THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JESUS GONZALES ALIAS MANONG BASSIT, AND ROGELIO GONZALES ALIAS OKEL, DEFENDANTS, ROGELIO GONZALES, ALIAS OKEL, DEFENDANT-A…

People versus Gonzales

The Case

This is a criminal case in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Jesus Gonzales, also known as Manong Bassit, and Rogelio Gonzales, also known as Okel, for the shooting of the Azurin family in their home in Bangued, Abra, on the evening of November 15, 1971. Ana Bermudez Azurin was killed, and her husband Victorino Azurin and their children James Azurin and Nancy Azurin were wounded. The case matters for two reasons. First, it is a compact lesson on how the Supreme Court classifies a single volley of gunfire into four distinct crimes: murder, two frustrated murders, and one attempted murder. Second, it teaches the correct treatment of aggravating circumstances, of alibi, and of the rule that a judge who did not hear the evidence may still decide the case.

Procedural History

The accused were charged in the Court of First Instance of Abra with murder with frustrated multiple murder. After trial, that court found both accused guilty as principals and sentenced them to death under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, and ordered them to pay indemnity, hospitalization expenses, and moral damages. The accused Jesus Gonzales died on December 1, 1977, and the case was dismissed as to him. The case then reached the Supreme Court by review of the death sentence imposed on Rogelio Gonzales. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment but modified it, lowering the penalties and reclassifying one of the offenses.

Facts

At about six to six thirty in the evening of November 15, 1971, Victorino Azurin, his wife Ana Bermudez Azurin, and their children were eating supper in their house in Barrio Agtangao, Bangued, Abra. Someone at the foot of the stairs called out. Paterno Serrano, seated near the threshold, looked and saw Jesus Gonzales holding a short firearm, Rogelio Gonzales holding a carbine, and a third man who was unarmed. A shot was fired from below, passing a few inches from Paterno Serrano's head. Three more shots followed, then several shots in rapid succession. When the firing stopped, Ana Azurin lay dead on the floor and the others were bleeding from their wounds. They were brought to the Bangued Christian Hospital.

Rosie Azurin Parocha, a third cousin of the accused, heard the shots and ran toward her uncle's house. About six meters away she saw Jesus Gonzales and Rogelio Gonzales at the kitchen, the latter holding a long gun. She hid behind a trellis, and after a few seconds the two men turned their faces toward the south and ran north. She then went inside, saw her aunt dead and her uncle and cousin wounded, and helped bring the wounded to the hospital.

The autopsy showed that Ana Azurin died of gunshot wounds with severe hemorrhage and traumatic shock. Victorino Azurin suffered a gunshot wound through and through, Nancy Azurin a gunshot wound through and through in her right arm, and James Azurin only abrasions on his left upper arm. Police investigators found four live carbine bullets and seven empty shells below the kitchen wall, and bullet holes on the wall and roof of the house. Jesus Gonzales claimed he was eating in a restaurant in the poblacion at the time and attributed the charge to politics. Rogelio Gonzales claimed he was in his house in Barrio Dalnetan making sugar the whole day, and said Victorino Azurin was angry with him over a pledged shotgun.

Issues

• Whether or not the accused Rogelio Gonzales was positively identified as one of the persons who fired at the house of Victorino Azurin.
• Whether or not the alibi of the accused should be credited.
• Whether or not a retrial should be granted because the judge who heard the witnesses had retired and the judge who penned the decision never observed their demeanor.
• Whether or not the offenses committed constitute a complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Whether or not evident premeditation, nocturnity, abuse of superior strength, and the use of a firearm should be appreciated as aggravating circumstances.

Applicable Provisions

Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, on complex crimes, provides:

When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.

The trial court applied this provision and imposed death, but the Supreme Court held it inapplicable because the shots were not a single act producing several grave felonies.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found no reason to disturb the finding of guilt. Paterno Serrano and Rosie Azurin Parocha, third cousins of the accused with no motive to testify falsely, positively and categorically identified him as one of the three persons who fired at the house. The Court brushed aside the claimed contradictions as referring to minor details, and explained that affidavits taken ex parte are almost always incomplete and inaccurate. The omission of Paterno Serrano from the ante mortem statement of Victorino Azurin did not destroy his testimony, because Victorino gave that statement while in critical condition, his wife just killed and his children wounded.

On the second issue, the Court held that alibi is among the weakest of defenses. It must clearly show not only that the accused was elsewhere but that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene. The accused's own father placed him in their house, but the house was less than a kilometer from the victim's house, so it was not impossible for him to be present. The Court also found it strange that the accused and his family failed to render assistance or offer condolences, behavior indicative of guilt.

On the third issue, the Court held that the retirement of the judge who tried the case is not a ground for retrial, and there is no legal impediment for the new judge to decide the case even if he did not hear it. The conviction did not rest exclusively on the credibility of witnesses.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the offenses do not constitute a complex crime under Article 48. For the death of Ana Bermudez Azurin the crime is murder; for the gunshot wound on Nancy Azurin, frustrated murder; for the gunshot wound on Victorino Azurin, frustrated murder; and for the injuries on James Azurin, attempted murder, all qualified by treachery.

On the fifth issue, the Court held that evident premeditation cannot be appreciated, since the accused were seen drinking gin about two hours before the crime, and two hours is not sufficient time for cool deliberation. Nocturnity and abuse of superior strength are absorbed by treachery, and the use of a firearm is not among the aggravating circumstances enumerated by law.

Doctrine

A single volley of shots fired at several victims does not automatically make a complex crime under Article 48. Each victim's injury is classified separately according to the result: death makes it murder, a wound that would have caused death but for timely medical assistance makes it frustrated murder, and a wound not sufficient to cause death makes it attempted murder. Alibi, to be credited, must prove both that the accused was elsewhere and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene. The retirement of the judge who heard the evidence is not a ground for retrial. Evident premeditation requires clear proof of cool and deliberate consideration, and a short interval is not enough. Nocturnity and abuse of superior strength are absorbed by treachery, and the use of a firearm is not an enumerated aggravating circumstance.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment as modified: life imprisonment for the murder of Ana Bermudez Azurin, indeterminate penalties for the frustrated murders of Victorino Azurin and Nancy Azurin, and an indeterminate penalty for the attempted murder of James Azurin, with proportionate costs against the accused.

Remember This

One volley, several victims, several separate crimes, never a complex crime under Article 48. Examiners use this case to test the classification of murder, frustrated murder, and attempted murder from the same shooting, and the rule that alibi must prove physical impossibility.