GURRO vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 224562. September 18, 2019.
THIRD DIVISION, A.B. REYES, JR., J

Accomplice vs. Accessory Distinguished

Accomplices are those persons who, not having acted as principals, cooperate in the
execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts.

Idian and Jamindang were convicted by both the RTC and CA as principals, and Gurro as an
accomplice, of the crime of Kidnapping with Homicide of Idian’s niece.

Gurro appeals his conviction as an accomplice to the crime. While he concedes that he
borrowed the bank account of his friend to which money was deposited by the parents of
Idian’s niece, he was not aware of the kidnapping and had no idea that the amount
deposited in his friend’s account of partook of ransom money.

Was Excel’s conviction as an accomplice proper?

NO. It must be remembered that for one to be regarded as an accomplice, it must be shown
that (i) he knew the criminal design of the principal by direct participation, and concurred
with the latter in his purpose; (ii) he cooperated in the execution by previous or
simultaneous acts, with the intention of supplying material or moral aid in the execution of
the crime in an efficacious way; and (iii) his acts bore a direct relation with the acts done by
the principal.

Here, there was no showing that Gurro actually cooperated or assisted in kidnapping AAA
and detaining the latter. At best, his participation in the incident was limited to acts
committed after the abduction was already consummated. Particularly, Gurro retrieved the
ransom money from the bank and, thereafter, immediately forwarded the same to
Jamindang, through four money transfer transactions, merely two hours after the victim’s
parents wired the ransom money to the kidnappers.

Thus, Gurro is a mere accessory to the crime.