THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. GABRIEL PAMAN, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This
is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Bohol,
convicting the appellant of the crime of murder upon the following
information:

“Que en o hacia el dia 12 de
julio, 1932, en el Municicipio de Sikatuna, Provincia de Bohol, Islas
Filipinas, y dentro de la jurisdiccion de este Juzgado, el referido
acusado Gabriel Paman con el proposito deliberado de dar muerte a uno
llamado Faustino Piquit voluntaria, ilegal y criminalmente acometio y
agredio con su bolo a dicho Piquit sin darle oportunidad de defenderse,
infiriendole varias heridas graves que causaron la muerte instantanea
del mencionado Faustino Piquit.”

The appellant was condemned to eighteen years, ten months and fifteen days of reclusion temporal and required to pay P1,000 as indemnity to the heirs of the deceased.

The appellant makes the following assignments of error:

“1.
El Juzgado inferior erro al hallar como hecho probado que concurren las
circunstancias de premeditacion y alevosia en el acto de herir y dar
muerte a Faustino Piquit el acusado apelante Gabriel Paman.

“2. El Juzgado a quo
erro al hallar como hecho probado que el acusado apelante Gabriel Paman
era quien hizo la primera agresion ilegitima contra Faustino Piquit, el
occiso, y al no hallar como un hecho probado que Faustino Piquit era
quien hizo la primera agresion ilegitima contra el acusado segun las
mismas pruebas de la acusacion (n. t., p. 18, lins. 17-23; p. 20, lins.
24-28; p. 21, lins. 1-4).

“3. El Juzgado inferior erro al declarar que la lucha entre el acusado Gabriel Paman y Faustino Piquit no esta probada.

“4. El Juzgado a quo
erro al no hallar como hecho probado que el acusado Gabriel Paman al
dar muerte a Faustino Piquit obro en legitima defensa propia.

“5. El Juzgado inferior erro al hallar al acusado Gabriel Paman
culpable del delito de asesinato, y al condenarle a la pena de
dieciocho años, diez meses, y quince dias de reclusion temporal, con
las accesorias prescritas por la ley, a indemnizar a la familia del
occiso Faustino Piquit en la suma de mil pesos y con las costas.”

It appears from the testimony of Ponciano Toledo, who has been
municipal president of Sikatuna for nine consecutive years, that the
deceased Faustino Piquit was a man of violent temper, a disturber of
the peace and a camorrista y atropellador. He had been trying
to seduce Gregoria, the wife of the accused, since September, 1931,
when the accused was absent in the United States. He visited her
repeatedly but she repelled his advances and threatened to denounce him
to her husband if he continued. After the return of the accused from
the United States, Faustino continued to harass Gregoria with his
advances. During the months of March and April 1932, he threw stones at
the house of the accused for the purpose of irritating him to the point
where he would come out and fight. On a later occasion, Faustino
offered Gregoria two kinds of poison that she might kill her husband.
On her refusal to accept it, he threatened to kill her and her husband
and her parents. In June 1932, Faustino passed by the house of Gregoria
and threw her a letter which is translated as follows:

“Why
do you not agree with my plan to poison Gabriel? Do you want that I
will poison your aged parents? I am not afraid of any of you. I will
burn you all. I will not cease stoning if you will not agree with my
plan to poison Gabriel so that we will live together. Do not be afraid
to poison your husband because I will take care of you. Had you
received the thing I had given you, your husband would have been dead
already. I am not afraid of your people.

“That is all.

(Sgd.) “Tinoy”

Gregoria showed and read this letter to her husband.

On the 8th of July 1932, about 3 in the afternoon, Faustino told his
friend Donato Illorimo that he was going to desert his wife and he did
not know where he would end, either in the cemetery or in prison. The
same afternoon, he passed the house of Gregoria and called her. The
accused answered instead of his wife. Whereupon Faustino became angry
and insulted the accused, threatening to kill him in a few days.

There is evidence in the record that Faustino had seduced two other
married women and bullied their husbands into silence and submission.

With this background, we approach the fight that took place between the
accused and Faustino on the 12th of July 1932. On that date, Faustino
and one Antonio Dieson were playing billiards in a pool-hall when the
accused entered the same. The accused testified that Faustino struck
the first blow with the billiard cue. Dieson testified that the accused
first struck Faustino in the left side with his bolo whereupon he, the
witness Dieson, immediately took to flight and saw nothing more of the
fight. The keeper of the pool-hall, Dionisio Dahunog, did not see the
first blow but saw the subsequent fight which, according to him,
continued for some ten minutes. In the course of the fight, Faustino
received at the hands of the accused a second stab in the left side
which pierced the abdomen of Faustino and caused him to fall. He died
immediately thereafter as a result of said wound.

We have
carefully studied the entire record in this case and have come to the
conclusion that the accused was the aggressor but that alevosia
(treachery) is not established by the evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
We concur also with the Solicitor-General that there is no convincing
evidence of premeditacion conocida. In the absence of these
qualifying circumstances, the offense was homicide not murder. The
evidence, in our opinion, also establishes the following mitigating
circumstances in favor of the accused: First (article 13, paragraph 4,
Revised Penal Code), immediate provocation or threats on the part of
the deceased; and, second (article 13, paragraph 5, Revised Penal
Code), that the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a
grave offense to the accused and to his wife.

The penalty prescribed for homicide under article 249 is reclusion temporal
which, in this case by reason of the two mitigating circumstances
aforesaid and the provisions of article 64, paragraph 5, is reduced to prision mayor.

The appellant is hereby sentenced to six years and one day of prision mayor, and as thus modified, the judgment of the court below is affirmed with costs de oficio.

Street, Villa-Real, Abad Santos, and Vickers, JJ., concur.