ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
January-1916 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 9518 January 3, 1916 - FRANCISCO ROSCO v. MARIANO REBUENO

    033 Phil 105

  • G.R. No. 10318 January 3, 1916 - ANTONIO M.A BARRETTO v. TOMAS CABREZA

    033 Phil 112

  • G.R. Nos. 11379 & 11380 January 3, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. YU TEN

    033 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 10992 January 6, 1916 - QUE QUAY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    033 Phil 128

  • G.R. No. 10089 January 7, 1916 - VICTORIA AYLLON v. MIGUEL SIOJO

    033 Phil 145

  • G.R. No. 10212 January 7, 1916 - INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO. v. GAUDENCIO ELEIZEGUI

    033 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. 9252 January 11, 1916 - SINFOROSO PASCUAL v. WM. T. NOLTING

    033 Phil 154

  • G.R. No. 9759 January 11, 1916 - PHILIPPINE RAILWAY CO. v. IGNACIO DURAN

    033 Phil 156

  • G.R. No. 10422 January 11, 1916 - A. LEMOINE v. C. ALKAN

    033 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. 10863 January 11, 1916 - HERMOGENES DE JESUS v. G. URRUTIA & CO.

    033 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. 11078 January 11, 1916 - CLIFFORD H. LOGAN v. PHILIPPINE ACETYLENE CO.

    033 Phil 177

  • G.R. No. 11088 January 11, 1916 - LIM CHING v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    033 Phil 186

  • G.R. No. 7798 January 14, 1916 - ANGELA C. GARCIA v. JOAQUIN DEL ROSARIO

    033 Phil 189

  • G.R. Nos. 10381 & 10714 January 14, 1916 - TRITON INSURANCE CO. v. ANGEL JOSE

    033 Phil 194

  • G.R. No. 10738 January 14, 1916 - RUEDA HERMANOS & CO. v. FELIX PAGLINAWAN & CO.

    033 Phil 196

  • G.R. No. 10849 January 14, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LUIS IGNACIO

    033 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. 11015 January 14, 1916 - PERPETUO FLORES TAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    033 Phil 205

  • G.R. No. 11002 January 17, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MATEO P. PALACIO

    033 Phil 208

  • G.R. No. 7988 January 19, 1916 - YOUNG MEN’S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF MANILA v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    033 Phil 217

  • G.R. No. 9806 January 19, 1916 - LEONIDES LOPEZ LISO v. MANUEL TAMBUNTING

    033 Phil 226

  • G.R. No. 10141 January 20, 1916 - MARGARITA SANTOS v. AGUSTIN ACOSTA

    033 Phil 229

  • G.R. No. 10711 January 20, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. KONG FONG

    033 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. 10731 January 20, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LORENZO LOPEZ QUIM QUINCO

    033 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. 10783 January 20, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. AGRIPINO AGONCILLO

    033 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. 10854 January 21, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. NG TUY

    033 Phil 261

  • G.R. No. 10436 January 24, 1916 - FRANCISCA EGUARAS v. GREAT EASTERN LIFE ASSURANCE CO.

    033 Phil 263

  • G.R. No. 10989 January 24, 1916 - GO PAW v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    033 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. 10759 January 25, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO VERZOLA

    033 Phil 285

  • G.R. No. 10259 January 26, 1916 - CITY OF MANILA v. ALICE J. NEAL

    033 Phil 291

  • G.R. No. 9087 January 27, 1916 - MARIANO G. VELOSO v. JOSE HEREDIA

    033 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. 10057 January 27, 1916 - DIAO CONTINO v. NOVO & COMPANY

    033 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 10099 January 27, 1916 - TEOFILA DEL ROSARIO DE COSTA v. LA BADENIA

    033 Phil 316

  • G.R. No. 10528 January 27, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. BONIFACIO MONTEROSO

    033 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 10537 January 27, 1916 - M. EARNSHAW & COMPANY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    033 Phil 327

  • G.R. No. 10972 January 28, 1916 - LEE CHING v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    033 Phil 329

  • G.R. No. 10557 January 29, 1916 - MARIA BALTAZAR v. APOLONIA ALBERTO

    033 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 10907 January 29, 1916 - ONG JANG CHUAN v. WISE & CO. (LTD.)

    033 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. 10040 January 31, 1916 - EUGENIA LICHAUCO v. FAUSTINO LICHAUCO

    033 Phil 350

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 10528   January 27, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. BONIFACIO MONTEROSO<br /><br />033 Phil 325

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 10528. January 27, 1916. ]

    THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BONIFACIO MONTEROSO and EUGENIO MONTEROSO, Defendants-Appellants.

    Ariston Estrada for Appellants.

    Attorney-General Avanceña for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. HOMICIDE; MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES; PASSION AND OBFUSCATION. — The facts in this case distinguished from those in the case of United States v. Hicks (14 Phil. Rep., 217) in the application to them of subsection 7 of article 9 of the Penal Code.

    2. ID.; ID.; ID. — A legitimate and natural cause of indignation and anger, leading to a wordy quarrel between the owner of a house and a visitor, is established when it appears that the visitor publicly placed lascivious hands upon a young woman with whom he was dancing, and this notwithstanding the fact that the woman was the querida (mistress) of the owner of the house.


    D E C I S I O N


    CARSON, J. :


    We find nothing in the record which would justify us in disturbing the findings of fact by the trial judge upon which he based his conviction of the appellant Bonifacio Monteroso. We agree with the Attorney-General that the evidence does not sustain the plea of self-defense set up by counsel for the accused, but we cannot agree with him in his contention that the trial judge erred in giving this accused the benefit of the extenuating circumstance mentioned in subsection 7 of article 9 of the Penal Code. We think that the evidence fully sustains the finding of the trial judge that this accused acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion and obfuscation; the indecent conduct of the deceased in publicly placing lascivious hands upon a young woman with whom he was dancing in the house of the accused on a festal occasion was an entirely legitimate and natural cause of the indignation and anger against the deceased which was aroused in the breast of this accused and his sons, and which resulted in a wordy quarrel ending in the fatal assault. Though the misconduct of the deceased did not justify the accused in taking the law into his own hands and physically chastising, much less fatally assaulting the offender, it does sufficiently and satisfactorily explain the passionate indignation in the breasts of the accused and his three sons which precipitated the quarrel. The mere fact that the offended woman was the querida (mistress) of one of the sons of this accused in no wise justified the indecent and lascivious conduct of the deceased, and under all the circumstances, the indignation and resentment it aroused in the breasts of the accused and his sons was the natural, legitimate and by no means censurable outcome of the incident. The facts in this case are clearly distinguishable from those in the case of United States v. Hicks (14 Phil. Rep., 217) wherein the alleged passion and obfuscation of the accused had its origin in jealousy, aroused by the fact that the woman in that case seemed to prefer the profligate attentions of the victim of the assault to those of the assailant, whose anger against his victim was not based on any act of misconduct of which the assailant might legitimately complain.

    We are of opinion, however, that while the record discloses that the defendant Eugenio Monteroso joined with his father and his brothers in the quarrel which arose as a result of the misbehaviour of the deceased, it does not conclusively appear that he was a party to the deadly assault of which his father was guilty, or that he had any means of knowing that his father was about to make such an assault. The findings of the trial judge on this point are not wholly satisfactory, and the Attorney-General suggests that giving this accused the benefit of a reasonable doubt, he should be acquitted.

    We conclude that the judgment entered in the court below in so far as it convicts and sentences the appellant Bonifacio should be affirmed with his share of the costs of this instance against him, and that the judgment in so far as it convicts and sentences the appellant Eugenio Monteroso should be reversed, with his share of the costs in both instances de officio. This defendant should be and is hereby acquitted of the crime with which he is charged and will be set at liberty forthwith. So ordered.

    Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, Moreland, and Trent, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 10528   January 27, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. BONIFACIO MONTEROSO<br /><br />033 Phil 325


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED