THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. DOMINGO GONZALEZ ET AL., DEFENDANTS. DOMINGO GONZALEZ AND HILARIO GONZALEZ, APPELLANTS.

People versus Gonzalez

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in a prosecution for murder arising from a fatal shooting in the town of Catanauan, in the old Province of Tayabas. Domingo Gonzalez, a municipal policeman, his brother Hilario Gonzalez, and their uncle Modesto Organo were charged with having entered the house of the Ilustre family and killed Gregorio Ilustre, a sick old man of seventy five years, while wounding Crispin Encarnacion. The case matters to a reviewee for three reasons: it shows how the Supreme Court weighs conflicting testimony and applies the equipoise rule in favor of the accused, it illustrates the doctrine that alibi and reasonable doubt must be measured against the whole evidence, and it settles a procedural point on the validity of a decision signed by a judge who has been transferred to another judicial district.

Procedural History

The three accused were tried in the Court of First Instance sitting in the Province of Tayabas. Modesto Organo was acquitted. Domingo Gonzalez and Hilario Gonzalez were found guilty, not of murder as charged, but of homicide, and each was sentenced to fourteen years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal, with the accessory penalties and one third of the costs. Both convicts appealed to the Supreme Court, raising several assignments of error, the last of which attacked the validity of the judgment itself.

Facts

On the morning of Sunday, April 11, 1926, Teodoro Ilustre, a young man of twenty four, was in a privy behind the family house when he saw Domingo Gonzalez climb to a rear balcony and try to enter through a door and then a window. Teodoro asked what he wanted and whether he had a search warrant. Domingo answered that he had no warrant and drew his revolver. Teodoro seized his hand, Jose Ilustre came to help, and a violent struggle followed. Modesto Organo appeared, struck Jose on the head with a stick, and ran away. Jose wrested the revolver from Domingo and, according to the prosecution, handed it to Hilario Gonzalez, who had just arrived, telling him to take it away. Teodoro and Jose then went inside to rest, leaving Domingo on the balcony.

Gregorio Ilustre, the father, went out to the balcony to investigate. Minutes later shots were heard. Maria Ilagan, Jose's wife, testified that she saw Hilario go down the stairs with the revolver, that he refused to give it to her, and that he fired two shots at Gregorio; she also said she saw Domingo firing at Gregorio from the balcony. She added that earlier that morning Domingo had asked her to lend him five pesos, that she offered only one peso, and that he returned it brusquely and left showing resentment.

Domingo testified that he had entered the house to stop a game of monte, that he seized cards and money, that he was attacked from behind, struck on the head with a heavy club by Gregorio, and thrown downstairs, and that after regaining his senses he fired shots in the air and then toward the balcony in self defense. He denied that Hilario was present. Hilario set up alibi. The trial court convicted both brothers of homicide.

Issues

• Whether or not Domingo Gonzalez is guilty of homicide and whether or not his plea of self defense may be sustained.
• Whether or not the guilt of Hilario Gonzalez has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the judgment of the trial court is null and void because the judge who signed it had already been transferred to another judicial district.

Applicable Provisions

Paragraph 14 of Section 334 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the presumption of regularity of official duty, provides:

That official duty has been regularly performed.

This presumption bears on the last issue, because the appellants attacked the judgment on the ground that the signing judge had ceased to preside over the district where the case was tried.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Domingo Gonzalez is guilty of homicide and that his plea of self defense cannot be sustained. The Court found the prosecution's theory more credible: that his purpose was to embarrass the Ilustres by accusing them of gambling, and that his motive was revenge for the imagined affront when Maria Ilagan refused him credit for five pesos. It found it improbable that gambling was being held at eleven in the morning in full view of the public, and equally improbable that a policeman would enter a house without a warrant, without advising the chief of police who lived nearby, and in violation of the instructions issued to the policemen of the town.

On the second issue, the Court acquitted Hilario Gonzalez. It found the prosecution evidence against him marked by glaring improbabilities. It was difficult to believe that Jose Ilustre, after a violent struggle, would hand the revolver to Domingo's own brother, when Hilario would naturally have come to help his bleeding brother, and when other people were present to whom the weapon could safely have been given. The Court also noted that Domingo's account, that he was thrown downstairs and fired after being beaten, was more reasonable and was corroborated by injuries requiring twelve days to heal. The chief of police, in an affidavit made immediately after the crime, saw Modesto Organo in the yard but did not see Hilario. The Court observed that there is sometimes a tendency on the part of offended parties to charge innocent members of the family of the perpetrator, and this strengthened the doubt.

On the third issue, the Court upheld the judgment. The crime was committed in Tayabas and tried there by Judge Servillano Platon, who was later appointed to Albay and took his oath there on August 4, 1926. The decision bore the same date and was signed as judge of Albay. The Court held that these facts do not overcome the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed, since the decision may have been signed before the oath was taken, and the designation of Albay was probably a mere clerical error.

Doctrine

First, where the evidence of the prosecution is attended by glaring improbabilities, the doubt thereby created must be resolved in favor of the accused, for guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Second, self defense must rest on clear and convincing proof; where the claim is inherently improbable and contradicted by the physical evidence and the circumstances, it cannot be sustained. Third, the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed, as stated in paragraph 14 of Section 334 of the Code of Civil Procedure, applies to a decision signed by a judge who has been transferred to another district, and the designation of the new district is treated as a mere clerical error.

Disposition

The judgment was affirmed as to Domingo Gonzalez, with one half of the costs against him, and reversed as to Hilario Gonzalez, who was acquitted of the crime charged, with one half of the costs de oficio.

Remember This

Memorize this line: glaring improbabilities in the prosecution evidence create grave doubt, and grave doubt means acquittal. Examiners use this case to test the equipoise rule, the requisites of self defense, and the presumption of regularity of official duty in judgments signed after a judge's transfer.