Dear Companyero, I hope u can sendthis Mang Lauro & Dante.



From both the newspaper account and the Supreme Court’s stated background of the Vizconde case and its trial, it appears that the conviction by the trial court of Biong as an accessory to the said crime was on the basis of evidence separate and apart from those which led to the conviction of all the principals therein. As such, with due respect to the Hon. Supreme Court but without conceding that its acquittal of all the principals therein correct, I find its decision acquitting Biong, the accessory therein erroneous. The acquittal of the principals therein should not have carried his acquittal.

It is a truism that while there is always a principal offender in every crime, not every crime has an accessory offender. Equally true is that while the principal offender may not have been apprehended and convicted, the accessory may be apprehended and convicted by the trial court because his participation was after the commission of the offense.

And, since Biong was convicted as an accessory after the fact (commission of the crime) by the trial court not on the basis of the testimony of Jessica Alfaro and of the laundry woman which were flawed by the Supreme Court but on the basis of other evidence or testimonies, it is error by the Supreme Court to also acquit him because of its observed weakness and flaws on the testimonies. Of those two witnesses.

I wish to emphasize that the conviction of the accessory is not dependent upon the conviction of the principals in the same crime, just as the conviction of the principal is not dependent upon the conviction of the accessory therein. On this point, it is worth quote Mr. Justice, Ramon C. Aquino in his book on the Revised Penal Code, Vol. I, 1987 Ed., Page 555, wherein it was stated that “the Court of Appeals in the Inovero case (Inovero, C.A.-G.R. No. 04426-27-CR, Feb. 5, 1968) has said that for one to be found guilty and punished as an accessory, it is not necessary that there be a principal convicted (Cuello Callon, Codigo Penal, Tomo, I, pages 515-516, Octava Edition). It went to state that the death of the principal does not preclude the conviction of an accessory after the fact in a murder


The position of Mr. Justice Aquino is also shared by Ret. Justice Luis B. Reyes of the C.A. in his book on the Revised Penal Code (Vo0l. I, 1981 Ed., page 546) wherein he said “Apprehension and con viction of the principal is not necessary for the accessory to be criminally liable.” Applying the aforesaid ruling therefore, in the Vizconde case, the acquittal of the principals therein by the Supreme Court should not have carried the reversal of the trial court’s conviction of Biong as accessory to the Vizconde Massacre. The reason being that the commission of the crime of rape and three three (3) homicides has been clearly proven. The dead bodies of the victims will speak for the crime of homicides while the expert testimony proves the rape.

Although the subsequent acquittal of Biong is already moot and academic insofar as his jail sentence is concerned because he has fully served it, yet upholding his conviction is still material insofar as his accessory penalties are concerned such as the forfeiture of his salaries as policeman and he now seeks to recover (back wages) and such others.

Because of this clear error of the S.C., gossips has been going around in coffee shops, barber shops and other public places, that perhaps it was a package deal to include Biong to preclude his squealing those who committed the offense and whoever ordered him to destroy the evidence at the scene of the crime.


Sto. Cristo, City of San Jose

del Monte Bulacan

Bene Nota: The views and opinions expressed here by the author are personal to him, and do not reflect the views and opinions of the website owners and administrators. Any issue or complaint about the article must be addressed solely to the author, who is solely responsible for the article.