44 Phil. 375
[ G.R. No. 19561. January 22, 1923 ]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. VICENTE GUTIERREZ, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
STATEMENT
The following information was filed against the defendant by the provincial
fiscal in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Tarlac:
“That on or about the 11th day of March, 1922, in the municipality of
Victoria, Province of Tarlac, Philippine Islands, the aforesaid accused
voluntarily and criminally, and acting treacherously and with known
premeditation, armed beforehand and concealing a loaded revolver in readiness,
and with an evident intent of killing, which he had conceived and resolved
before the event, did kill one Basilio Agustin upon an occasion purposely
selected by the accused, namely, one when the deceased was riding a carabao
pulling a cart and was driving it, and while he had his back turned towards the
accused, the latter thus insuring his death without any risk to the person of
the accused from the resistance that might be offered by the deceased Basilio
Agustin, by firing a revolver shot to the deceased which caused him a first
degree burn upon the left cheek and an open wound in the center of the said burn
of about 1½ centimeters, another open wound in the middle of the forehead about
3 centimeters long by 1 centimeter wide, another circular contusion on the left
temple, another bigger contusion on the anterior base of the left ear and one
semicircular ecchymosis at the internal corner of the left eye; the wounds upon
the left cheek and on the forehead being of necessity mortal, as a consequence
of which the said Basilio Agustin died in the act; that the accused performed
the act with the aggravating circumstances of having committed the crime at
nighttime, and in an uninhabited place, because he selected a place without
inhabitants and the nighttime to facilitate and insure the execution of the
crime which he committed at the place, time and manner aforesaid.“Contrary to law.”
Upon which he was tried and convicted of the crime of homicide and sentenced
to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal, to suffer the
accessory penalties provided for in article 59 of the Penal Code, to indemnify
the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P1,000, and to pay the costs, from which
he appeals, claiming; first, that “the lower court erred in holding that the
accused-appellant was the ‘tall and robust man’ who shot Basilio Agustin;”
second, in holding that an innocent man would not tremble in the presence of the
corpse of the deceased; third, in holding that the excessive zeal of the accused
in complying with the order of his principal, not to permit anyone to pass over
the latter’s land or ditch was the motive which induced the defendant to kill
Basilio Agustin; and, fourth, in convicting the accused of the crime.
JOHNS, J.:
The evidence for the prosecution tends to show that on a moonlight night on
the 11th of March, 1922, Basilio Agustin and his wife were driving on a
carreton over a parcel of land belonging to one Eulalio Calma on their
way to the town of Paniqui, Tarlac, when they were stopped by the defendant, who
asked them why they were driving on that road, and they told him that they were
going through that way because they knew it was the right way. The defendant
told them to turn back, and, mounting on their carreton, told them that
he would show them the right way. The deceased mounted his carabao and turned it
back, and the defendant seated himself on the front of the carreton
beside the wife of, and behind, the deceased. After going a distance of about
two hundred meters on their way back, the deceased turned his face towards the
defendant and asked him whether the way which they were travelling was the right
way, to which the defendant replied yes, and at once fired a shot at the left
cheek of the deceased from a revolver, and the deceased fell, the carabao ran
away, and the defendant leaped from the carreton to the ground. That they
were riding in the carreton for about half of an hour; that the wife of
the deceased was able to recognize the defendant because it was a moonlight
night; that the carabao was finally stopped by Flaviano Toquero, and the wife
alighted and with Toquero went back to the place where her husband fell and
found him dead; and that a complaint was at once made to the authorities. On the
following morning the justice of the peace and several policemen of the
municipality went to the place for the purpose of. investigating the crime; that
the policemen saw the defendant, who at first did not come near them, but
finally did on the call of the sergeant; that when questioned about the crime he
began to tremble; that the policemen took him to the place where the deceased
was; that the wife of the deceased at a distance of about ten meters pointed out
and recognized the defendant as the man who killed her husband; and that the
defendant denied the commission of the crime, refused to look at the corpse and
trembled with fear.
The trial court who heard and saw the witnesses testify found the defendant
guilty. The testimony of the wife of the deceased is clear, positive and
convincing, and is materially corroborated by the actions and conduct of the
defendant when found by the policemen on the following morning in the vicinity
of the crime. The testimony on behalf of the defendant is doubtful and evasive,
and does not carry conviction. In its final analysis, the stubborn fact remains
that Basilio Agustin was killed, and his wife identifies the defendant as the
person who rode with them in the carreton and fired the fatal shot. Up to
that time the parties were strangers, and there is nothing in the record to
impugn her motive, and her evidence is materially corroborated by the subsequent
conduct of the defendant. It is true that the motive of the defendant for
killing the deceased is not apparent, and is more or less one of conjecture.
Whatever the reason may have been, the deceased was killed, and the evidence
shows the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. It is possible and
even probable that it was the result of a wordy quarrel between the deceased and
the defendant as to whether the road in question was a public or private road.
Under all of the surrounding circumstances, we cannot agree with the
Attorney-General for an increase in the penalty.
The judgment of the lower court is affirmed, with costs. So
ordered.
Araullo, C.J., Street, Malcolm, Avanceña, Villamor, Ostrand,
and Romualdez, JJ., concur.
Date created: September 26, 2018
Leave a Reply