G.R. No. 8662. March 07, 1914

THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. HERMOGENES BESUÑA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Decisions / Signed Resolutions March 7, 1914 CARSON, J.:


CARSON, J.:


The evidence of record sustains the findings of fact of the trial judge upon
which he based his conclusion as to the guilt of the defendant and appellant in
this case of the crime of assassination, and we find no error in the proceedings
prejudicial to the rights of the accused.

It appears however from the
findings of the trial judge, which are fully sustained by the evidence of
record, that the commission of the offense was marked with the aggravating
circumstances set forth in subsections 15 and 20 of article 10 of the Penal
Code, the crime having been committed at night and in the house of the murdered
man as charged in the information. Notwithstanding the existence of these
aggravating circumstances, the trial judge imposed the prescribed penalty in its
minimum degree, though manifestly, unless the accused be given the benefit of
the provisions of article 11 of the Code as amended by Act No. 2142 of the
Philippine Legislature, the penalty should have been imposed in its maximum
degree and the convict sentenced to death.

Upon a review of the whole record we are of opinion that, giving the convict
the benefit of the doubt with respect to the application of article 11, as
amended, the prescribed penalty should have been imposed in its medium degree,
setting off against the aggravating circumstances as disclosed by the evidence
and the findings of the trial judge the extenuating circumstance set forth in
the above mentioned article 11 of the Penal Code as amended by Act No. 2142.

We conclude therefore that the sentence imposed by the trial court should be
modified by substituting for that portion thereof which imposes twenty years’
imprisonment the penalty of life imprisonment, together with the accessory
penalties prescribed by law, and thus modified the judgment of the court below
convicting and sentencing the defendant should be and is hereby affirmed, with
the costs of this instance against the appellant.

Arellano, C. J., Moreland, Trent, and Araullo, JJ.,
concur.