Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1905 > January 1905 Decisions > G.R. No. 1957 January 30, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SATURNINO ASILO

004 Phil 175:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 1957. January 30, 1905. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Complainant-Appellee, v. SATURNINO ASILO, Defendant-Appellant.

Jose A. Clarin for Appellant.

Solicitor-General Araneta for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES; ALEVOSIA; HOMICIDE. — It not being established that the defendant, in killing the deceased, employed any means by which all defense on the part of the latter should be impossible, there is not sufficient ground to establish the concurrence of the aggravating circumstance of treachery (alevosia); and the killing therefore should be classified as homicide, and not as murder.

2. ID.; ID.; ID. — Treachery can in no way be presumed, but must be fully proven in order to establish its presence in the commission of the offense.

3. ID.; PRINCIPALS. — A principal is not only he who materially executes the crime but anyone who directly participates in the execution thereof.


D E C I S I O N


MAPA, J. :


It has been proved in the record that about 2 o’clock of the night of December 20, 1903, several individuals (among them the appellant) arrived at the house of Anastasio Claridad whom the accused asked to come downstairs, and, as the former refused to so, they fired two shots at him, inflicting a wound in his breast, by reason of which he died in the course of three hours. The judge of the Court of First Instance was correct in finding the appellant guilty of the said killing as principal, although the evidence does not clearly demonstrate that it was he who fired the shot which wounded and killed the deceased. According to article 13 of the Penal Code, the principal is not only he who materially commits the crime but all those who participate directly in the execution thereof, and it is evident that the accused is within this case, since he was a member of the band which appeared at a late hour of the night at the house of the deceased for the purpose of attempting the latter’s life. This circumstance is necessarily presumptive of a previous understanding between him and the others who formed the band, whereby he voluntarily lent his assistance of thought and action for the realization of that criminal object, increasing, at least with his personal cooperation, in an effective manner, the offensive strength of said band.

The court below classified the facts in the case as murder as charged in the complaint, considering that it was committed with the concurrence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery (alevosia). In our opinion the evidence does not justify this appreciation. The deceased, having been asked to come down from his house by a party of armed individuals, and at an unusual hour of the night, must have necessarily suspected that their intention was not lawful, as it is proven by his refusal to go downstairs and which tends to show his decision in not placing himself in the hands of those who called him in a manner so unusual and suspicious. With such facts it can not reasonably be presumed that the deceased was taken entirely unawares; and it being not established, on the other side, that the aggressors employed any means which might have rendered all defense impossible for the deceased, inasmuch as no one witnessed the very act of the aggression, there is not sufficient ground to establish the conclusion that the attempt which deprived Anastasio Claridad of his life was made with treachery (alevosia). The treachery can in no way be presumed, but must be fully proven in order to be appreciated for the effects of the Penal Code.

Therefore the facts in the case should only be classified as homicide, provided for and punished by article 404 of the Penal Code. The aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and of the crime having been perpetrated in the deceased’s house should be taken into consideration, and for this reason the penalty prescribe by said article should be imposed upon the appellant in its maximum degree.

Although the complaint was drawn on the charge of murder, there is no objection, however, to the appellant being sentenced for that of homicide, as it is plainly authorized by section 29 of General Orders, No. 58; and this court has repeatedly stated in its decisions that the crime of homicide is necessarily included in that of murder.

Therefore, we reverse the judgment appealed from and sentence the appellant, as guilty of the crime of homicide, to eighteen years of reclusion temporal with the accessories thereof, and to pay the costs of this instance. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson and Carson, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






January-1905 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 1289 January 3, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ANASTASIO BOSITO ET AL.

    004 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. 1523 January 4, 1906

    UNITED STATES v. JACINTO SOSA

    004 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. 1669 January 4, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. EVANGELISTA

    004 Phil 106

  • G.R. No. 1945 January 4, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL NAVARRETE ET AL.

    004 Phil 108

  • G.R. No. 1287 January 5, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO BAGUIAO

    004 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. 1290 January 5, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. REGINO AYAO, ET AL.

    004 Phil 114

  • G.R. No. 2094 January 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL TOMINES

    004 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. 1314 January 12, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE SAMSON

    004 Phil 123

  • G.R. No. 1340 January 12, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. CLARO MENDOZA

    004 Phil 124

  • G.R. No. 1643 January 12, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SATURNINO DE LA CRUZ ET AL.

    004 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. 2246 January 12, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO BAILON

    004 Phil 128

  • G.R. No. 1536 January 14, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ROMULO AGAS

    004 Phil 129

  • G.R. No. 1565 January 14, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE NER

    004 Phil 131

  • G.R. No. 2362 January 14, 1905 - FRANK DE L. CARRINGTON v. J. J. PETERSON

    004 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. 1615 January 16, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ANDRES ASCUE

    004 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. 1692 January 18, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ADRIANO PERDON

    004 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 1874 January 18, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ANGEL ONGTENGCO

    004 Phil 144

  • G.R. No. 1222 January 21, 1906

    UNITED STATES v. MATEO LAPUS, ET AL.

    004 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 1767 January 21, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. GAVINO GARCIA

    004 Phil 151

  • G.R. No. 1851 January 23, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SATURNINO TRINIDAD

    004 Phil 152

  • G.R. No. 1855 January 23, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. CATALINO COFRADA

    004 Phil 154

  • G.R. No. 1989 January 23, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. CELEDONIO NERY

    004 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. 1737 January 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PETRONILO PATIÑO ET AL.

    004 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. 1757 January 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. DOMINGO LASCANO

    004 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. 1826 January 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PABLO GABRIEL

    004 Phil 165

  • G.R. No. 1827 January 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. LEONARDO SANTIAGO

    004 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. 1541 January 27, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE SANTILLAN

    004 Phil 170

  • G.R. No. 1828 January 27, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. FERMIN MANGADO

    004 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. 1832 January 28, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MARTIN SOSA ET AL.

    004 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. 1957 January 30, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SATURNINO ASILO

    004 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. 1958 January 30, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ESTEBAN CABINGAN

    004 Phil 177

  • G.R. No. 1687 January 31, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MARIA SOLIS ET AL.

    004 Phil 178