THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MARTIN NOYNAY AND BUENAVENTURA RUIZ, DEFENDANTS. BUENAVENTURA RUIZ, APPELLANT.

Martin Noynay and Buenaventura Ruiz were charged in the Court of First Instance of Cebu with the crime of asesinato, committed as follows:

“Que
en o hacia el 28 de agosto de 1932, en el Municipio de Medellin,
Provincia de Cebu, Islas Filipinas, los referidos acusados, concertando
entre si y ayudandose mutuamente provistos de armas mortiferas punzo
cortantes, con premeditacion conocida y alevosia, voluntaria, ilegal y
criminalmente atacaron y agredieron a Silvestre Arriesgado,
infiriendole lesiones en diferentes partes del cuerpo que produjeron la
muerte instantanea del mencionado Silvestre Arriesgado.”

After hearing the evidence, Judge Fortunato Borromeo Veloso found the
defendants guilty of homicide with the presence of the mitigating
circumstances of No. 4 and No. 6 of article 13 of the Revised Penal
Code, and sentenced each of them to suffer eight years and one day of reclusion temporal, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P500, and to pay the costs.

The defendant Buenaventura Ruiz appealed to this court, and his attorney de oficio makes the following assignments of error:

“I.
El Juzgado inferior erro al no declarar que las pruebas de la acusacion
no establecen fuera de toda duda racional la culpabilidad del acusado
Buenaventura Ruiz.

“II. El Tribunal de origen tambien
erro al no declarar que la preponderancia de las pruebas, al menos,
esta en favor del acusado Buenaventura Ruiz, y que, por tanto, si no se
ha demostrado concluyentemente la inocencia de este por la naturaleza
de las pruebas obrantes en autos, debe ser absuelto siquiera por duda
racional.

“III. Finalmente erro al no absolver libremente al acusado ahora apelante Buenaventura Ruiz.”

The facts of the case are as follows:

A carabao belonging to Martin Noynay was destroying sugar cane planted
by the deceased Silvestre Arriesgado. The deceased caught the carabao
and took it to the house of Martin Noynay. The deceased was accompanied
by his son, Jose, who was 9 years old. When they reached the house of
Martin Noynay, they found him and the appellant Buenaventura Ruiz. The
deceased told Noynay that his carabao had destroyed the sugar cane and
that he had to pay the damages. Noynay replied that he did not have to
pay anything because his carabao was tied. The deceased then told
Noynay that if he did not wish to pay, he would take the carabao to the
lieutenant of the barrio, and started to do so. Thereupon Noynay
grabbed a spear from the azotea of his house, and he and
Buenaventura Ruiz pursued the deceased. The deceased began to run, but
he was overtaken under a tree about 82 meters from the house of Martin
Noynay. Jose Arriesgado ran and hid behind some clumps of maguey, and
from there he saw Martin Noynay stab the deceased in the shoulder with
a spear. The deceased picked up a stone and threw it at Noynay,
striking him in the forehead. Noynay stabbed the deceased in the side
with the spear. The appellant Buenaventura Ruiz then said “let us
finish him”, and stabbed the deceased twice in the breast with a
dagger. The defendants ran away, Martin Noynay going towards his house,
and the appellant towards the provincial road. Jose Arriesgado then
went to the place where his father had fallen, and a few moments later
the wounded man died.

Rosa Malinao, the wife of the
deceased, after being told by her daughter Maria that the defendants
were pursuing the deceased, ran towards the scene of the crime and saw
the defendants running away. She then went to the place where her
husband had been killed, and found there her son Jose, who was crying.
When she asked him who had killed his father, he replied that Martin
Noynay and Buenaventura Ruiz had killed him; and when asked why they
had attacked his father, he replied that it was because the deceased
had taken the carabao to Martin Noynay and demanded payment for the
sugar cane the carabao had destroyed.

The appellant
Buenaventura Ruiz set up as his defense an alibi, alleging that when
the deceased was killed he, the appellant, was in a cockpit 7
kilometers away.

The evidence was carefully considered by
the trial judge. It leaves no doubt in our minds as to the guilt of the
appellant. We not only have the testimony of Jose Arriesgado as to the
direct participation of the appellant in the crime, and the testimony
of the wife of the deceased that she saw the appellant as well as his
coaccused running away from the scene of the crime, but also the fact
that the corpse of Silvestre Arriesgado showed that he had been wounded
with two different kinds of instruments.

Feliciano Pepito
testified that at noon on the day in question he met the appellant
going towards the house of Noynay. It should be recalled here that the
appellant and Noynay were related by marriage. Agripina de la Rama saw
the appellant about noon going from the scene of the crime towards the
provincial road. This testimony completely refutes the contention of
the appellant that he was in the cockpit from 10 o’clock in the morning
until 3 in the afternoon, and destroys his alibi.

The trial
judge found that the defendants were entitled to the benefit of two
mitigating circumstances, provocation on the part of the deceased and
the obfuscation of the accused. The evidence does not warrant a finding
that sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party
immediately preceded the act of the defendants. The action of the
deceased in taking the carabao to Noynay and demanding payment for the
sugar cane destroyed, and in taking the carabao to the lieutenant of
the barrio when Noynay refused to pay was perfectly legal and proper
and constituted no reasonable cause for provocation as to Noynay and
certainly none at all as far as the appellant was concerned. The
finding that the defendants acted upon an impulse so powerful as
naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation was likewise not
justified by the evidence of record. The deceased, as we have said, was
clearly within his rights in what he did. The defendants, without any
rational cause for provocation, pursued the deceased and deliberately
killed him. In order to be entitled to this mitigating circumstance, it
must appear that the obfuscation of the accused arose from lawful
sentiments. “The fact that an offense was committed in an
uncontrollable burst of passion (con arrebato y obcecacion)
should not be taken into consideration as an extenuating circumstance
unless it appears that it was provoked by prior unjust or improper
acts.” (U. S. vs. Taylor, 6 Phil., 162.)

For the
foregoing reasons, the defendant Buenaventura Ruiz is sentenced to
suffer fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal,
instead of the prison sentence imposed by the lower court. 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.