Title
Vino vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 84163
Decision Date
Oct 19, 1989
Roberto Tejada was shot; Jessie Salazar acquitted, Lito Vino convicted as accessory despite Salazar’s acquittal. Supreme Court upheld Vino’s conviction, ruling accessory liability independent of principal’s trial outcome.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 84163)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Chronology of Events
    • On the evening of March 21, 1985, Roberto Tejada left his residence at Burgos Street, Poblacion, Balingao, Pangasinan at approximately 7:00 P.M. to visit the house of Isidro Salazar in order to watch television.
    • At about 11:00 P.M., while Ernesto Tejada (Roberto’s father) was resting, he heard two gunshots followed by Roberto’s cry indicating he had been shot.
    • Ernesto, accompanied by his wife and children Ermalyn and Julius, proceeded to the scene where they found Roberto injured approximately 10 meters away after switching on the house lights and with help from neighbor’s street lights.
  • Identification of Suspects and Witness Testimonies
    • Upon arriving at Ernesto’s house, witnesses observed Lito Vino and Jessie Salazar riding a bicycle coming from the south.
    • It was noted that Lito Vino was driving the bicycle while Jessie Salazar, carrying an armalite, was the passenger, and both men stopped briefly at the house where Roberto was found.
    • Witnesses Ernesto and Julius Tejada later testified about having seen Vino and Salazar at the scene, with salience on Salazar’s possession of the weapon.
  • Medical and Forensic Evidence
    • Roberto Tejada was transported to the Sacred Heart Hospital of Urdaneta where PC/Col. Bernardo Cacananta took his ante-mortem statement, which was signed with his own blood.
    • In this statement, Jessie Salazar was identified as the assailant responsible for the shooting.
    • The autopsy report detailed a gunshot wound with specific anatomical locations and measurements, establishing the cause of death as tension hemathorax.
  • Filing of Cases and Preliminary Proceedings
    • Charges of murder were initially filed against Lito Vino and Sgt. Jesus Salazar by PC Sgt. Ernesto N. Ordono in the Municipal Trial Court of Balungao, Pangasinan.
    • Given that Jessie Salazar was a member of the military, his case was referred to the Judge Advocate General’s Office (JAGO) on March 22, 1985, while the case against Vino proceeded with the issuance of a warrant for his arrest.
    • Ultimately, the case was indorsed to the fiscal’s office which filed an information against Vino in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Rosales, Pangasinan, charging him with murder.
  • Trial and Conviction of Lito Vino
    • Upon arraignment, Lito Vino pleaded not guilty. During trial, he filed a motion to dismiss for insufficiency of evidence rather than presenting evidence of his own.
    • On January 21, 1986, the trial court rendered a decision convicting Vino as an accessory to the crime of murder.
    • The court imposed an indeterminate prison sentence of 4 years and 2 months (minimum) to 8 years (maximum) of prision mayor, ordered him to indemnify the victim’s heirs P10,000.00, and assessed the cost of the proceedings.
    • Vino’s motion for reconsideration was denied and he subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the judgment of the lower court.
  • Subsequent Proceedings Involving Jessie Salazar
    • While Vino’s appeal was pending, the case against Jessie Salazar in the JAGO was remanded to the civil court due to his discharge from military service and later refiled in the RTC of Rosales under Criminal Case No. 2027-A.
    • On August 29, 1988, Jessie Salazar was acquitted by the trial court in his separate proceeding, a fact later communicated to this Court by petitioner in a supplemental pleading dated November 14, 1988.
    • The main contention before the Court on reconsideration was whether a conviction as an accessory to murder can stand when the alleged principal in a separate proceeding has been acquitted.

Issues:

  • Whether a finding of guilt as an accessory to murder can be sustained even if the alleged principal (Jessie Salazar) was acquitted in a separate proceeding.
  • Whether it is procedurally and substantively proper to convict an accused as an accessory even though he was charged in the information as a principal for the crime of murder.
  • Whether the trial of an accessory may proceed independently of the trial outcome of the principal.
  • Whether the failure to charge the petitioner as an accessory at the outset, instead of charging him solely as a principal, affects his conviction.
  • The implications of the acquittal of the principal on the accessory’s criminal liability, especially in light of the principle that “the accessory follows the principal.”

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.