THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MANUEL LOJO, JR., DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Manuel Lojo, jr., appeals to this court from two judgments of
the Court of First Instance of Manila, the first in criminal case No. 35810 of
said court (G. R. No. 29535) wherein, in accordance with the information, he was
found guilty of the crime of homicide and sentenced to fourteen years, eight
months and one day reclusion temporal, with the accessories of law, to indemnify
the deceased’s heirs in the sum of P1,000, and to pay the costs; and the other
in criminal case No. 35902 of the same court (G. R. No. 29536), finding him
guilty of violation of section 1139 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of
Manila, and sentencing him to six months’ imprisonment, to pay a fine of P200,
with the proper subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and the costs of
both instances.

In support of his appeal, the appellant assigns the following
alleged errors as committed by the court below, in said judgments, to wit:

“1. The lower court erred in holding as a fact that the
deceased, whom the appellant ran over, was in the middle of the street with one
hand raised, with the evident desire that the defendant should stop his
automobile.

“2. The lower court erred in finding the defendant guilty of
the crime of consummated homicide, and in sentencing him to fourteen years,
eight months and one day reclusion temporal; and to indemnify the deceased’s
heirs in the sum of P1,000.

“3. The court below erred in sentencing the defendant to six
months’ imprisonment and a fine of P600 for having violated section 1139 of
Revised Ordinances No. 1600 of the City of Manila.”

The following facts were proven at the hearing, beyond a
reasonable doubt:

At about 3.30 a. m. of the 18th of January 1928, the dancers
Maria Lingat and Natalia Tanchico, having finished their services as such in
Lerma Cabaret for the night contracted with the herein accused, Manuel, Lojo,
jr., to take them in his car to Manila to eat. The defendant made his passengers
seat themselves beside him placing Maria Lingat in the middle. After having
started his engine, Manuel Lojo jr., drove with his right hand while he put his
left arm around his two passengers. Before going up Pretil Bridge on Juan Luna
Street and towards the City of Manila, as the car was running very fast and had
one of the front lights off, Policeman Nicanor Constantino, standing in the
middle of the road, raised his club as a signal to the defendant to stop his
automobile. The defendant, far from paying any attention to the order of the
agent of authority, headed straight for the policeman without diminishing his
speed, dashing into him so that the unfortunate policeman sprawled upon the
radiator of the car, then fell on the left running board and was thence hurled
to the ground dying instantly as a result of a fracture of the skull and several
internal and external injuries sustained in different parts of his body. ,When
the dancer Maria Lingat saw that the car had run over the policeman she shouted
to the defendant to stop, but the latter, instead of doing so, speeded it up
and’said to her: “Shut up, and don’t tell anybody.” On reaching the corner of
Solis Street, in the City of Manila, Policeman Pelagio C. de las Alas, who was
on duty there, signalled the defendant to stop his car, but again the latter
paid no heed and sped dizzily.

The defendant, testifying in his own behalf, admitted that he
ran over the deceased Nicanor Constantino with his car and alleged by way of
defense that on coming to the Pretil Bridge, and seeing a policeman in the
middle of the street he tried to go to the right, but said policeman went in the
same direction, thus resulting in the accident; that he did not stop his
automobile for fear of being roughly treated by the people of the place.

This alleged defense of the defendant’s is untenable, for when
he saw the policeman signalling him to stop, the traffic regulations obliged him
to slacken his speed and to obey the order. The fact that the defendant
continued to speed, with the policeman ahead of him in the middle of the road
signalling to him to stop, and, the fact that he did not obey the order, show
that he did not care whether he ran over that agent of authority or not. That he
was conscious of his guilt is shown, moreover, by the fact that having violated
the Revised Ordinances of the City of Manila, not only did he not report the
incident to the first policeman he met on the road, that is Pelagio C. de las
Alas, but he also disobeyed the latter’s order to stop. All of this contradicts
his statement that he tried to avoid the accident by turning aside.

A chauffeur who, going at great speed, sees in the middle of
the road directly in his path a policeman signalling to him with the hand to
stop, pays no attention to the order nor lessens the speed of his car, but goes
straight for said policeman, runs over him, and kills him instantly, cannot
pretend that he did not intend to cause the evil that he did; because, even
within the limits of human foresight, such an act could not produce any other
result than what took place. The fact that the policeman moved, doubtless
impelled by the instinct of self-preservation, and that the driver attempted to
turn aside his car, cannot be construed to show a lack of intention to cause the
injury, because at that psychological moment, the movement of the defendant’s
hand in turning the car from one side to another was not voluntary, but purely
automatic—a mere reflection of the policeman’s movement.

For the foregoing considerations, we arrive at the conclusion,
and so hold, that in running over the policeman and causing his death, the
defendant acted with full knowledge of his act and its consequences, and with
malice, being therefore criminally liable as a principal by direct participation
in the crime of homicide.

The act committed by the defendant constitutes, furthermore,
the crime of assault upon an agent of authority, defined and penalized in
article 249, paragraph 2, in connection with article 250, paragraph 1, of the
Penal Code, the deceased policeman being actually engaged in the performance of
his official duties when the accident occurred. The act committed by the
defendant constituting two crimes, homicide and assault upon an agent of
authority, according to article 89 of the same Code, the penalty for the more
serious crime, which in this case is homicide, must be imposed on the defendant
in its maximum degree.

In virtue whereof, the appealed judgment in criminal case No.
35810 (G. R. No. 29535) is modified, and the defendant is found guilty of the
complex crime of assault on an agent of authority with homicide, and sentenced
to eighteen years’ reclusion temporal, the said appealed judgment being affirmed
in all other respects, with costs against the appellant.

The appealed judgment in criminal case No. 35902 (G. R. No.
29536) is affirmed in its entirety, with costs against the appellant. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand,
and Romualdez, JJ., concur.