Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1908 > August 1908 Decisions > G.R. No. 4340 August 15, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CHESTER A. DAVIS

011 Phil 96:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 4340. August 15, 1908. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHESTER A. DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.

Southworth & Ingersoll for Appellant.

Attorney-General Araneta for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. HUSBAND AND WIFE; INFIDELITY; MURDER. — When, in a case of infidelity on the part of a wife, the killing of her paramour by the husband was prompted proximately, although not immediately, by a desire on the part of the latter to avenge the wrong, done, and also by the sudden excitement tending to produce a condition of mental confusion, in imposing the penalty these facts should be taken into consideration as mitigating circumstances.

2. TREACHERY. — Where, apparently without warning, a person is surprised by an aggressor, and the latter immediately fires upon him with a revolver, giving him no time for preparation, resistance, or escapo. the act involves the circumstance of alevosia, although at the time the parties may be facing each other. A sudden and unexpected attack upon another constitutes alevosia. (U. S. v. Babasa, 2 Phil Rep., 102; U. S. v. Cabiling, 7 Phil Rep., 469.)


D E C I S I O N


TRACEY, J. :


In the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila, the defendant was convicted of the crime of asesinato and sentenced to imprisonment in Bilibid for the term of his natural life.

When the accused, who was a fireman, returned unexpectedly to his house one evening, his wife was missing, and came back at a late hour in a livery calesa. his suspicions had been aroused by her absence, in connection with previous occurrences, and after an altercation he got into the conveyance with her, ordering the coachman to drive them to the place where she had come from. On the way, she confessed to her husband that she had had improper relations on that evening with Charles L. Pitman, the keeper of a livery stable in Paco. When the stable was reached, the coachman stopped, and the accused and his wife disembarked. He ordered her to call Pitman; instead of doing so directly, she spoke to an employee of the stable, who was dozing on a chair, but her voice attracted Pitman’s attention. He was sitting writing at his desk in the office, near a window, in view of the street.

At this point the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution and the defense differs. The stable employee says that the accused walked up to the door and shot Pitman as he sat in his chair, whereas both the accused and his wife swear that Pitman had arisen from his chair at the sound of her, voice and was approaching the door, when the men confronted each other, and the accused ,instantly fired the fatal shot. Pitman was the larger and more powerful man of the two.

From all the circumstances in this case, from the trend of the narrative, and the coherency of the witnesses, we are inclined to accept the version of this incident testified to by the defense. This raises the serious and close question as to whether alevosia existed, so as to qualify the crime as asesinato, instead of simple homicide. Had there been proof that Pitman had attempted to defend himself, or been put upon his guard, or even been made aware of the approach of his assailant, it would be possible to hold that the crime lacked this qualification. Apparently, however, without warning, he was surprised by the appearance of the accused, who immediately fired, giving him no time for preparation, resistance, or escape.

We have heretofore held that a sudden and unexpected attack upon another is sufficient proof of treachery to constitute alevosia. (U. S. v. Cabiling, 7 Phil. Rep., 469; U. S. v. Rabasa, 2 Phil. Rep., 102.)

It is unnecessary to recapitulate the evidence, which went at great length into the antecedents of the erring wife, the prosecution seeking to prove a previous knowledge on the husband’s part of indiscretions with other men. Taking the credibility of these witnesses into consideration, as revealed by their own testimony, we fail to find any such knowledge or acquiescence by the defendant as would deprive him of his partial defense arising out of natural anger on the disclosure of the transaction with Pitman, which led him, while in the heat of his resentful passion, to shoot the offender.

The trial court found an absence of deliberate premeditation, and the presence of jealousy and excitement as extenuating circumstances, counterbalanced by alevosia and nocturnity as aggravation, and imposed the sentence of imprisonment for life. The element of premeditation did not enter into the case, nor should that of nocturnity be considered, because it did not in any aspect affect the nature of the crime, or facilitate its commission. The extenuating circumstances, first, that the deed was prompted proximately, though not immediately, by the desire to chastise and repair the injury to his wife; and second, that sudden excitement produced in him a condition of mental confusion and blindness, which are the particulars specified in the fifth and seventh subdivisions of article 9 of the Penal Code, to be considered separately, are properly allowed. Applying subdivision 5 of article 81 of the code, and imposing the penalty next under that proper to the grade of the crime, we reverse the sentence of the court below, and sentence the accused to ten years and one day of presidio mayor, and to pay the costs of first instance, with an indemnity of P1,000 to the heirs of Charles L. Pitman. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Carson and Willard, 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






August-1908 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 3837 August 1, 1908 - BENIGNO CATABIAN v. FRANCISCO TUNGCUL

    011 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. 4537 August 1, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BONIFACIO POBRE

    011 Phil 51

  • G.R. No. 4381 August 4, 1908 - MANUEL LOPEZ, ET AL. v. RAMON N. OROZCO, ET AL.

    011 Phil 53

  • G.R. No. 4498 August 5, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. LEOCADIO SALGADO

    011 Phil 56

  • G.R. No. 3831 August 6, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CANUTO BUTARDO, ET AL.

    011 Phil 60

  • G.R. No. 4519 August 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. LORENZO IDON

    011 Phil 64

  • G.R. No. 3897 August 10, 1908 - ZACARIAS OMO v. INSULAR GOV’T.

    011 Phil 67

  • G.R. No. 4133 August 10, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO DULFO

    011 Phil 75

  • G.R. No. 4027 August 12, 1908 - JOSEFA GARCIA PASCUAL v. LUIS PALOMAR BALDOVI

    011 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. 4054 August 14, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. GUILLERMO ALVARADO

    011 Phil 87

  • G.R. No. 4032 August 15, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO F. CONCEPCION

    011 Phil 90

  • G.R. No. 4141 August 15, 1908 - AGUSTINA FAELNAR, ET AL. v. JACINTA ESCAÑO

    011 Phil 92

  • G.R. No. 4330 August 15, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO FENIX

    011 Phil 95

  • G.R. No. 4340 August 15, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CHESTER A. DAVIS

    011 Phil 96

  • G.R. No. 4464 August 15, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FELIPE IDOS

    011 Phil 99

  • G.R. No. 4277 August 18, 1908 - POTENCIANA TABIGUE v. FRANK E. GREEN

    011 Phil 102

  • G.R. No. 4282 August 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CHIONG CHUICO

    011 Phil 106

  • G.R. No. 4287 August 18, 1908 - PHIL. PRODUCTS CO. v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    011 Phil 107

  • G.R. No. 4317 August 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO MONTECILLO

    011 Phil 109

  • G.R. No. 3818 August 19, 1908 - EDWARD B. MERCHANT v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    011 Phil 116

  • G.R. No. 4223 August 19, 1908 - NICOLAS LUNOD, ET AL. v. HIGINO MENESES

    011 Phil 128

  • G.R. No. 4382 August 20, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    011 Phil 133

  • G.R. No. 4468 August 21, 1908 - RUBERT & GUAMIS v. C. A. SMITH

    011 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. 4015 August 24, 1908 - ANGEL JAVELLANA v. JOSE LIM, ET AL.

    011 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 4390 August 24, 1908 - ANG TOA v. BASILIA ALVAREZ, ET AL.

    011 Phil 146

  • G.R. No. 4365 August 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FERNANDO ESTABILLO

    011 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. 4384 August 27, 1908 - SIMEON ALCONABA, ET AL. v. MAGNO ABINEZ

    011 Phil 152

  • G.R. No. 4410 August 27, 1908 - URBANO FLORIANO v. ESTEBAN DELGADO, ET AL.

    011 Phil 154

  • G.R. No. 4477 August 27, 1908 - IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MALIGNAD v. BRIGIDA

    011 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. 4529 August 27, 1908 - LUISA TENGCO v. VICENTE SANZ

    011 Phil 163

  • G.R. No. 4513 August 28, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SIMON CABONCE

    011 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. 4642 August 28, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SIDNEY LEE BAYLEES

    011 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. 4383 August 31, 1908 - ZACARIAS BAGSA v. CRISOSTOMO NAGRAMADA

    011 Phil 174

  • G.R. No. 4385 August 31, 1908 - WALTER E. OLSEN v. BERT YEARSLEY

    011 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 4411 August 31, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. RUFINO DELOSO

    011 Phil 180

  • G.R. No. 4689 August 31, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. GO TIAO

    011 Phil 183