Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1929 > September 1929 Decisions > G.R. No. 31010 September 26, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMBROSIO GUTIERREZ

053 Phil 609:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 31010. September 26, 1929.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AMBROSIO GUTIERREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

Mariano Nable and Isidro L. Vejunco for Appellant.

Attorney-General Jaranilla for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; HOMICIDE; PLEA OF SELF-DEFENSE. — The plea of self- defense is an affirmative allegation which must be established by the accused with sufficient evidence. (U. S. v. Coronel, 30 Phil., 112; People v. Baguio, 43 Phil., 683.)

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION. — In order to constitute an element of self-defense, the unlawful aggression to which the law refers must come, directly or indirectly, from the person who was subsequently attacked by the accused. (Decision of the Supreme Court of Spain of May 6, 1907.) When the author of the unlawful aggression is not known, such element of self-defense cannot be considered present. (Decision of February 27, 1895, of the same court.)

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; LACK OF PROVOCATION ON THE PART OF THE ACCUSED AS MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE. — Lack of provocation on the part of the accused, one of the three elements of self-defense, is taken into consideration in this case as a mitigating circumstance in his favor, in conformity with the provisions of article 9, No. 1 of the Penal Code.


D E C I S I O N


ROMUALDEZ, J.:


This appeal is taken from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila, finding the accused guilty of homicide, and sentencing him to fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal, the accessory penalties, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P1,000, and to pay the costs.

The appeal is based upon the following three assignments of error: (1) In considering only the testimony of the two interested witnesses for the prosecution, Rivero and Pantangco; (2) in not sustaining the plea of self-defense of the accused; and (3) in finding the accused guilty of the crime of homicide.

The accused does not deny having killed the deceased Emilio Paat. It is therefore incumbent upon him, for his acquittal, to show satisfactorily that he committed the act with complete justification.

He alleges self-defense; but upon a careful study of the evidence both for the prosecution and the defense, and considering it as a whole, it cannot be held that the accused’s plea of complete self- defense has been sufficiently proven.

The plea of self-defense is an affirmative allegation which must be established by the accused with sufficient and convincing evidence (U. S. v. Coronel, 30 Phil., 112; and People v. Baguio, 43 Phil., 683).

The only thing disclosed by the evidence resulting from our examination thereof, is that the accused actually tried to defend his brother-in-law Alberto Martin, who was attacked by the deceased, which clearly shows that there was no sufficient provocation on the part of the accused. Although we also believe, as was proven, that the accused was unlawfully attacked, nevertheless, the aggressor was not the deceased but another person named Joven. Consequently, this unlawful aggression cannot be considered in this case as an element of self- defense; because, in order to constitute an element of self-defense, the unlawful aggression to which the law refers must come, directly or indirectly, from the person who was subsequently attacked by the accused. It has been so held by the Supreme Court of Spain in its decision of May 6, 1907; nor can such element of unlawful aggression be considered present when the author thereof is unknown as was held in the decision of February 27, 1895, of said Supreme Court.

Only one of the three elements of self-defense can therefore be considered in the present case, that is, the lack of provocation on the part of the accused, which we shall consider as a mitigating circumstance (article 9, No. 1, Penal Code), not compensated by any aggravating circumstance, for we find none in the record. Article 86 of the said Code is not applicable to this case because most of the elements of complete exemption provided in said Code are not present. Wherefore, the minimum penalty for homicide must be imposed.

By virtue of the foregoing, and with the modification of the judgment appealed from as to the principal penalty, the accused is hereby sentenced to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal, said judgment being affirmed in all other respects, with costs of both instances against the appellant. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Johnson, Street, Villamor, Johns, and Villa-Real, 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






September-1929 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 30826 September 2, 1929 - VIDAL CRISOSTOMO v. FRANCISCO VIRI ET AL.,

    053 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. 30831 September 2, 1929 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. TAN ONG SZE

    053 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 31951 September 4, 1929 - PHIL. TRUST CO. v. FRANCISCO SANTAMARIA

    053 Phil 463

  • G.R. No. 31310 September 5, 1929 - G. C. JAVIER v. CAYETANO ORLANES

    053 Phil 468

  • G.R. No. 30850 September 6, 1929 - CASIMIRO MANUEL v. JOSE CASTILLO

    053 Phil 476

  • G.R. No. 31851 September 6, 1929 - H. E. HEACOCK CO. v. AMERICAN TRADING CO.

    053 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. 31057 September 7, 1929 - ADRIANO ARBES ET AL. v. VICENTE POLISTICO ET AL.

    053 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. 30112 September 9, 1929 - MABALACAT SUGAR CO. v. JOSE V. RAMIREZ ET AL.

    053 Phil 496

  • G.R. No. 31150 September 10, 1929 - GETTY MONITZ DE MILLER v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    053 Phil 501

  • G.R. No. 30286 September 12, 1929 - M. TEAGUE v. H. MARTIN

    053 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. 31063 September 13, 1929 - CITY OF MANILA v. THE RIZAL PARK CO.

    053 Phil 515

  • G.R. No. 31464 September 13, 1929 - RESTITUTO VILLEGAS v. ATILANO VILLEGAS

    053 Phil 532

  • G.R. No. 31067 September 14, 1929 - MANILA PUBLISHING COMPANY v. HONORABLE JOSE BERNABE

    053 Phil 534

  • G.R. No. 31058 September 16, 1929 - SAN MIGUEL BREWERY v. FORTUNATO G. LAPID

    053 Phil 539

  • G.R. No. 30991 September 17, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ONG ENG

    053 Phil 544

  • G.R. No. 30992 September 17, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. UY TIAM SU

    053 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 31801 September 19, 1929 - F. BASTIDA v. CITY COUNCIL OF BAGUIO ET AL.,

    053 Phil 553

  • G.R. No. 31244 September 23, 1929 - BOHOL LAND TRANSPORTATION CO. v. NAZARIO S. JUREIDINI

    053 Phil 560

  • G.R. No. 32025 September 23, 1929 - FRANCISCO BELTRAN v. FELIX SAMSON

    053 Phil 570

  • G.R. No. 30903 September 24, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CIRILO MONTIL

    053 Phil 580

  • G.R. No. 31013 September 24, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CIRILO K. ALAFRIZ

    053 Phil 582

  • G.R. No. 31254 September 25, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TRANQUILINO CABALLERO ET AL.

    053 Phil 585

  • G.R. No. 30342 September 26, 1929 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATES DEV’T. CO. v. CIPRIANO E. UNSON

    053 Phil 599

  • G.R. No. 30711 September 26, 1929 - PABLO PERLAS v. ALFRED EHRMAN ET AL.

    053 Phil 607

  • G.R. No. 31010 September 26, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMBROSIO GUTIERREZ

    053 Phil 609

  • G.R. No. 30591 September 27, 1929 - GENEROSO AVELLANOSA v. BERNARDO VEROY

    053 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. 30888 September 28, 1929 - VIUDA E HIJOS DE CRISPULO ZAMORA v. BEN F. WRIGHT

    053 Phil 613