People vs. Castillo

To be guilty as a co-principal by inducement, the inducement must be of such nature and made in such a way as to become the determining cause of the crime, and it must be uttered with the intention of producing the result; an utterance made after the assailant has already inflicted the fatal wound does not satisfy this rule. Thus Carlos Castillo’s shout “You kill him” after Marincho had already fatally boloed Vargas did not establish murder by inducement.

Carlos Castillo and his son Marincho Castillo were charged with murder in the Court of First Instance of Oriental Mindoro for the death of Juan Vargas. Sometime in October 1959, Marincho was slapped in the face by Vargas after an altercation between them because a cow belonging to Marincho had gone astray and destroyed some plants of Vargas. Unable to retaliate at that time, Marincho told Vargas: “You, Manong Juan, will have your own day.”

About 5:30 o’clock in the afternoon of December 28, 1959, in barrio Malibago, municipality of Pola, Oriental Mindoro, while Carlos, holding a gun in his right hand, was talking face to face with Vargas, Marincho came from behind and hacked Vargas on the head. As Marincho was about to strike the victim a second time, Carlos said: “You kill him.” In the evening of the same day, Marincho, accompanied by Carlos, surrendered himself to the authorities.

A post-mortem examination conducted by the municipal health officer of Pola revealed that Vargas died instantaneously as a result of severe hemorrhage due to multiple wounds.

With the testimony of Jose Ilagan, the prosecution attempted to prove conspiracy between Carlos and his son. According to Ilagan, on the afternoon in question he saw both walking very fast towards the poblacion, Carlos with a revolver in his hand and his son carrying a bolo, both presumably gunning for Vargas.

• Conspiracy: Whether conspiracy between Carlos Castillo and Marincho Castillo was established by the prosecution.
• Murder by Inducement: Whether Carlos Castillo can be found guilty of murder by inducement for uttering “You kill him” after Marincho had already fatally boloed Juan Vargas and was about to strike a second time.

• Conspiracy: No. The testimony of Jose Ilagan was given little credibility, and the circumstances suggested Vargas had gone near Carlos’s house rather than Carlos and his son going out to search for him.
• Murder by Inducement: No. The utterance “You kill him” came after the fatal blow; following People vs. Caimbre, inducement must be the determining cause of the crime and uttered with intent to produce the result.

• Conspiracy: The prosecution attempted to prove conspiracy through Jose Ilagan, who testified that he saw Carlos and Marincho walking very fast towards the poblacion, Carlos with a revolver and Marincho with a bolo, presumably gunning for Vargas. The SC gave very little credibility to this testimony because the incident between Vargas and Marincho had taken place in October 1959 while the fatal incident took place on December 28 of the same year, and because the fatal incident took place hardly twenty meters away from Carlos’s house, indicating that Vargas had gone or passed by the street near Carlos’s house rather than Carlos and his son going out in search of Vargas. The testimony therefore did not establish conspiracy.
• Murder by Inducement: The SC applied the rule in People vs. Caimbre: in determining whether the utterances of an accused are sufficient to make him guilty as co-principal by inducement, it must appear that the inducement was of such nature and was made in such a way as to become the determining cause of the crime and that such inducement was uttered with the intention of producing the result. Carlos was armed with a revolver while talking with Vargas, but the firearm was not pointed at Vargas. He allegedly uttered “You kill him” only after Marincho had already fatally boloed Vargas on the head. The alleged inducement was therefore no longer necessary to induce the assailant to commit the crime. Following Caimbre and the prior rulings in People vs. Alvarez, People vs. Canare, People vs. Omini, and United States vs. Indanan, the SC held that Carlos’s guilt was not established beyond reasonable doubt.

• Co-Principal by Inducement — An accused may be liable as a co-principal by inducement only if the inducement was of such nature and made in such a way as to become the determining cause of the crime and was uttered with the intention of producing the result. In this case, Carlos’s shout “You kill him” came after Marincho had already fatally boloed Vargas, so it was not the determining cause of the crime.
• Conspiracy — Credibility of Evidence — The prosecution must prove conspiracy with credible evidence. The SC gave little credibility to Jose Ilagan’s testimony because the prior altercation was months before the fatal incident and the killing occurred near Carlos’s house, suggesting Vargas had come to the vicinity rather than Carlos and Marincho going out to search for him.

• “in determining whether the utterances of an accused are sufficient to make him guilty as co-principal by inducement, it must appear that the inducement was of such nature and was made in such a way as to become the determining cause of the crime and that such inducement was uttered with the intention of producing the result.” — The SC states the controlling rule on inducement as co-principal.
• “It appears, therefore, that the alleged inducement to commit the crime was no longer necessary to induce the assailant to commit the crime.” — The SC applies the rule to Carlos’s shout after the fatal blow had already been struck.
• “Very little credibility can be given to this testimony” — The SC assesses Jose Ilagan’s testimony offered to prove conspiracy.
• “We are constrained to hold that appellant's guilt has not been established beyond reasonable doubt.” — The SC concludes that Carlos must be acquitted.

• People vs. Caimbre, et al., G.R. No. L-12087 (Dec. 29, 1960) — Controlling precedent; similar facts; laid down the rule that inducement must be the determining cause of the crime and uttered with intent to produce the result.
• People vs. Alvarez, et al., G.R. No. L-10650 (July 26, 1960) — Cited as a prior ruling reiterated in the Caimbre doctrine.
• People vs. Canare, et al., G.R. No. 10677 (Sept. 30, 1959) — Cited as a prior ruling reiterated in the Caimbre doctrine.
• People vs. Omini, 61 Phil. 609 — Cited as a prior ruling reiterated in the Caimbre doctrine.
• United States vs. Indanan, 24 Phil. 203 — Cited as a prior ruling reiterated in the Caimbre doctrine.