THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. GABRIEL DE LOS ANGELES, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

STATEMENT

As a result of a preliminary investigation by the justice of the peace, the
provincial fiscal filed an information against the defendant in the Court of
First Instance of Iloilo charging him with the crime of homicide in the killing
of Aniano Tijam. After the taking of some evidence the judge directed the fiscal
to file an information against the defendant charging him with the crime of
murder, and in compliance with that order, the following information was
filed:

“The undersigned provincial fiscal of Iloilo accuses Gabriel de los Angeles
of the crime of murder committed as follows:

“That on or about December 29,1923, in the municipality of Ajuy, Province of
Iloilo, Philippine Islands, the aforesaid accused did intentionally, maliciously
and criminally and with treachery assault and stab Aniano Tijam, inflicting a
mortal wound on his back, as a result of which said Aniano Tijam died on March
3, 1924. Contrary to law.”

When the defendant was arraigned upon the last information, he plead not
guilty and interposed the defense of double jeopardy, which the court overruled
and to which an exception was duly taken. As a result of the trial the lower
court found the defendant guilty of the crime of murder and sentenced him to
life imprisonment, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P1,000,
with the accessory penalties, and to pay the costs. From this sentence the
defendant appeals, contending that the trial court erred in holding, after the
accused had plead not guilty, that the information for homicide should be
dismissed, and in directing the fiscal to file another one for the crime of
murder and in denying the petition of the defendant for a preliminary
investigation for the higher crime, and in holding that the accused was not in
double jeopardy, and in finding that alevosia existed in the commission
of the crime and in construing the evidence and in finding the defendant guilty
of the crime charged, and in failing to find that he was not guilty.

JOHNS, J.:

Numerous questions have been presented on this appeal, but under our view of
the case, many of them are immaterial. Suffice it to say that the evidence is
not sufficient to prove the existence of alevosia. Assuming that the
evidence for the prosecution is true, it tends to show that the defendant
stabbed the deceased in a sudden heat of passion, which was caused by a slurring
remark which the deceased made to the defendant after reading the letter which
the defendant delivered to Pedro Babor. It is very apparent that the anger of
the defendant was aroused by the remark of the deceased, and that the defendant
stabbed the deceased in a sudden heat of passion. Hence, the crime is homicide
and not murder.

The questions then of the failure of the court to order a new investigation
and the plea of former jeopardy are not immaterial.

The evidence shows that there was more or less of a bitter feeling between
the defendant and the deceased growing out of a membership in some secret
society. That the defendant anticipated trouble and thought that he was more or
less in danger, and it was for such purpose that he applied for and obtained the
letter in question to obtain official protection for himself.

If the testimony for the defense is true, it would result in an acqujttal.
But as we analyze the record, the defendant’s theory is not reasonable or
plausible. Under our view of the case, the defendant is guilty of the crime of
homicide without any extenuating or mitigating circumstance, and in the minimum
of the medium degree. The judgment of the lower court is modified, and the
defendant is found guilty of the crime of homicide and sentenced to fourteen
years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal, to indemnify the
heirs of the deceased in the sum of P1,000, and to pay the
costs.

Johnson, Avancena, Villamor, and Ostrand, JJ.,
concur.
Street, J., reserves his vote.

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION

ROMUALDEZ, J., with whom concurs MALCOLM, J.:

I concur in that the crime proven is homicide only. I believe, however, that
there must be taken into consideration the provocation on the part of the
deceased, as a mitigating circumstance, and that the penalty must be only twelve
years and one day of reclusion temporal. I believe, moreover, that the
trial court erred in denying the accused the preliminary investigation expressly
applied for upon the second complaint, which is for murder, although after this
court has classified the crime as homicide, such an error ceased to be
prejudicial to the accused, since an investigation was made upon the first
complaint which was for homicide only.