People V.

Cordova
Under Voluntariness, Intelligence.
page 41 in RPC Crim Law by Reyes.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. REYNALDO CORDOVA @ "REY"
CORDOVA, EDUARDO CORDOVA @ "SULI" CORDOVA, ISIDRO CORDOVA, JR. @ "DROBAT,"
FREDDIE BUENCONSEJO @ "ODONG," and ERNESTO ESTORQUE, JR., Accused. REYNALDO
CORDOVA @ "REY" CORDOVA, EDUARDO CORDOVA @ "SULI" CORDOVA and ERNESTO
ESTORQUE, JR., Accused-Appellants.
Marcelo Barruela and Segundo Maguad were killed in Capiz evening of May 29 1986. the murder
allegedly involved heavy firearms and the use of banca in the successful execution.

All of the accused had an alibi, and only Estorque, Jr. 13 at that time testified to be at the vicinity of the
incident that night, to have heard the alleged gun shots from the place of the incident, and to have
confirmed contact with several men he suspected came from the crime scene. Estorque, Jr. testified
the banca he and his grandmother were using that night harvesting fish 20 meters from the Barruela
residence were commandeered by these men who ordered him at gunpoint to ferry them to another
town.

The RTC ruled the accused Reynaldo and Eduardo Cordova guilty for the death of Marcelo Barruela, and
Segunda Maguad and Ernesto Estorque, Jr. guilty of committing crime as an accessory. This was on the
merit of principal testimonees which came from Mrs. Barruela who was on the floor where her husband
fell beside from the gunshots, Rodolfo Maguad son of Segundo and Norberto Javier, bancero the
accused allegedly procured gasoline from.

Mrs. Baruela added the accused killed her husband because Marcello killed the uncle of Clarita Cordova,
the mother of the accused.

This was appealed to C.A. by the accused, then endorsed to SC due to the penalties imposed.

Appelant contested the credibility of the principal witnesses pointing out the refusal of Mrs. Barruela
to identify who killed her husband when she was first asked, and then delaying giving her side on what
has happened. She also contradicted few of her testimonies on what transpired that night before her
husband died.
The appelants also assailed the credibility of Rodolfo Maguad, for failing to reveal the identity of the
accused right away, and for contradicting himself as he said he couldn't recognize the people
responsible for the murder on an interview at a radio station the day after the incident.
In sum of the most corroborated testimonies, and in the absence of direct evidence; the accused could
not be proven to have actually killed Marcelo Barruela and Segundo Maguad. Leaving the admission of
Estorque in ferrying armed men 20 meters from the crime scene to another town.

Issue: Whether Estorque, Jr. could be an accessory to the crime.

No. first, according to Article 12 of the Revised penal code he is exempted from criminal liability being
a minor that time and as there wasn't any proof, nor testimonies presented at court that he was with
discernment.
On the topic of intelligence; Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code states for one to be liable as an
accessory, one must have knowledge of the commission of the crime.
People V. Cordova
Under Voluntariness, Intelligence.
page 41 in RPC Crim Law by Reyes.
Full text:

Art. 19. Accessories. — Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime,
and without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to
its commission in any of the following manners:
1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.
2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in order to
prevent its discovery.
3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principals of the crime, provided the
accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of
treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be
habitually guilty of some other crime.

Ruling: RTC decision reversed, accused acquitted and case set aside.