THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, FELIPE SEGISMUNDO, MAURO HERNAEZ AND PATROCINIO FONTANO, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

As a consequence of two (2) shots fired by defendant Felipe Segismundo in
Vigan, Ilocos Sur, on July 5, 1951, between 9:00 and 10:00 a,m., Mariano Alagar
sustained the following injuries:

1. “Wound, bullet shot, thru and thru. The bullet entered at the back
slightly lateral to the midline at the level of tho 12th thoracic vertebra and
came out infront just below the left nipple. The spinal cord and liver were
injured causing paraplegia of the lower extremities and severe
hemoperitoneum.

2. ” Wound, bullet shot, nonpenetrating, hypochondrium, left.” (Exhibit A, p.
39, Record.)

Forthwith, the corresponding complaint, for frustrated murder, was filed,
with the Justice of the Peace Court of Vigan, against Felipe Segismundo,
Catalino Palma and Feliciano Quedado. Soon thereafter, on the some date, the
complaint was amended to include Mauro Hernaez, Patrocinio Fontano and Primitivo
Piga as defendants. On July 11, 1951, Alagar died as a consequence of his
aforesaid injuries. Hence, said amended complaint was again amended to charge
murder. The right to a preliminary investigation having been subsequently waived
by the defendants, the case was forwarded to the Court of First Instance of
Ilocos Sur, where the corresponding information for murder was filed against
said defendants. After due trial, tho court of first Instance acquitted Palma,
Piga and Quedodo, but convicted Segismundo, Hernaez and Fontano – the first, as
author of the crime charged, and the last two (2) as accomplices – and sentenced
them as follows: Segismundo to life imprisonment, with the accessory penalties
provided by law, and to indemnify the heirs of Mariano Alagar in the sum of
P4,000.00; and Hernaez and Fontano to in indeterminate penalty ranging from 4
years, 2 months and 1 day of prision correccional to 12 years and 6
months of reclusion temporal with the accessory penalties provided by
law, and to jointly nnd severally indemnify the heirs of said deceased in the
sum of P2,000.00. Segismundo, Hernaez and Fontano, who were likewise sentenced
to pay three-sixths (3/6) of the costs, have appealed from said decision.

The version of appellant Segismundo is as follows: As he accidentally met
Alagar in the morning of the occurrence, Alagar inquired about the sum of P40.00
delivered by him to Segismundo, on June 25, 1951, for the purchase of lumber, to
be used in the repair of a movie house belonging to Alagar, Said amount,
however, was appropriated by Segismundo in payment of a credit he had against
Alagar, for wages as his (Alagar’s) former body guard. Immediately after his
aforementioned query, Alagar gave a fist blow to Segismundo, who stepped
backward. Then, saying: “you are now becomming proud and you intend to resist x
x x,” Alagar attempted to insert his right hand in the right hind pocket of his
trousers. Knowing that Alagar owned a gun, Segismundo thought that he (Alagar)
intended to use his firearm with a homicidal purpose. Accordingly, Segismundo
beat him to the draw and shot him on the breast. As, Alagar turned his body,
thus giving his back to Segismundo, the latter thought that his shot hod missed
its target. So he fired at Alagar on the back.

At the outset, it is apparent that Segismundo does not deserve an acquittal,
even if his version were given full faith and credence. Indeed, it would appear
from his testimony that the fatal shot was fired when Alagar – who, according to
the defense, originally faced Segismundo – had his back turned towards the
latter, so that he (Segismundo) could not have believed that his life was then
in danger. Anyhow, Segismundo’ s story deserves no serious consideration
for:

1. Alagar was not armed at all. Hence, he could not have placed his right
hand in his right hind pocket, as Segismundo would have us believe.

2. Segismundo admitted that he had ceased to work for Alagar since May, 1951.
Why, then, should Alagar deliver P40.00 to Segismundo, on June 25, 1951, for the
alleged purpose of purchasing lumber for him (Alagar)? Again, the fact that
Alagar had dispensed with the services of Segismundo strongly suggests that
former was not satisfied with the latter, who, apparently, resented the former’s
act.

3. The nature and location of the injuries suffered by Alagar confirm the
theory of the prosecution, which was sustained by the lower court, namely: that
Alagar was walking along the street, unaware of the presence of Segismundo, when
the latter approached from behind and shot him on the back, and that, as Alagar
fell down face downward, and then tried to rise, by pushing his torso upward,
Segismundo, who, meanwhile, had placed himself infront of Alagar, shot him once
more, although the bullet, which, evidently, had a downward direction, merely
grazed the hypochondriac or abdominal portion of Alagar’s body. Had the first
shot been aimed at this region, as testified to by Segismundo, the bullet would
have pierced the hypochondrium, instead of grazing it, for Alagar was standing
at the beginning of the attack.

5. As stated in the decision appealed from, being unarmed, it is quite
improbable that Alagar would have attacked, with his bare fists, appellant
Segismundo, who must have been known to be thoroughly competent to defend
himself, for other wise Alagar would not have engaged his services as his
(Alagar’s) body guard. Besides, Alagar knew that Segismundo had a firearm, the
license therefor having been secured precisely through Alagar’s
intervention.

In short, there is no merit in the appeal taken by appellant Segismundo.

With reference to defendants-appellants Mauro Hernaez and Patrocinio Fontano,
the lower court found them guilty as accomplices, in view of the testimony of
Graciano Perilla and Dr. Favis to the effect that, after the first shot, they
had urged or incited Segismundo, by words and signs, to fire at Alagar. Perilla
stated that he saw appellant Hernaez, after the first report, at some distance
from Segismundo, bidding him, to “give him some more,” at the same time
motioning with his right arm as if to shoot downward, whereas Dr. Favis asserted
that Fontano was near a drugstore, signalling to another person, and that he
(Dr. Favis) then heard someone, whose identity he did not know, says “give him
some more.” Obviously, this testimony of Dr. Favis is insufficient to warrant
the conviction of Fontano. As regards the testimony of Perilla, the Solicitor
General admits that it cannot be relied upon, for, as a member of the police
force of Bantay, he was on duty in that municipality, not in Vigan, on the date
of the occurrence. Besides, it appears that, not long before the same, Perilla
had had an altercation with Hernaez, because the latter prevented him from
attending a given dance without paying the price of the corresponding admission
ticket.

Consequently, the guilt of Hernaez and Fontano has not, to our mind, been
established beyond reasonable doubt, and, in line with the recommendation of the
Solicitor General, the charge against those two appellants should be, as it is
hereby, dismissed, with the proportionate part of the cost de officio.
Thus modified, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, as regards
appellant Segismundo; with the proportionate part of the costs against him.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo,
Labrador, and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concur.