People v. Fronda

PEOPLE v.
FRONDA
G.R. Nos. 102361-62 | May 14, 1993 | Third Division | Appeal
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee
RUDY FRONDA, defendant-appellant.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Juan T. Antonio for accused-appellant.
Bidin, J.
Digest by Bryan John Maga
Short Version: Fronda presented the exempting circumstance of

uncontrollable fear. He alleged that the night before the killing
of the Balaan brothers, he was taken by the NPA from his house.
Later, he was ordered to tie their hands and subsequently dig
their graves. The Supreme Court held that fear in order to be
valid should be based on a real, imminent or reasonable fear for
one's life or limb. However, the contemporaneous and subsequent
acts of Fronda cannot be regarded as having been done under such
impulse. First, he was seen receiving from one of the armed men a
hunting knife. Second, he had the opportunity to escape when he
was ordered by the NPA to go home but instead joined the armed
men when required to later bring a spade with which he was
ordered to dig the grave. Last, Fronda was not able to explain
his failure to report the incident to the authorities for more
than 3 years.
Facts:
- Brothers Eduardo and Esminio Balaan were taken by 7 armed
men in fatigue uniform with long firearms, suspected to be
NPA members, accompanied by Rudy Fronda and Roderick Padua.
Fronda and Padua are residents of the same place. The armed
men, with Fronda and Padua, then proceeded towards the
mountain in sitio Tulong, Cataratan, Allacapan, Cagayan
passing through the ricefields, taking along with them the
Balaan brothers.
- About 3 years after, the bodies or remains of the Balaan
brothers were found and examined by the army.
- Subsequently, Fronda, together with one Reynaldo Agcaoili
were charged with murder before the RTC of Cagayan.
- Fronda testified that on the night before the incident, he
was taken by the NPA from his house, accompanied by Padua
and Robert Peralta, alias Ka Jun to look for the Balaan
brothers.
- After finding them, they tied their hands and brought them
to the mountain at Sitio Tulong. After that, the NPA
instructed them to go home, but in the afternoon of the same
day, Ka Jun, sent Elmer Martinez, Orlando Gonzales, George
Peralta and Librado Duran to get him and ordered him to get
a spade and a crowbar. They were to dig a hole in the
mountain, 1 kilometer away from his house.
- Agcaoili was later acquitted but Fronda was found guilty as
principal by indispensable cooperation for two counts of the
crime of murder and was sentenced to suffer in each case,
the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA.
Issues: WON Fronda can claim the exempting circumstance of

uncontrollable fear? No.
WON Fronda could be convicted as a principal by
indispensable cooperation? No.
Dispositive:
Judgment appealed from modified. Fronda found guilty as an
accomplice to the murder.
Reasoning:
On the inapplicability of “uncontrollable fear” as exempting

circumstance:
- Fear in order to be valid should be based on a real,
imminent or reasonable fear for one's life or limb.
Moreover, it is necessary that the compulsion be of such a
character as to leave no opportunity to escape or self-
defense in equal combat. In the case at bar, however,
circumstances establish the fact that Fronda consciously
concurred with the acts of the assailants.
- First, records indicate that Fronda was seen being handed by
and receiving from one of the armed men a hunting knife.
- Second, Fronda had the opportunity to escape when he was
ordered by the armed men to go home after bringing the
victims to the mountains. He did not. Instead he joined the
armed men when required to bring a spade with which he was
ordered to dig the grave.
- Last, Fronda was not able to explain his failure to report
the incident to the authorities for more than 3 years. He
chose to remain silent.
- Hence, the contemporaneous and subsequent acts of Fronda
cannot be regarded as having been done under the impulse of
uncontrollable fear.
-
On Fronda’s conviction as a principal by indispensable
cooperation through circumstantial evidence:
- The acts performed by Fronda (e.g. leading the NPA to the
house, tying the hands of the brothers and digging the
grave) are not, by themselves, indispensable to the killing
of the Balaan brothers.
- To be considered as a principal by indispensable
cooperation, there must be direct participation in the
criminal design by another act without which the crime could
not have been committed.
- Prosecution failed to present any evidence tending to
establish Fronda’s conspiracy with the evil designs of the
members of the NPA.
- Neither was it established that his acts were of such
importance that the crime would not have been committed
without him or that he participated in the actual killing.
- However, Fronda’s act of joining the armed men in going to
the mountains, and his failure to object to their unlawful
orders, or show any reluctance in obeying the same, may be
considered as circumstances evincing his concurrence with
the objectives of the malefactors and had effectively
supplied them with material and moral aid, thereby making
him as an accomplice.
- Fronda cannot also claim that he was unaware of the evil
intentions of the armed men which may have been the case had
he merely guided the group to locate the victims' abodes. On
the contrary, Fronda himself tied the victims' hands and
even joined the armed men in taking the victims to the
hills. Fronda’s complicity is made more manifest by the fact
that without any justifiable reason he failed to report the
incident to the authorities for a period of more than 3
years.
Feliciano, Davide, Jr., Romero and Melo, JJ., concur.

People v. Fronda

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Fronda

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Fronda

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE v.

Short Version: Fronda presented the exempting circumstance of

Issues: WON Fronda can claim the exempting circumstance of

On the inapplicability of “uncontrollable fear” as exempting

You might also like