Anda di halaman 1dari 2

PEOPLE vs.

TAMPUS
(G.R. No. 181084, June 16, 2009)
Accomplice
FACTS:

ABC, is the daughter of appellant, Montesclaros, and was a minor at the time of the incident.
Montesclaros worked as a waitress in a beer house. Montesclaros and ABC were renting a room in a
house owned by Tampus, who was a barangay tanod. On April, 1995, ABC stated that she was in the
house with Montesclaros and Tampus who were both drinking beer. They forced her to drink beer and
when she became intoxicated she was now very sleepy then she overheard Tampus requesting her
mother, Montesclaros that he be allowed to have sexual intercourse with her. Montesclaros agreed and
instructed Tampus to leave as soon as he was finished. Montesclaros left for work essentially leaving
Tampus alone with the victim. She fell asleep and when she woke up she noticed that the garter of her
panties was loose and rolled down to her knees. She suffered pain all over her body noticed that her
panties and short pants were stained with blood which was coming from her genitals. Montesclaros
arrived home from work the following morning, she kept on crying but appellant ignored her.

A similar incident ensued on April 4, 1995 around 1:00 a.m., she was left alone in the room since
her mother was at work at the beer house. Tampus went inside their room and threatened to kill her if
she would report the previous incident to anyone. Same thing happened as Monteclaros ignored her
again when the victim told her about the incident.

Without other recourse she filed two Complaints. She accused Tampus of rape she declared in
her Complaint that this was done in conspiracy with co-accused Montesclaros, her mother, who gave
permission to Tampus to rape her. The victim also stated a similar incident effectively filing two separate
cases.

The trial court appreciated in Montesclaros favor the mitigating circumstance of illness which
would diminish the exercise of will-power without depriving her of the consciousness of her acts,
pursuant to Article 13(9) of the Revised Penal Code. The trial court convicted Tampus of two counts of
rape and found Montesclaros guilty as an accomplice.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the trial courts decision to implicate Ida Montesclaros as an accomplice in the
rape of ABC accurate?

RULING:

Yes, Montesclaros is accountable as an accomplice in the rape of her daughter, ABC. Accomplices
are persons who, not being included in Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code, cooperate in the execution
of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts.

The requisites that are needed are fulfilled to find Montesclaros guilty as an accomplice to
Tampus in the rape of ABC. The testimony of ABC shows that there was community of design between
Montesclaros and Tampus to commit the rape of ABC. Montesclaros had knowledge of and agreed to
Tampus' intention to have sexual intercourse with her daughter. She forced ABC to drink beer, and when
ABC was already drunk, she left ABC alone with Tampus, with the knowledge and even with her express
consent to Tampus' plan to have sexual intercourse with her daughter. It is settled jurisprudence that the
previous acts of cooperation by the accomplice should not be indispensable to the commission of the
crime; otherwise, she would be liable as a principal by indispensable cooperation.