THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. EMILIO ORONGAN AND PEDRO JEREZ, DEFENDANTS. EMILIO ORONGAN, APPELLANT.

Emilio
Orongan and Pedro Jerez were charged in the Court of First Instance of
Occidental Misamis with the crime of homicide, committed as follows:

“Que
en o hacia el 25 de junio de 1932, en el Barrio de Pangabuan, Municipio
de Tangub, Provincia de Misamis Occidental, y dentro de la jurisdiccion
de este Juzgado, los acusados Emilio Orongan y Pedro Jerez, voluntaria,
ilegal y criminalmente, obrando juntos y ayudandose mutuamente
acometieron y agredieron a Carlos Caparoso, policia rural, quien fue
herido en el abdomen con un cortaplumas por el acusado Emilio Orongan,
mientras que su coacusado Pedro Jerez pegaba con sus puños en la
espalda del referido Carlos Caparoso, habiendo este muerto al dia
siguiente de la agresion por causa de las lesiones recibidas, con
infraccion del articulo 249, del Codigo Penal Revisado.”

After hearing the evidence, Judge Jose M. Hontiveros found the
appellant, Emilio Orongan, guilty of the crime with which he was
charged and sentenced him to suffer fourteen years, eight months, and
one day of reclusion temporal, with the accessories of the
law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P500, and to
pay one-half of the costs. The trial judge found Pedro Jerez guilty of
having struck the deceased with his fist, without causing any injury,
and sentenced him to suffer fifteen days of arresto menor and to pay one-half of the costs.

The attorney de oficio for the appellant Emilio Orongan makes the following assignments of error:

“PRIMER ERROR

“El
Juzgado erro al encontrar al acusado culpable del delito de homicidio
sin tener para nada en cuenta la circunstancia eximente de defensa
propia, prevista en el articulo 11 del Codigo Penal Revisado.

“SEGUNDO ERROR

“El Juzgado erro al condenar al acusado a la pena de catorce años, ocho
meses y un dia de reclusion temporal sin tener en cuenta las
reducciones que concede y dispone el citado Codigo, en el supuesto de
que la defensa propia invocada en el error que antecede no pueda
considerarse como completa, pues aparte de esta existen atenuantes como
son las previstas en los incisos 3 y 4 del articulo 13 del Codigo Penal
Revisado.”

It appears from the evidence
that at the time and place mentioned in the information, the
defendants, Emilio Orongan and Pedro Jerez, and other persons were
engaged in playing hantak. Emilio Orongan was acting as
banker. A dispute arose between him and one of the players named
Eusebio Patalinghug, and the players withdrew their bets.

The rural policeman Carlos Caparoso arrived, and in attempting to break
up the gambling game he stepped on the foot of Pedro Jerez. The latter
was infuriated thereby and pushed or struck the policeman. Carlos
Caparoso looked around, and the appellant Orongan stabbed him in the
abdomen with a long-bladed knife, perforating the intestines. Caparoso
died as a result thereof the next day.

The defense tried to prove that the deceased was playing hantak
with the accused; that the appellant refused to continue playing, and
the deceased pushed the appellant, causing him to fall face down; that
when the appellant tried to get up, Eusebio Patalinghug pushed him down
again, and Ceferino Tuhoy struck him with a cane; that the deceased
then threw himself on the appellant and choked him; that when the
appellant was half unconscious and could scarcely breathe he got out
his pocket-knife and wounded the deceased, believing that the deceased
was the person that had struck him with the stick. The defendant
presented two witnesses, Pedro Barobo and Hilario Catoria, in support
of that contention, but Eusebio Patalinghug and Ceferino Tuhoy, who
participated in the hantak game and were the principal
witnesses for the prosecution, testified that they did not know Barobo
and Catoria, that is to say, they did not see Barobo and Catoria when
the incident in question occurred.

We see no reason to
disturb the findings of the trial judge. Patalinghug and Tuhoy were
certainly in a position to see what occurred, and no reason has been
adduced to explain why they should testify falsely against the
appellant. The story of the defendants on the other hand impresses us
as a mere fabrication designed to meet the case of the prosecution, and
this impression is confirmed by the fact that in the statement, Exhibit
C, made by the appellant the day after the incident he did not mention
the alleged attempt of the deceased to strangle him. The only motive
which is suggested for the alleged assault of the deceased on the
appellant is that the appellant refused to accept the invitation of the
deceased to bet. This is an insufficient motive to explain the action
attributed to the deceased by the appellant. It was the appellant and
not the deceased that had cause to be angered. By reason of the
intervention of the policeman, the appellant could not collect his
winnings or continue the game.

There is no merit in the
contention of appellant’s attorney that the appellant did not intend to
cause so great an injury. When a man stabs another in the abdomen with
a knife six inches long, a fatal injury is the natural and almost
inevitable consequence. Furthermore, the evidence shows that the
appellant attempted to stab the deceased a second time, but was
prevented by Ceferino Tuhoy.

Taking into consideration the
fact that the deceased was discharging his duty as a rural policeman
when he was attacked, and that the assault was unprovoked, the prison
sentence of the appellant is increased from fourteen years, eight
months, and one day to seventeen years of reclusion temporal. As thus modified, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with the costs against the appellant.

Avanceña, C. J., Street, Abad Santos, and Butte, JJ., concur.