Dychioco y Tinio v. People
This is a criminal case, titled Maria Angela Dychioco y Tinio vs. The People of the Philippines and Rose Ann S. Dee. The Supreme Court of the Philippines denied the petition for failure to show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in its Resolutions. The legal issue in this case is whether the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing orders denying the petitioner's amended motion to dismiss and motion for reconsideration. The Court held that it did not, as the corresponding responsibilities of the principal, accomplice, and accessory are distinct from each other, and the determination of the liability of the accessory can proceed independently from that of the principal. Here, the information clearly laid out the elements of the crime of parricide which the petitioner's principal allegedly committed. Therefore, the CA correctly ruled that the trial court did not act with grave abuse of discretion.
ADVERTISEMENT
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242138. February 6, 2019.]
MARIA ANGELA DYCHIOCO y TINIO, petitioner,vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ROSE ANN S. DEE, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated February 6, 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242138 — (Maria Angela Dychioco y Tinio v. The People of the Philippines and Rose Ann S. Dee)
After review of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its Resolutions dated June 4, 2018 1 and September 13, 2018, 2 as to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction.
The CA correctly stressed that the corresponding responsibilities of the principal, accomplice, and accessory are distinct from each other. As long as the commission of the offense can be duly established by evidence, the determination of the liability of the accomplice or accessory can proceed independently from that of the principal.
Here, although petitioner was charged as an accessory to the crime of murder, the allegations in the information clearly lay out the elements of the crime of parricide which petitioner's principal allegedly committed. The Court has repeatedly held that what controls is not the designation of the offense charged or the particular law or part thereof allegedly violated but the description of the offense claimed to have been committed. 3
Thus, the CA correctly ruled that the trial court did not act with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed Orders which denied petitioner's amended motion to dismiss and motion for reconsideration.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Resolutions dated June 4, 2018 and September 13, 2018, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 155653 are AFFIRMED.
Honorable Irineo P. Pangilinan, Jr., Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 58, Angeles City, is hereby DELETED as party respondent in this case pursuant to Sec. 4, Rule 45, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
The petitioner's compliance submitting the thereto attached Affidavit of Service dated October 10, 2018, original copies of the Resolutions dated June 4, 2018 and September 13, 2018 of the Court of Appeals, certified true copy of the Order dated November 22, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 58, Angeles City, and original copy of the Order dated March 9, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 58, Angeles City, and praying that the same be admitted, is NOTED; and petitioner is required to SUBMIT within five (5) days from notice hereof, a soft copy in compact disc, USB or e-mail containing the PDF file of the signed compliance pursuant to A.M. Nos. 10-3-7-SC and 11-9-4-SC.
SO ORDERED." Del Castillo, J., official on leave; Jardeleza, J., designated as Acting Working Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2636 dated January 31, 2019.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 19-28; penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, with Associate Justices Samuel H. Gaerlan and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob, concurring.
2.Id. at 53-54.
3.People v. Escosio, et al., 292-A Phil. 606, 620 (1993).
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU