11 Apr
11Apr

US v Mendoza

GR No. 7540, 23 Sept 1912

TorresJ.:

FACTS:

       In the evening of 1 Aug 1910, Bernabe Mangunay approached the house carrying a papaya firebrand of Mateo del Rosario in Apulid Panique, Tarlac to ask for something to eat.  He got too close to the house and the eaves caught fire causing a large part of the house to be consumed. Mateo was at the neighbor’s. Silveria Marcoleta, Mateo’s wife, called out for help and managed to escape the house with their children.

        The following day, Mateo reported to barrio lieutenant Vicente Mendoza what happened.  Mendoza ordered junior lieutenant Cadido Yabut to summon the accused.  Upon appearance, Mendoza took no action nor did he even report the facts to the proper higher authority.

        On 5 Sept 1910 the provincial fiscal filed an information to the CFI charging Vicente Mendoza as accessory in the crime of arson.  Judgment was rendered on 22 May 1911 finding Mendoza guilty as charged; from which judgment he appealed.


ISSUE:

        W/N the acquittal of the principal carries with it the acquittal fo the accessory.


HELD:

        Yes.  First of all, the Court ruled that the charged should have been prevaricacion under Art 355 for neglect of the duties of his office by maliciously failing to move the prosecution and punishment of the delinquent.

        Since the Bernabe Mangunay was acquitted for lack of evidence, it also necessary follows that Mendoza must also have been acquitted.  The responsibility of the accessory is subordinate to that of the principal because the accessory’s participation therein is subsequent to its commission and his guilt is very directly related to the principal delinquent in the punishable act. If the  facts alleged are not proven in the prosecution institutes, or do not constitute a crime, no legal grounds exist for convicting a defendant as an accessory after the fact of a crime not perpetrated or of parties not guilty.

        In the case at bar, since the acts charged against Mangunay do not constitute a crime, it is neither proper nor possible to convict the defendant as accessory.

Comments
* The email will not be published on the website.
I BUILT MY SITE FOR FREE USING