G.R. No. 11904. February 29, 1960
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. FEDELINO GUILLANO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
BENGZON, J.:
On May 8, 1956, Major Osmundo C. Ramos (retired) died as a
consequence of several stab wounds inflicted upon him by the accused
Fedilino Guillano on the same day. Prosecuted and tried for murder,
Guillano alleged self-defense. The Davao court of first instance found
him guilty as charged, and gave him life imprisonment. He was also
required to pay P6,000.00 to the heirs of the deceased, plus costs.
Ramos was manager of oriental Farming Corporation, a
large-scale farming company in Davao. In 1952, said entity filed with
the Bureau of Lands its Sales Application covering 580 hectares of
public land in Padada, Davao. The application was approved, and the
corporation took possession. But some persons, claiming priority of
occupation, contested the right of the corporation in an opposition
submitted to the Bureau of Lands. Such opposition however was, after
investigation, dismissed by the order of the Director of said Bureau
dated November 21, 1953.
The oppositors filed a motion to reconsider. This time they
were joined, for the first time, by Fedilino Guillano. Acting on the
motion, a special land investigator conducted a new inquiry, which
resulted in a second dismissal of the oppositors’ protest. On appeal,
the Secretary of Agriculture affirmed the action of the Bureau of Lands.
Meanwhile, during the pendency of the appeal, some of the
claimants including Fedilino Guillano, armed with bolos, invaded the
portion occupied by the corporation, destroyed cassava plants growing
therein and did other damage to the extent of P2,000.00. This gave
ground to a civil complaint for forcible entry and detainer and also to a
criminal complaint for malicious mischief before the justice of the
peace court of Padada, Davao, at the instance of Ramos.
Originally scheduled for April 20, 1956, the hearing of the two
cases was postponed to May 7 and then May 8, 1956. On that last date,
as stated, Guillano stabbed Ramos to death in the municipal building of
Padada at nine in the morning.
According to the witnesses for the prosecution, principally
Gualberto Gorre, Ramos was walking towards the toilet when Fedilino
Guillano following him from behind, suddenly grabbed his left shoulder
and plunged a dagger into his (Ramos’) back. Instantly turning around,
Ramos faced his assailant, wrestled with him, only to fall on his back.
Straddling his fallen victim, Guillano continued stabbing the latter in
various parts of the body (abdomen and breast) until the arrival of
three policemen who disarmed him and separated him from Ramos.
One of the policemen helped Ramos to stand up. A witness noted —
and so testified — that Ramos’ revolver was still in its closed holster
on his right hip.
As indicated, the defendant asserted self-defense. This was his
account: When I met Major Ramos that morning, I asked why he had
included me in the cases (malicious mischief and ejectment) since I had
no fault. “You just wait, because we have trial now,” he answered. I
told him it was not possible for me to leave the land because I got my
living from it. This angered the Major, who pushed me and said “what do
you mean by it is not possible?” Immediately thereafter Ramos, with his
right hand attempted to pull his revolver; but I seized and held his
hand with my left, then drew my dagger and stabbed him first on the
right breast and then on the left part of his stomach. We wrestled; he
fell on his back and I straddled him. In this position, Ramos turned on
his right side and with the left hand, tried to pull his revolver which
was then under his back. Seeing the movement, I tried to stabbed his
left biceps to prevent his using the gun, but he suddenly moved his
left shoulder further towards the right thereby exposing his back, which
was wounded instead.
The trial judge did not believe the defendant’s story. If it
were true, His honor said, that Ramos pushed defendant and drew his gun,
he would have had plenty of time to use it, having been a Major in the
Constabulary. And yet everybody says that the gun was found inside its
holster.
Again, noting the position of the stab wound in Ramos’ back,
His Honor reasoned out that it could not have been inflicted in the way
the accused described — the wound extended from the shoulder blade down.
We think this estimate of the situation accords with plain
common sense. It is very unlikely that a retired Constabulary officer,
bigger than the accused, well-built (210 pounds) and armed with a
revolver could so easily be downed, unless he had been caught unawares
and given a crippling blow at the outset (as declared by the prosecution
witnesses). And the position of the wound in the left interscapular
area directed downward could not have been caused in the manner
described by the accused. On the other hand, its place and aspect
tallied with the story in court of the witness Gualberto Gorre of the
prosecution.[1] Dr. de la
Fuente who examined the corpse confirms this view in his testimony and
certificate.
Besides, on the same day of the killing, Guillano was arrested
and examined at the police headquarters. The questions and his answers
are transcribed on Exh. C, which this accused subscribed voluntarily
before the justice of the peace of Padada. Therein appear statements
like these:
Since when did you think of killing Major Ramos? At the time we received the decision of our case regarding
the possession of the land, from Manila.And from that time on, you already had in mind the intention
to kill him?Yes, sir, if I have the chance. Why, what made you so desirous to kill him? Because the land on which I was earning the livelihood of my
family was decided not in my favor but to Major Ramos who was a
latecomer.x x x What occurred to your mind upon knowing that you lost the
appeal?I again thought of killing him if I will have the chance. And is that the reason why you killed him this morning? Yes, Sir. What weapon did you use in killing him? I used a dagger.”
Which statements show he was intent on murder that morning. And
murder he committed.
Treachery, of course, qualified the killing.[2] We do not think the accused could be given
the benefit of mitigating circumstance of obfuscation caused by the
complaints against him by Ramos. The latter was acting within his rights
and duties as manager of the farm, and the complaints had been filed
many days before.[3]
There was premeditation; however, not enough votes are
available to impose the extreme penalty of death.
The judgment will, consequently, be affirmed, with costs.
Paras, C. J., Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion,
Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ.,
concur,
Padilla, J., took no part.
[1] Which coincided with his
statement immediately after the incident.
[2]
U. S. v. Sanchez, 20 Phil. 427.[3]
Cf. People v. Noynay, 58 Phil. 393; People v. Sarikala, 37Phil. 486.