G. R. No. L-4059. October 23, 1951
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. TEOFILO OGBAC, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:
knife with treachery and the evident premeditation one Angel Jamilla
inflicting upon him a mortal wound which caused his instant death. He
was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment and to idemnify the
heirs of the deceased in the sum of P6,000. From this sentence he
appealed.
The evidence for the prosecution shows that at about 8:00
o’clock In the night of August 12, 1949, in the barrio of Maligaya,
municipality of Pinamalayan, province of Mindoro, a political meeting
was held at which Dr. Jose Leido, a candidate for Representative, and
some of his leaders among them Teofilo Ogbac and Alfredo , Mendoza were
present. While Alfredo Mendoza was speaking, he was interrupted several
times by Nicolas Jamilla who asked some impertinent questions. Teofilo
Ogbac irked by the attitude of Nicolas Jamilla gave the latter a fist
blow in the face causing him to fall to the ground. A commotion among
the persons present ensued and some began to scamper away. However,
after Nicolas Jamilla was removed from the place of the meeting, order
was restored and Alfredo Mendoza prepared to resume his speech, but
before he was able to do so Angel Jamilla, uncle of Nicolas, approached
Mendoza and proposed that the differences between Mendoza and Nicolas
be settled amicably. To this Mendoza readily agreed and advised Angel
Jamilla to fetch his nephew Nicolas. Angel did as suggested, but as he
turned around Teofilo Ogbac, who was then standing behind, suddenly
hooked Angel’s neck with his left arm and stabbed him In the back with
a balisong knife. Upon being hit, Angel cried: “Fred, I was stabbed by
Teofilo Ogbac when I did not do anything”. Angel was placed on a small
table and carried to his house. Re was already dead. Sometime later,
Dr. Frisco S. de Joya conducted an autopsy on the body of the deceased
and found a penetrating wound at the back 1 1/2 Inch wide and 6 Inches
deep, producing Internal and external hemorrhage and causing his
Instant death.
The evidence for the defense practically Is
In substantial accord with the foregoing facts. It differs only from
the evidence for the prosecution with regard to the manner the
aggression has started and the way the wound was inflicted upon the
deceased. The defense attempted to show that after Nicolas Jamilla was
removed from the place of the meeting after the personal encounter he
had with Teofilo Ogbac, and when Alfredo Mendoza was telling the people
to come back because the meeting would go on, Angel Jamilla, who was
then tired and drunk, approached Alfredo Mendoza and asked him where he
could find Teofilo Ogbac as he wanted to know why he boxed his nephew
Nicolas Jamilla. At this Juncture, Mendoza noticed that Angel Jamilla
had his right hand placed on his right hip. When Mendoza told Angel
Jamilla that he should not look for Ogbac anymore because he himself
saw with his own eyes that the one who started the trouble was his
nephew Nicolas SMrtlla, Angel Jamilla moved away and then and there
gave a thrust with a knife at Teofilo Ogbac who was coming from an
opposite direction. Ogbac grabbed the wrist of the right hand of Angel
Jamilla and in a flash the two grappled and wrestled with each other.
Ogbac pushed back Angel who staggered with his right hand on his right
hip saying “aray, aray”. Ogbac retraced one or two steps backward and
sensing that Angel was hurt asked Dr. Pio Baldoz to help him. Then two
blasts from a whistle were sounded and the people scampered away. In
other words, the defense attempted to prove that the accused acted in
self-defense.
Alfredo Mendoza and the accused testified as
to the manner the latter was assaulted by the deceased and how the
accused parried the blow thrust at him which culminated in the fatal
wounding of the deceased. Asked by the court to demonstrate what he saw
of the aggression, Mendoza made the following demonstration:
“Q. Please come down from the witness stand and
show the Court how that thrust was made by the deceased Angel Jamilla
to the accused?A. This way, (Atty. Medina giving a thrust
to the witness and the witness Mr. Mendoza, , grabbed the right wrist
of Atty. Medina and placed his right arm around the body of Atty.
Medina and the right hand of Atty. Medina was placed at his own back.)”
Teofilo Ogbac made on his part the following demonstration:
“Q. Can you tell this Court what really happened? — A. Yes, sir.
I pray that the witness be allowed to go down the witness stand and demonstrate the way the deceased rushed at the accused.
COURT: Petition granted.
Note: The interpreter acted in the place of the deceased.
ACCUSED: This way (witness grabbed the right hand of the deceased with
the left hand of the accused and the right hand of the deceased was
pushed towards the right back and then the accused placed his right
hand on the back of the deceased while the deceased placed his left
hand on the back of the accused.”
Dr. Frisco S. de Joya, who conducted the autopsy, described the wound he found on the body of the deceased as follows:
“Una herida penetrante en la region de la espalda
lado derecho al nivel del septimo y octavo espacio intercostal , tres
pulgadas por fuera de la columna vertebral. La avertura de la herida es
de una y media pulgada, cuya profundidad es de seis pulgadas. Se ha
enteresado la plel, el musculo de lairegion, el pulmon derecho,
produciendo una hemorragia interna y externa”.
Considering the demonstration made by Alfredo Mendoza and the
accused of the manner the latter was allegedly assaulted by the
deceased and how the accused parried the blow by grabbing the wrist of
the right hand of the assailant and twisting it with his left hand
thereby Implying that, during the grappling and wrestling that ensued,
the fatal wound was caused by the very knife of the alleged aggressor,
it is hard to believe that the aggression could have taken place in the
manner so demonstrated as to Inflict a wound in the nature and
seriousness found by Dr. De Joya in his autopsy. Vote the place of the
penetration and direction taken by the wound. It has an opening of 1
1/2 inch and a penetration of 6 inches. The place is in the right side
region of the back and was “al nivel del septimo y octavo espacio intercostal”. If the thrust was made by the deceased with his right
hand, it is certainly quite Impossible for the accused to be able to
twist the right arm with the opposing force put forth by the deceased
and cause a penetrating wound so deep In the same side of the back and
almost at the level of the arm without causing any dislocation or
rupture In the bone of the right arm of the aggressor. This makes
Incredible the theory of the defense. On the other hand, the nature of
the wound as found by Dr. de Joya tallies with the narration made by
the witnesses for the prosecution to the effect that when Angel Jamilla
turned around to look for his nephew Nicolas, the accused suddenly
sprang up and after hooking Angel’s neck with his left arm stabbed him
In the back with a balisong knife Inflicting the wound that caused his instant death.
At any rate, the question herein Involved is one of fact which
mainly hinges on the veracity of the witnesses both of the prosecution
and of the defense “wherein the appreciation of the lower court
generally carries much weight in view of the opportunities for
observation it has as regards the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses
during the trial. And on this point, the lower court made the following
comment: “The undersigned, presiding Judge of the court, had seen the
two witnesses of the defense demonstrating how the fatal wound was
Inflicted. He also heard the witnesses for the prosecution testifying
on the same point and he is convinced that the version of the witnesses
for the prosecution represents the picture of what really took place
because it is more In harmony with the circumstances surrounding the
case.” We have found no justification to warrant Interference with
these findings of the lower court.
Moreover, it appears that the accused, as observed by the lower
court, is tall, well-built, with broad shoulders, an experienced
fighter and proficient in boxing and judo. He is aggressive
and defiant. And these personal characteristics, coupled with the
antecedents of the aggression, convinced the Court that the aggression
must have taken place in the manner described by the witnesses for the
prosecution. To this we agree.
The offense committed is murder qualified by treachery as defined
in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. The lower court did not
consider the agravating circumstances of nighttime and disregard of the
respect due the deceased on account of his age because there is no
showing that the accused took into account those circumstances in
committing the crime. We find this to be correct. There is reason to
believe that the aggression is but an offshoot of the tense political
atmosphere then prevailing at the time. There being therefore neither
mitigating nor aggravating circumstance present in the commission of
the crime, the proper penalty should be imposed in the medium degree,
or reclusion perpetua.
Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellant.
Paras, C. J., Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Reyes and Jugo, JJ., concur.