Anda di halaman 1dari 2

People v.

Summary Cases:
People of the Philippines vs. Jeanette (Ginette) Yanson-Dumancas et al.
People v. Yanson-Dumancas
Subject: Degree of culpability, indeterminate sentence la
!cting upon the alleged inducement of spouses Jeanette and "harles Dumancas, under the direction
cooperation and undue influence, e#erted by P$"ol. %icolas &orres, ta'ing advantage of his position as the
(tation "ommander of the P%P, ith the direct participation and cooperation of other Police )nspectors,
concurring and affirming in the said criminal design, ith the use of motor vehicle abduct, 'idnap and detain
*ufino Gargar Jr., ith evident premeditation and treachery, nocturnity, and the use of motor vehicle, did then
and there shot and 'ill the said victim, hile being handcuffed and blindfolded+ that accused did then and there
secretly bury the corpse in a shallo grave or the purpose of concealing the crime of murder in order to
prevent its discovery.
,. )n "*)-)%!. "!(/ %0. 12-,3345, each of the !ccused charged as principal is hereby sentenced to suffer
the penalty of *eclusion Perpetua, ith all the accessories of the la+ to indemnify, 6ointly and severally, the
7eirs of *ufino Gargar Jr.
5. )n "*)-)%!. "!(/ %0. 12-,3348, each of the !ccused charged as principal is hereby sentenced to suffer
the penalty of *eclusion Perpetua, ith all the accessories of the la, indemnify 6ointly and severally, the 7eirs
of Danilo .umangyao.
!ccused "harles Dumancas, Police 0fficers Pahayupan and "adunay Jr. are hereby ac9uitted of the
crime charged for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 0n the case of
accused-appellant Jeanette Yanson-Dumancas, the information charged her of the crime of 'idnapping for
ransom ith murder as principal by induction together ith her husband, "harles, ho as found by the trial
court not guilty of the crime.
Principal by Inducement
,. !rticle ,:, *evised Penal "ode, provides; &he folloing are considered principals; (i) &hose ho ta'e a
direct part in the e#ecution of the act+ (ii) &hose ho directly force or induce others to commit it+ and (iii)
&hose ho cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act ithout hich it ould not have
been accomplished.
5. <hat the "ourt no has to e#amine is hether or not sufficient evidence as adduced by the
prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Jeanette indeed performed any of the folloing
acts; (a) directly forcing the 'illers to commit the crime, or (b) directly inducing them to commit the
8. &here are 5 ays of directly forcing another to commit a crime, namely; (i) by using irresistible force, or
(ii) by causing uncontrollable fear. =pon revie of the testimony of all the itnesses of the prosecution,
e find nothing to conclude that Jeanette used irresistible force or caused uncontrollable fear upon the
other accused-appellants.
2. &he record is entirely bereft of any evidence to sho that Jeanette directly forced the participants of the
said meeting to come up ith such plan, by either using irresistible force or causing uncontrollable
fear. &he only basis relied upon by the trial court in arriving at its conclusion that Jeanette is guilty of
the crime as principal by inducement, is the supposed >commands? or order given by her to accused-
appellant Dominador Geroche.
3. .i'eise, there are 5 ays of directly inducing another to commit a crime, namely; (i) by giving a price,
or offering reward or promise, and (ii) by using words of command. &he "ourt finds no evidence, as did
the trial court, to sho that Jeanette offered any price, reard, or promise to the rest of accused-
appellants should they abduct and later 'ill the victims in this case.
4. @y the foregoing standards, the remar' of Jeanette to >ta'e care of the to? does not constitute the
command re9uired by la to 6ustify a finding that she is guilty as a principal by inducement.
:. Aurthermore, the utterance hich as supposedly the act of inducement, should precede the
commission of the crime itself (People vs. Castillo, July 54, B,144C). )n the case at bar, the abduction,
hich is an essential element of the crime charged ('idnapping for ransom ith murder) has already
ta'en place hen Jeanette allegedly told accused-appellant Geroche to >ta'e care of the to.? (aid
utterance could, therefore, not have been the inducement to commit the crime charged in this case.
Testimony may be partly credited and partly rejected
D. )n his brief, accused-appellant Geroche cites GrandeEaFs failure to identify one of their co-accused,
"harles Dumancas, in open court, and the variance on the alleged instructions given by Jeanette, and
the failure by GrandeEa to mention the supposed meetings in his previous affidavits, as grounds to
totally disregard GrandeEaFs entire testimony for being unorthy of credence.
1. &he ma#im of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus, hoever, is not a positive rule of la. %either is it an
infle#ible one of universal application. )f a part of a itnessF testimony is found true, it cannot be
disregarded entirely. &he testimony of a itness may be believed in part and disbelieved in part.
,G. Testimony may be partly credited and partly rejected. &rier of facts are not bound to believe all that
any itness has said+ they may accept some portions of his testimony and re6ect other portions,
according to hat seems to them, upon other facts and circumstances to be the truth.
,,. /ven hen itnesses are found to have deliberately falsified in some material particulars, the 6ury are
not re9uired to re6ect the hole of their uncorroborated testimony, but may credit such portions as they
deem orthy of belief.
Indeterminate Sentence
,5. =nder !rticle 54: of the *evised Penal "ode, hen the crime of 'idnapping is committed for the
purpose of e#torting ransom from the victims, the penalty is death. 7oever, since the crime as
committed before the re-imposition of the death penalty, only reclusion perpetua is imposable upon all
the accused-appellant found guilty of the crime as principals.
,8. !ccused-appellant PechaFs penalty, as accessory is 5 degrees loer, hich is prision mayor. !pplying
the indeterminate sentence la, the penalty to be imposed is 4 months and , day (the minimum
of prision correccional), as minimum, up to D years (ithin the minimum period of prision mayor), as the