G.R. No. L-1914. April 29, 1950
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. PEDRO LINCUNA AND BORNEO LINCUNA, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.
REYES, J.:
Salino and another policeman were on patrol in the poblacion of Wainit,
Surigao, they came upon Borneo Lincuna and a. companion who were
serenading in front of the house of Felina Chua, and finding that the
two did not have a license for that purpose as required by an ordinance
of that municipality, the sergeant ordered them to go home. Borneo
tried to remonstrate and begged to be allowed to continue singing. But
as his request was denied, he started to leave, uttering derogatory
remarks offensive to the peace officers. Provoked, the sergeant grabbed
him by the arms and shook him and then turned him over to his policeman
companion and had him locked up in jail until the following morning.
At about 7:30 o’clock the following evening, while the sergeant and
another policeman named Honorato Moselina were passing in front of the
house of Borneo’s uncle, Agustin Lincuna, where the latter1s brother,
Rosario Lincuna, also lived, they were invited to come up, and once
they were on the porch Agustin began to reproach the sergeant for what
he had done to Borneo the night before. The sergeant tried to explain
that Borneo was violating a municipal ordinance, but Agustin, seconded
by Rosario, countered that if that was the way the policemen were going
to enforce the law he would have no respect for the law. Sensing
trouble, for the Lincuna brothers were already getting mad, Moselina
invited the sergeant to leave and took hold of his arm to lead him down
the stairs. But Rosario intervened and struck Moselina with a bolo,
hitting him in the right arm, and then with the same bolo struck the
sergeant in the chest and on the left side of the body while he was
being held by the shoulder by Agustin, with the result that the latter
was also wounded in the arm. While the sergeant was thus being attacked
by Rosario, Borneo came but of the sala and stabbed him from behind
with a trench knife, hitting him on the right side of the body and
causing him to fall down the stairs with Moselina. On hitting the
ground, the sergeant and Moselina got up and ran away in different
directions, but the sergeant was pursued and stabbed in the back by
Borneo’ s father, Pedro Lincima, and fell and died on the roadside
before he could run much farther. There he was found by Pedro Mondano,
who came down his house when he heard a wounded man’s call for help, Mondano also saw Pedro Lincuna standing there, bolo in hand, about
three brazas from the deceased sergeant, as did also Ambrosio
Maylon, who from the house of Agustin had gone home hurriedly after
witnessing the first stages of the assault .
Rosario Lincuna gave himself up to the authorities, while Agustin
Lincuna, Pedro Lincuna, and Borneo Lincuna had to be rounded up and put
under arrest.. Submitted to questioning, the four, except Agustin, gave each a statement admitting participation in the perpetration of the
crime. The statements -were reduced to writing and signed and later
ratified under oath before the justice of the peace.
Prosecuted for murder for the killing of the deceased and for
frustrated murder for the wounding of Honorato Moselina, Rosario
Lincuna, Pedro Lincuna, and Borneo Lincuna entered a plea of guilty in
both cases in the preliminary investigation held by the justice of the
peace, but pleaded not guilty in the Court of First instance. Agustin
Lincuna, who was also accused in both cases, refused to make a
confession and maintained his innocence throughout, declaring that he
was vrounded in the arm by the boio of his brother vrhen he put himself
between the latter and the deceased in order to stop the fight.
At the trial in the Court of First Instance, Rosario Lincuna
assumed sole responsibility for the two crimes charged, while Pedro
Lincuna and Borneo Lincuna repudiated their confession and tried to
establish an alibi. They claimed that on the night of the
crime they were in Surigao (the capital of the province) to look for a
lawyer to help them file a complaint against the deceased for the
maltreatment of Borneo the preceding night, and that they were not able
to leave Surigao until the following day when they were arrested.
After trial, the lower court, in the case for frustrated murder,
acquitted Agustin Lincuna, Pedro Lincuna, and Borneo Lincuna and
convicted Rosario Lincuna of lesiones graves only; while in
the case for murder, it acquitted Agustin Lincuna but convicted Rosario
Lincuna of homicide and Pedro Lincuna and Borneo Lincuna of murder.
Only the latter two have appealed.
These appellants were convicted not only on the strength of their
own confession, which was ratified by them under oath before the
justice of the peace and later honored by their own plea of guilty when
they were arraigned in the preliminary investigation, but also upon the
word of ocular witnesses whose testimony coincides with or corroborates
the salient portions of said confession. It is claimed that the
confession was wrung from appellants through force and torture. But
this is denied by the chief of police to whom the confession was made
and who had it reduced to writing in the form of questions and answers,
and any doubt as to the voluntariness of the confession is dispelled by
the fact that when it was read to the appellants by the justice of the
peace the same was ratified by them in the presence of many people as
true and willingly made, as well as by their plea of guilty at the
preliminary investigation.
Counsel de oficio tries to discredit the testimony of the
government witnesses by pointing out some alleged contradictions and
inconsistencies in their testimony. But as the Solicitor General points
out, such contradictions and inconsistencies are more apparent than
real and refer to minor and unimportant details which do not detract
from their credibility.
The alibi set up by appellants is belied by their
confession as well as by the testimony of persons who saw them at the
scene of the crime. And without necessarily denying that they really
made a trip to Surigao to contact a lawyer, there is also the
possibility that the trip was made, not before, but after the crime,
when they had real need for legal advice as to what to do before or
after their arrest.
It is therefore our conclusion that the appellants Pedro Lincuna
and Borneo Lincuna did take part in the crime as admitted by them in
their respective confessions and as testified to by the witnesses for
the prosecution. We, however, find that they can not be held guilty of
murder. The deceased received three penetrating or stab wounds—one in
the chest, one on the right side, and one in the back—aside from a
small wound on the left arm. It is true that the evidence points to
Pedro Lincuna as the one who inflicted the wound in the back and to
Borneo Lincuna as the author of the wound on the right side, and that
both of those wounds, like that inflicted by Rosario Lincuna in the
chest of the deceased, were fatal according to the doctor who made the post mortem
examination. Both appellants may thus be held responsible for the death
of the deceased. The evidence, however, does not clearly show
treachery, so that this circumstance may not be taken into account in
order to qualify the crime as murder as the trial court erroneously
did. In our opinion the crime committed by the appellants is homicide
without any aggravating or mitigating circumstance.
Wherefore, the judgment below is modified and the appellants hereby
declared guilty of homicide and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty
of from 3 years and 1 day of prision mayor to 17 years and k months of reclusion temporal, to the indemnity adjudged below and to proportionate costs.
Moran, C. J., Ozaeta, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, and Montemayor, JJ., concur.