THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. CHARLES E. T. WADE, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This appeal has been brought to reverse a judgment of the Court of
First Instance of the Province of Lanao, finding the appellant, Charles
E. T. Wade, guilty of the offense of homicide and sentencing him to
undergo imprisonment for fourteen years and one day, cadena temporal,
and requiring him to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount
of P1,000, and to pay the costs.

It appears that in the afternoon of April 3, 1928, several persons,
residents of Momungan, Province of Lanao, were collected together in a
drinking place maintained by one Ariston Tijero in the poblacion
of said municipality. Most of these individuals were persons of
American citizenship, consisting of white men and persons of African
descent. The accused in this case, Charles E. T. Wade, colored, came to
the place in an automobile, accompanied by Peter Martisen and two
Moros. Among” those present in the store were Edgar C. Choate, the
deceased, Jere Barbour, and C. C. Andrews, all white men.

While the persons mentioned were seated at a table, drinks were
passed around upon the order of Wade, though he himself did not imbibe.
Hilarity then resulted, and some of those present engaged in dancing.
In the course of these activities Choate punched one of Wade’s Moros,
at which Wade took offense. Choate apologized, and those present,
except Wade, thought no more of the incident. After a half hour or such
a matter Wade got up and went out, and a few moments later he was
followed by Choate, inquiring for one Smith. As Choate passed out of
the door of the tienda, he lighted a cigarette, and when
outside was confronted by Wade, who turned, drew his revolver and fired
at Choate, inflicting a fatal wound in the breast or abdomen. Wade
again proceeded to pull the trigger of the revolver, but seeing that
the first shot had sufficiently taken effect, he turned and left.
Choate staggered a moment and fell over dead, or dying soon after. A
lieutenant of the Constabulary, one B. J. Tumilde, who arrived upon the
scene in a few moments, found Choate lying 1 1/2 meters from the door.
Though already dead Choate still held between the fingers of the right
hand a cigarette and in the other hand a match. The scene of the
tragedy was visible to Jere Barbour, who was inside the tienda
at the time of the shooting but was so placed that he could see what
was going on immediately in front of the door. Teodulo Janaw, an
employee in the house of Barbour, says that he happened to be on the
street and saw Wade come out and stop near the door of the tienda.
He also saw Choate come out of the same door; and as he lighted his
cigarette Wade drew his revolver, pointed at Choate and fired.

Andrews testified that after the shot was fired he followed Wade and
took his revolver. Andrews says that he suggested to Wade that he go
back and ask Ghoate’s pardon. But Wade answered, “What is done is done;
all is ended.” Andrews then asked Wade why he killed Choate and Wade
replied, “He is bigger than I am; he darted at me and struck me, and I
used my weapon.”

In a statement (Exhibit C) signed by Wade on April 4, 1928, he made this statement:

“That when I was going out of the door, Choate followed me and gave me a punch at the back and still followed me to the road;

“That when he did follow me I turned around, pulled my revolver from its holster, cocked and pointed it to him;

“That he made a rush at me so I fired, altho I did not think of doing it.”

At the trial of the case Wade introduced evidence tending to show
that the shot was accidental. To establish this fact, he introduced one
Taylor, who lived only a short distance from Tijero’s tienda
where the shooting occurred. Taylor says that he saw the shooting and
that it occurred apparently accidentally, while Wade and Choate were
fumbling or struggling over the pistol between them. The testimony of
Wade himself also tended to show that the shooting took place
accidentally while he and Choate were scuffling over the revolver.

We entertain no doubt that the pretense that the shooting was
accidental was an afterthought. No suggestion to this effect was made
by the accused at the time the shooting occurred, nor in his written
statement the next day. Neither did Wade make this contention clearly
before Governor Heffington later. The trial judge rejected the
testimony of the defense on this point as incredible, and we think he
was justified in so doing.

The offense committed was homicide, punishable under article 404 of
the Penal Code. It is not proved, nor does Wade contend that he was
drunk, though the circumstances of the killing suggest the probability
that his mind might have been fired in some degree by wine.

The penalty appropriate to the offense is that of imprisonment for fourteen years, eight months and one day, reclusion temporal, with the penalties accessory to said penalty.

It being understood, therefore, that the period of imprisonment
imposed by the trial judge is raised from fourteen years and one day to
fourteen years, eight months and one day, reclusion temporal, with appropriate accessories, the judgment is affirmed, with costs against the appellant. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Villamor, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.