- The Lawyer's Post.
"x x x.
The line that separates a conspirator by concerted action from an accomplice by previous or simultaneous acts is indeed slight. Accomplices do not decide whether the crime should be committed; but they assent to the plan and cooperate in its accomplishment.[5] The solution in case of doubt is that, as the RTC said with ample jurisprudential support, such doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused.
It was held that when there is doubt as to whether a guilty participant in a homicide performed the role of principal or accomplice, the Court should favor the “milder form of responsibility.” He should be given the benefit of the doubt and can be regarded only as an accomplice. (People vs. Jose Tamayo, 44 Phil. 38; People vs. Bantangan, 54 Phil. 834, 840; People vs. Lansang, 82 Phil. 662, 667; People vs. Ubina, 97 Phil. 515; People vs. Raganit, 88 Phil. 467; People vs. Pastores, 40 SCRA 498; People vs. Tolentino, 40 SCRA 514). Hence, in the case at bar, the accused Eusebio, Isidro and Contreras should be granted the benefit of doubt and should considered merely as accomplices and should be meted a penalty one degree lower than that to be imposed on accused Jesus Bongon, Jr. who is unequivocally the principal.[6]
Consequently, it cannot be said that the RTC maintained its initial belief that the three accused conspired with Bongon to kill Magsino. The evidence of the shooting changed its mind. The RTC’s real error was in stating such initial belief so categorically that it sounded like it regarded such belief as final. Still as demonstrated above, further down its reasoning process, the RTC managed to state clearly the final position it was taking with respect to the role of the three accused in the subject crime."
x x x."
