) Gunshot wound (Exh. "N-1")(pp. 73-85, Decision; pp. 202-214, Rollo.)
Art. 17. Principals. &mdash The following are considered principals:What the Court now has to examine is whether or not sufficient evidence was adduced by the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Jeanette indeed performed any of the following acts: (a) directly forcing the killers to commit the crime, or (b) directly inducing them to commit the crime.
1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act;
2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it.
3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not have been accomplished.
Thus, even the veracity of the allegation that Jeanette uttered the words: "take care of the two" is put to some reasonable doubt by the prosecution witness himself. The remark, if made at all, cannot by any stretch of the imagination, be basis for the conviction of Jeanette.
Q. And according to your testimony this morning, Jeanette Dumancas said, what more can we do that swindling transpired four months ago, definitely that money could nowhere be around. Would you confirm that you testified that this morning before this Court? Is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. Mr. Witness, this is very important. Please make a vivid recall. When Danilo Lumangyao made that answer that the money was not around and Jeanette Dumancas said what's the use, the money is now nowhere to be found as four months have already transpired, did not Jeanette Dumancas tell Doming: "Doming, bring these two to the PC or police and I will call Atty. Geocadin so that proper cases could be filed against them?" Kindly make a recall on that. A. Yes, sir. (pp. 54-55, tsn Feb. 14, 1994)
Police Inspector Adonis C. Abeto's appeal is meritorious. Be it remembered that Abeto's only participation was to serve the search warrant on Helen Tortocion's residence and the subsequent interrogation of the two victims at the Hacienda Motel. He was never part of the conspiracy to abduct and liquidate the two victims. He is similarly situated as that of Canuday and Pahayupan.After due consideration of accused-appellant Abeto's constitutional right to the presumption of innocence, coupled with the presumption of regularity in the performance of his official functions having simply followed the order of his superior officers, much is left to be desired before the Court can sustain the trial court's conviction of accused-appellant Abeto. The two presumptions negate the inadequate proof adduced against accused-appellant Abeto, who must perforce be acquitted, in much the same manner that accused Canuday, Jr. and Pahayupan, who being similarly situated, were cleared and absolved.
The trial court, in acquitting Canuday and Pahayupan had this to say:The evidence against Officer CANUDAY, JR. shows that in the afternoon of August 6, 1992, together with Officers ABETO and PAHAYUPAN, they went to Dragon Lodge Motel to investigate LUMANGYAO and GARGAR, JR. as to the whereabouts of the gold (fake) bar used in swindling JEANETTE. The two captives answered that it is with HELEN TORTOCION. A subsequent search of Tortocion's house led by Officer ABETO yielded no fake gold bar. Meanwhile, in the evening of August 7, 1992, Officers ABETO, CANUDAY, JR., and PAHAYUPAN showed up at D'Hacienda Motel to inquire from FERNANDEZ what he is going to do with the two.
Like Officer Pahayupan, his being in the company of Officers Abeto, on the two occasions can not give rise, to without proof of previous agreement, a conspiracy. Thus, being present at the scene of the crime is not by itself sufficient to establish conspiracy, as already averted to previously. So does mere companionship.(p. 1720-1721, Rollo.)
1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. As opined by Justice Regalado, in this regard, "the death of the accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and only the civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense committed, i.e., civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore."With the application of the above set of rules to accused-appellant Torres, we hold that his death extinguished his criminal liability and the civil liability solely based thereon. Accordingly, the appeal of accused-appellant Torres is forthwith dismissed, such dismissal having the force and effect of an acquittal.
2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. Article 1157 of the Civil Code enumerates these other sources of obligation from which the civil liability may arise as a result of the same act or omission:a) Law3. Where the civil liability survives, as explained in Number 2 above, an action for recovery therefor may be pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil action and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended. This separate civil action may be enforced either against the executor/administrator of the estate of the accused, depending on the source of obligation upon which the same is based as explained above.
b) Contracts
c) Quasi-contracts
d) xxx xxx xxx
e) Quasi-delicts
4. Finally, the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to file a separate civil action by prescription, in cases where during the prosecution of the criminal action and prior to its extinction, the private-offended party instituted together therewith the civil action. In such case, the statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case, conformably with provisions of Article 1155 of the Civil Code, that should thereby avoid any apprehension on possible privation of right by prescription.
(pp. 255-256)
D. | Pol. Officer Mario Lamis y Fernandez, Dominador Geroche y Mahusay, Jaime Gargallano, Rolando R. Fernandez, Edwin Divinagracia, Teody Delgado, and Cesar Pecha |
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ |
The maxim of "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus," however, is not a positive rule of law. Neither is it an inflexible one of universal application. If a part of a witness' testimony is found true, it cannot be disregarded entirely. The testimony of a witness may be believed in part and disbelieved in part.Also in People vs. Li Bun Juan (17 SCRA 934 [1966]) we ruled:
(p. 546)
. . . In this connection it must be borne in mind that the principle falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not an absolute one, and that it is perfectly reasonable to believe the testimony of a witness with respect to some facts and disbelieve it with respect to other facts. In People vs. Keller, 46 O.G. No. 7, pp. 3222-3223, the following was quoted with approval by the Court of Appeals from 1 Moore on Facts, p. 23:The grounds relied upon by accused-appellant Geroche do not, therefore, constitute cogent reasons to discredit the testimony of eyewitness Grandeza in its entirety."18. Testimony may be partly credited and partly rejected. - Trier of facts are not bound to believe all that any witness has said; they may accept some portions of his testimony and reject other portions, according to what seems to them, upon other facts and circumstances to be the truth . . . Even when witnesses are found to have deliberately falsified in some material particulars, the jury are not required to reject the whole of their uncorroborated testimony, but may credit such portions as they deem worthy of belief.(p. 945)
ART. 19. Accessories. - Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any of the following manners:All told, there are only reasons to affirm, and none to reverse, the trial court's conviction of accused-appellants Pol. Officer Mario Lamis y Fernandez, Dominador Geroche y Mahusay, Jaime Gargallano, Rolando R. Fernandez, Edwin Divinagracia, and Teody Delgado as principals by direct participation of the crime of kidnapping for ransom with murder, and that of Cesar Pecha as accessory thereto.
1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime;
2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime or the effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery;
3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principal of the crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to habitually guilty of some other crime.