Scribd
Upload
120 views2 pages

G.R. No. 173858 July 17, 2007

Ernesto Garces was charged with forcible abduction with rape along with four others. The court found that Garces participated in the abduction before the victim was raped by positioning himself as a lookout outside the barn and later entering the barn to take the victim away. While there was not enough evidence to prove conspiracy, Garces' actions as a lookout and in removing the victim showed he knew of the criminal design and cooperated in the execution, making him liable as an accomplice rather than just an accessory. The court held that Garces was guilty of being an accomplice to rape rather than just an accessory.

Uploaded by

Tim
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
120 views2 pages

G.R. No. 173858 July 17, 2007

Ernesto Garces was charged with forcible abduction with rape along with four others. The court found that Garces participated in the abduction before the victim was raped by positioning himself as a lookout outside the barn and later entering the barn to take the victim away. While there was not enough evidence to prove conspiracy, Garces' actions as a lookout and in removing the victim showed he knew of the criminal design and cooperated in the execution, making him liable as an accomplice rather than just an accessory. The court held that Garces was guilty of being an accomplice to rape rather than just an accessory.

Uploaded by

Tim
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

ERNESTO GARCES vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES


G.R. No. 173858 July 17, 2007

FACTS:
Rosendo Pacursa, Senando Garces, Antonio Pira, Jr., Aurelio Pira, and petitioner Ernesto
Garces, were charged with Forcible Abduction with Rape. On August 2, 1992, while AAA was on
her way to the chapel, the five accused suddenly appeared and approached her.  Rosendo
Pacursa covered her mouth with his hands and told her not to shout or she will be killed.  He
then brought her inside a nearby tobacco barn while his four companions stood guard outside.
Inside the barn, Pacursa started kissing AAA.  Private complainant fought back but to no avail. 
Thereafter, Pacursa succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her.  After a while, they heard
people shouting and calling the name of AAA.  At this point, petitioner Ernesto Garces entered
the barn, covered AAA’s mouth, then dragged her outside.  He also threatened to kill her if she
reports the incident.
 
Upon reaching the house of Florentino Garces, petitioner released AAA.  Rosendo Pacursa
denied that he raped the victim, while his co-accused presented alibis as their defense. On the
other hand, petitioner, Antonio Pira, Jr., and Aurelio Pira, testified that they were watching a
televised basketball game at the house of Antonio Pira, Jr. at the time the alleged rape
transpired.  They denied seeing Pacursa that night.

After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered its decision finding Pacursa guilty of Forcible
Abduction with Rape while petitioner Garces was found guilty as an accessory to the crime. 
Antonio Pira, Jr. and Aurelio Pira were acquitted for insufficiency of evidence. Both Pacursa and
petitioner appealed the decision with the Court of Appeals. However, Pacursa subsequently
withdrew his appeal. The Court of Appeals rendered its Decision affirming with modification the
decision of the trial court. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but same was denied.
Hence, the instant petition for review on certiorari.
 
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner is guilty as an accessory to the crime of rape.
HELD:
No. The facts show that petitioner participated in the commission of the crime even before
complainant was raped.  He was present when Pacursa abducted complainant and when he
brought her to the barn.  He positioned himself outside the barn together with the other
accused as a lookout.  When he heard the shouts of people looking for complainant, he entered
the barn and took complainant away from Pacursa.
 
Having known of the criminal design and thereafter acting as a lookout, petitioner is liable as
an accomplice, there being insufficient evidence to prove conspiracy, and not merely as an
accessory.  As defined in the Revised Penal Code, accomplices are those who, not being
included in Article 17, cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous
acts.  The two elements necessary to hold petitioner liable as an accomplice are present:  (1)
community of criminal design, that is, knowing the criminal design of the principal by direct
participation, he concurs with the latter in his purpose; and (2) performance of previous or
simultaneous acts that are not indispensable to the commission of the crime.
 

You might also like