700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Montealegre

*
No. L-67948. May 31, 1988.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

NAPOLEON MONTEALEGRE, defendant-appellant

Criminal Law; Constitutional Law; The conviction of the accused

depends upon the strength of the prosecution and not the weakness of the
defense.—It is a settled rule in this jurisdiction that the conviction of the
accused, who is constitutionally presumed innocent, depends upon the
strength of the prosecution and not the weakness of the defense.
Unfortunately for the accused in this case, his prosecution for murder with
assault upon a person in authority, undoubtedly already strong, was made
even stronger by the defense itself.

Same; Same; Same; Conspiracy; Principal by indispensable

Cooperation under Art. 17, par. 3 of the Revised Penal Code; Requisites of.
—The accused-appellant was correctly considered a co-principal for having
collaborated with Capalad in the killing of the police officer. The two acted
in concert, with Capalad actually stabbing Camantigue seven times and the
accused-appellant holding on to the victim’s hands to prevent him from
drawing his pistol and defending himself. While it is true that the accused-
appellant did not himself commit the act of stabbing, he was nonetheless
equally guilty thereof for having prevented Camantigue from resisting the
attack against him. The accused-appellant was a principal by indispensable
cooperation under Article 17, par. 3, of the Revised Penal Code. As
correctly interpreted, the requisites of this provision are: "(1) participating in
the criminal resolution, that is, there is either anterior conspiracy or unity of
criminal purpose and intention immediately before the commission of the
crime charged; and (2) cooperation in the commission of the offense by
performing another act without which it would not have been
accomplished.”

_______________
 * FIRST DIVISION.

701

VOL. 161, MAY 31, 1988 701

People vs. Montealegre

Same; Same: Same; Same; Contention that although there was no

evidence of a prior agreement between Capalad and Montealegre, their
subsequent acts proved the presence of such conspiracy.—The prosecution
contends that although there was no evidence of a prior agreement between
Capalad and Montealegre, their subsequent acts should prove the presence
of such conspiracy. The Court sustains this view, which conforms to our
consistent holding on this matter: “Conspiracy need not be established by
direct proof as it can be inferred from the acts of the appellants. It is enough
that, at the time the offense was committed, participants had the same
purpose and were united in its execution; as may be inferred from the
attendant circumstances.”

APPEAL from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Cavite

City.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
     The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
     Citizens Legal Assistance Office for defendant-appellant.

CRUZ, J.:

It is a settled rule in this jurisdiction that the conviction of the

accused, who is constitutionally presumed innocent, depends upon
the strength of the prosecution and not the weakness of the defense.
Unfortunately for the accused in this case, his prosecution for
murder with assault upon a person in authority, undoubtedly already
strong, was made even stronger by the defense itself.
**
As the trial court which convicted him saw it, the crime
imputed to Napoleon Montealegre was committed as follows:
At about 11:30 in the evening of March 11, 1983, while
Edmundo Abadilla was eating at the Meding’s Restaurant in Cavite
City, he detected the smell of marijuana smoke coming from a
nearby table, Intending to call a policeman, he quietly went outside
and saw Pfc. Renato Camantigue in his car whom he hailed to report
the matter. After parking his vehicle, Camantigue joined Abadilla in
the restaurant and soon thereafter the two smelled marijuana smoke
from the table occupied by Vicente Capalad and the accused-
appellant. Camantigue

_______________

** Decision penned by Judge Rolando D. Diaz, RTC, Cavite City, Branch XVII.

702

702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Montealegre

then approached the two and collared both of them, saying

“Nagmamarijuana kayo, ano?” Forcing them up, he asked the
1
waitress if she knew them but the waitress said she did not. Then
the mayhem began.
While Camantigue was holding the two, Montealegre with this
right hand and Capalad with his left hand, Capalad suddenly and
surreptitiously pulled out a knife from a scabbard tucked in the right
2
side of his waist and started stabbing Camantigue in the back.
Camantigue let loose Montealegre to draw the gun from his holster
but Montealegre, thus released, restrained Camantigue’s hand to
prevent the latter from defending
3
himself. Montealegre used both his4
hands for this purpose, as Capalad continued stabbing the victim.
While they were thus grappling, the three fell to the floor and
Capalad, freed from Camantigue’s grip, rose and scampered toward
the door. Camantigue fired and, continuing the pursuit outside, fired
5
again. Capalad fled into a dark alley. Camantigue abandoned the
chase and asked to be brought to a hospital. Capalad was later found
slumped in the alley with a bullet wound in his chest. Neither
6
Camantigue nor Capalad survived, both expiring the following day.
The accused-appellant, for his part, escaped during the
7
confusion. Having been informed of the incident, Capt. Cipriano
Gilera of the Cavite police immediately organized a team that went
8
to look for him that very night. They did not find him in his house
then but he was apprehended in the morning of March 12, 1983, on
board a vehicle bound for Baclaran. He gave his 9
name as Alegre but
later admitted he was the fugitive being sought.
Dr. Regalado Sosa, reporting on the autopsy of the Camantigue’s
body, testified that death was caused by severe

_______________

1 Decision (Rollo, p. 12).

 2 Ibid.
3 TSN, May 9, 1983, p. 34.
4 Ibid., pp. 29–30.
5 Id., pp. 35–40.
6 Id., p. 44; Id, Sept. 20, 1983, p. 165.
7 Id., p. 36.
8 Rollo, p. 13.
9 TSN. Oct. 17, 1983, pp. 172–173.

703

VOL. 161, MAY 31, 1988 703

People vs. Montealegre

shock due to massive internal hemorrhage caused by seven wounds 10

affecting the heart, lungs, liver, stomach, panereas, and diaphragm.
The weapon used was 6" in length and about 2 to 2.5 11
cm. in width
and the blood found on it was analyzed as human. The 12
stabbing
incident was narrated in detail at the 13
trial by Abadilla, who was
corroborated by Generoso San Juan.
On direct examination, Abadilla testified that Montealegre
prevented Camantigue from drawing his pistol while he was being
stabbed by Capalad, demonstrating with the aid of court personnel
14
the relative positions of the three during the incident.
On cross-examination, he reiterated his previous declaration even
more emphatically, thus:

Q. When accused Montealegre held the hand of Pfc. Camantigue

upon drawing his gun, what happened to Camantigue?
A. He could not move, sir. He could not make any defense because
he was being held by Montealegre and he was being stabbed at
15
the back.

He replied as follows to questions on re-direct to stress the

participation of the accused-appellant:

Q. When accused Capalad started stabbing Pfc. Camantigue at the

back, accused Montealegre was being held by Pfc. Camantigue
at that time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And in fact Montealegre was very close to the right of
Camantigue at that time?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And Montealegre was aware that Capalad was stabbing Pfc.
Camantigue?
16
A. Yes, sir, he knew.

_______________

10 Ibid., July 12, 1983, p, 151,

11 Ibid.; Id., June 1, 1983, p. 70.
12 Id., May 9, 1983, pp. 25–30.
13 Id., June 27, 1983, pp. 123–124.
14 May 9, 1983, pp. 21, 31–34.
15 Id., June 27, 1983, p. 99.
16 Id., pp. 105–106.

704

704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Montealegre

In answer to clarificatory questions from the court, he declared:

Q. And when Montealegre saw that Camantigue was about to draw

his gun, Montealegre grabbed the hand of Camantigue?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. With what hand?
A. Both hands, sir.
Q. And was Camantigue able to pull out from his waist the gun?
A. No, sir.
Q. Why?
A. Because Montealegre was holding his hand, Your Honor.
Q. With both hands?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Montealegre was holding with both hands the right hand of
Camantigue?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And at this moment when Montealegre was holding with both
hands the hand of Camantigue, what was Capalad doing?
17
A. Capalad was still stabbing Camantigue, Your Honor.
San Juan was equally categorical in his testimony, saying on direct
examination.

Q. When Camantigue was being stabbed, where was Montealegre?

A He was on the right side.
Q. What was he doing at that time?
A. While Camantigue was being stabbed, he tried to pull his gun
but Montealegre held his hand.
Q. Was Camantigue able to draw his gun?
A. No, sir.
Q. What happened when Camantigue failed to draw his gun?
A. They slammed down on the floor and when they were already
18
on the floor, I ran away because I was already frightened.

_______________

17 Id., pp. 111–112.

18 Id., pp. 123424,

705

VOL. 161, MAY 31, 1988 705

People vs. Montealegre

The cause of the defense did not improve when on cross-

examination, he insisted:

A. When Camantigue was about to draw his gun, Montealegre

suddenly held the hand of Camantigue,
Q. And when Montealegre suddenly held the hand of Camantigue,
what happened to Camantigue?
A. He could not draw his gun because while Montealegre was
19
holding his hand, Capalad was stabbing him at the back.

And to the court, the witness maintained his testimony as follows:

Q. So Camantigue was hit many times by Capalad while

Montealegre was holding the right hand of the policeman to
prevent him from drawing his gun?
20
A. Yes, sir.
The accused-appellant, testifying on his behalf, only succeeded in
confirming his own guilt. He claimed he ran away before the
stabbing but his testimony, consisting of denials, evasions,
contradictions, claims of ignorance and forgetfulness and
protestations of innocence, does not have the ring of truth. The
following excerpts are reflective of the kind of defense he offered to
exculpate himself from the charge established against him by the
prosecution.

Q. Now, while Pfc. Camantigue was arresting Vicente Capalad.

what happened if any?
A. Camantigue pulled his gun.
Q. What happened after that?
21
A. Nothing, I did not see anymore what happened.
  xxx
A. I cannot say anything about that. I did not see what really
happened.
Q. Did you see Capalad stabbing Pfc. Camantigue?
22
A. I did not see.

_______________

19 Id., pp. 137–138.

20 Id., pp. 142–143.
21 Id., Feb. 28,1984, p. 187.
22

706

706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Montealegre

  xxx
Q. From whom did you come to know that Pfc. Camantigue shot
and killed Vicente Capalad?
A. From the witness Abadilla. I have heard from him that
23
Camantigue killed Capalad.
  xxx
Q. Mr. Montealegre, did you notice while Pfc. Camantigue was
holding both of you, did you notice that Vicente Capalad
 stabbed Pfc. Camantigue?
24
A. I did not see anything.
  xxx
Q. And you were standing on the right side of Pfc. Camantigue
while Capalad was on the left side?
A I am not sure whether I was standing at the right or at the left.
Q. But the fact is that you were standing on the right side of
Camantigue?
A. I am not sure if that is the right side.
Q. But you were standing on the side where his gun and holster
were placed?
25
A. I cannot remember.

It is simply unbelievable that the accused-appellant did not know

what was happening on that evening of March 11, 1983. As one of
the principal figures of the stabbing incident, he could not have not
known, nor could he later not remember, that startling event that
even more onlookers could not forget. The evidence has established
that the accused-appellant was directly and personally involved and
was in fact one of the two persons held by the victim when he was
stabbed. Yet Montealegre would now insist, quite incredibly, that he
was unaware of what had transpired that night.
If it is true, as he says, that he ran away before the stabbing, there
would have been less likelihood of Capalad’s attack as Camantigue’s
attention would have been fully concentrated on his lone captive.
Moreover, there would have been nothing to restrain the policeman
from drawing his pistol and defending himself against Capalad if the
accused-appellant had, by his own account, already escaped before
the stabbing.

_______________

23 Id., p. 188.
24 Id., pp. 193–194.
25 ld., pp. 203–204.

707

VOL. 161, MAY 31, 1988 707

People vs. Montealegre
It is also worth noting that, instead of reporting to the authorities,
what the accused-appellant did was attempt to hide, only to be found
the following morning on board a bus bound for outside Cavite City.
When apprehended, he first gave a false name before he finally
admitted his identity, thus beginning the mesh of contradictions,
admissions and denials, in which he would ensnare himself.
The Court accepts the evidence established by the prosecution
that at the time of the stabbing, the victim was in uniform and,
therefore, could easily be recognized as a person in authority.
26
Several witnesses testified as to his attire when he was killed. And
even assuming that the victim was in civilian clothes on that tragic
night, the record shows that no less than the accused-appellant
himself, replying to questions put to him by the prosecution, 27
declared twice that he knew the victim to be a policeman.
The accused-appellant was correctly considered a co-principal
for having collaborated-with Capalad in the killing of the police
officer. The two acted in concert, with Capalad actually stabbing
Camantigue seven times and the accused-appellant holding on to the
victim’s hands to prevent him from drawing his pistol and defending
himself. While it is true that the accused-appellant did not himself
commit the act of stabbing, he was nonetheless equally guilty
thereof for having prevented Camantigue from resisting the attack
against him. The accused-appellant was a principal by indispensable
cooperation under Article 17, par. 3, of the Revised Penal Code.
As correctly interpreted, the requisites of this provision are: "(1)
participating in the criminal resolution, that is, there is either anterior
conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose and intention immediately
before the commission of the crime charged; and (2) cooperation in
the commission of the offense by performing another act without
28
which it would not have been accomplished."
The prosecution contends that although there was no evi-

_______________

26 Id., June 27,1983, p. 143; Id., July 29, 1983, p. 158; Id., March 5, 1984, pp.
231–234.
27 Id., Feb. 28,1984, pp. 210–211, 219–220.
28 Luis B. Reyes, Criminal Law, 1977 ed., p. 506.

708

708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Montealegre
dence of a prior agreement between Capalad and Montealegre, their
subsequent acts should prove the presence of such conspiracy, The
Court sustains this view, which conforms to our consistent holding
on this matter:

“Conspiracy need not be established by direct proof as it can be inferred

from the acts of the appellants. It is enough that, at the time the offense was
committed, participants had the same purpose and were united in its
29
execution; as may be inferred from the attendant circumstances."
x     x     x
“We agree that there is no evidence to show a previous plan to kill
Regino Bautista. The whole incident happened because the accused came
upon Bautista and Mallabo fishing within or near the fishpond enclosure of
Carlo Aquino which was under the care of Vicente Cercano.
“But for a collective responsibility among the herein accused to be
established, it is not necessary or essential that there be a previous plan or
agreement to commit the assault; it is sufficient that at the time of the
aggression all the accused by their acts manifested a common intent or
desire to attack Bautista and Mallabo, so that the act of one accused became
30
the act of all."
x      x      x
“If it be proved that two or more persons aimed by their acts towards
accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their
acts, though apparently independent, were in fact connected and
cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and concurrence
of sentiment, a conspiracy may be inferred though no actual meeting among
them to concert is proven, A conspiracy may be entered into after the
31
commencement of overt acts leading to the consummation of the crime."

As for the second requirement, the Court has held that:

There can be no question that appellant’s act in holding the victim from
behind when the latter was stabbed by his cousin, Victor Buduan, was a
positive act towards the realization of a common criminal intent, although
the intent can be classified as instantaneous. It can be safely assumed that
had not appellant held both arms of the victim from behind, the latter could
have parried the thrust or even run away from his assailant. By
immobilizing the two hands of the victim from behind, and although there
was no anterior conspir

_______________

29 People v. Laganson, 129 SCRA 333, 350.

30 People v. Cercano, 87 SCRA 1, 11–12.
31 People v. Garcia y Cabarse, 94 SCRA 14, 26.
 709

VOL. 161, MAY 31, 1988 709

People vs. Montealegre

acy. the two cousins showed unity of criminal purpose and intent
32
immmediately before the actual stabbing."
x     x     x
“It has been sufficiently established that appellant Cabiles seized the
running decedent in such a manner that the latter could not even move or
turn around. This enabled the pursuing Labis, who was armed with a drawn
bolo and was barely five meters away from the decedent, to finally overtake
him and stab him at the back with hardly any risk at all. Cabiles therefore
performed another act—holding the decedent—without which the crime
would not have been accomplished. This makes him a principal by
33
indispensable cooperation."

The above requisites having been established, the accusedappellant

was correctly convicted of the complex crime of murder, as qualified
by treachery, with assault upon a person in authority. Accordingly,
he must suffer the penalty imposed upon him, to wit, reclusion
perpetua, there being no aggravating and mitigating circumstances,
plus the civil indemnity, which is hereby increased to P30,000.00,
and the actual, medical and funeral expenses in the sum of
P37,380.00 as proved at the trial.
Pfc. Renato Camantigue was only 34 years old when he died in
line of duty while enforcing the law against the abuse of dangerous
drugs. He was struck down with no less than seven vicious stabs by
a man who, by his own admission. was at the time of the incident
“burned” on marijuana. The killer also eventually succumbed, and
that made the second life needlessly lost to the wickedness of drug
addiction. There was another life also ruined. this time of the 28
year-old accusedappellant himself, although, fortunately for him, his
loss is not irretrievable nor is his future forever foreclosed. In the
somber shadows of the prison bars, as he ponders the wrong he has
done, he may yet find his ultimate redemption in rehabilitation and
remorse.
WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is AFFIRMED as above
modified, without any pronouncement as to costs. It is so ordered.

          Narvasa, Gancayco, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ.,

concur.
 _______________

32 Dacanay v. People, 94 SCRA 383, 389.

33 People v. Labis, 21 SCRA 875, 885.

710

710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Unchuan vs. Court of Appeals (Fifth Division)

Judgment affirmed with modification.

Note.—Although no formal agreement is necessary to establish

conspiracy and said conspiracy may be inferred of the crime, yet
conspiracy like any other ingredient of the offense, must be
established by clear and convincing evidence. (People vs. Agda, 111
SCRA 330.)

——o0o——

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.