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
 

   
September-1939 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 46562 September 13, 1939 - BARDWIL BROS. v. PHIL. LABOR UNION

    068 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 46673 September 13, 1939 - ANDRES P. GOSECO v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    068 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. 45596 September 18, 1939 - MARCOS LIPANA v. DOMlNGO LAO Y OTROS

    068 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 46412 September 18, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANOJI

    068 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. 46497 September 18, 1939 - ANTONIO S. SANAGUSTIN v. CONRADO BARRIOS

    068 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 46170 September 20, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERMIN PUNTO

    068 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. 46780 September 20, 1939 - FISCAL OF CAMARINES NORTE v. JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAMARINES NORTE

    068 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 46108 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DATU GALANTU MEDTED

    068 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 46109 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICOLAS CARPIO

    068 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. 46197 September 22, 1939 - KINKWA MERIYASU CO. v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    068 Phil 501

  • G.R. No. 46302 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TORIBIO C. COSTES

    068 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 46578 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANICETO MARQUEZ

    068 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 46580 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO DE GUZMAN

    068 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. 46602 September 22, 1939 - YAP TAK WING & CO. v. MUNICIPAL BOARD

    068 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. 46686 September 22, 1939 - TRANQUILINO RUBIS v. PHILIPPINE CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES

    068 Phil 515

  • G.R. No. 46715 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO DE JESUS

    068 Phil 517

  • G.R. No. 46068 September 23, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSTAQUIO CAROZ

    068 Phil 521

  • G.R. No. 46650 September 23, 1939 - MARIO BENGZON v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    068 Phil 527

  • G.R. No. 46652 September 23, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CASIMIRO CONCEPCION

    068 Phil 530

  • G.R. Nos. 46802-46812 September 23, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RESURRECCION B. PEÑAS

    068 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. 46739 September 23, 1939 - PAMPANGA BUS CO., INC. v. PAMBUSCO EMPLOYEES UNION

    068 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. 46668 September 26, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. PAMPANGA SUGAR MILLS

    068 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 46729 September 25, 1939 - KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGAGAWA SA PANTRANCO v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    068 Phil 552

  • Adm. Case No. 879 September 27, 1939 - PEDRO DE GUZMAN v. TOMAS B. TADEO

    068 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. 46080 September 27, 1939 - GUILLERMO A. CU UNJIENG v. HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORP.

    068 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 46094 September 27, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO C. QUEBRAL

    068 Phil 564

  • G.R. No. 46237 September 27, 1939 - ROSALIO MARQUEZ v. BERNARDO CASTILLO

    068 Phil 568

  • G.R. No. 46350 September 27, 1939 - TAN CHAY v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 572

  • G.R. No. 46470 September 27, 1939 - JUAN CASTILLO v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    068 Phil 577

  • G.R. No. 46539 September 27, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALENTIN DOQUEÑA

    068 Phil 580

  • G.R. Nos. 46553-46555 September 27, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEON FABILLAR

    068 Phil 584

  • G.R. No. 46615 September 27, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO AQUINO

    068 Phil 588

  • G.R. No. 46727 September 27, 1939 - PAMBUSCO EMPLOYEES’ UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    068 Phil 591

  • G.R. No. 46168 September 29, 1939 - INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. OF THE PHIL. v. DELFIN MAHINAY

    068 Phil 597

  • G.R. No. 46336 September 29, 1939 - REVEREND ULRIC ARCAND v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 601

  • G.R. No. 46458 September 29, 1939 - ERLANGER & GALINGER v. HERMENEGILDO G. ALAGAR

    068 Phil 610

  • G.R. No. 46725 September 29, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMINO AQUINO

    068 Phil 615

  • G.R. No. 46023 September 30, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS FLORENDO

    068 Phil 619

  • G.R. No. 46252 September 30, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONOR DE MOLL

    068 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. 46298 September 30, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DATU AMBIS

    068 Phil 635

  • G.R. No. 46390 September 30, 1939 - CASIMIRO TIANGCO v. PROCESO FRANCISCO

    068 Phil 639

  • G.R. No. 46396 September 30, 1939 - ALEJANDRO DE GUZMAN v. VISAYAN RAPID TRANSIT CO.

    068 Phil 643

  • G.R. No. 46451 September 30, 1939 - PAZ CHUA v. SECRETARY OF LABOR

    068 Phil 649

  • G.R. No. 46484 September 30, 1939 - SANTIAGO SAMBRANO v. RED LINE TRANSPORTATION CO., INC.

    068 Phil 652

  • G.R. No. 46724 September 30, 1939 - CRESCENCIO REYNES v. ROSALINA BARRERA

    068 Phil 656

  • G.R. No. 46728 September 30, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO MONTENEGRO

    068 Phil 659

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 46068   September 23, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSTAQUIO CAROZ<br /><br />068 Phil 521

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 46068. September 23, 1939.]

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EUSTAQUIO CAROZ ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

    Donato C. Endriaga for Appellants.

    Solicitor-General Ozaeta and Assistant Attorney Gianzon for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE; MURDER; ALIBI. — It appears that the house of B. C. was only five hundred meters and that the plantation where E. A. was alleged to have been working was only three hundred meters away from the scene of the crime. It cannot, therefore, be said that it was impossible for both B. C. and E. A. to have gone to said places after their participation in the crime. The alleged sickness of F. S. was not of such gravity as to have made it impossible for him to participate in the perpetration of the crime, because he could walk, and as a matter of fact did help in carrying E and P. C. to the municipal building, a distance of about one and one-half kilometers. Alibis cannot stand and prevail over clear and convincing affirmations of credible witnesses.

    2. ID.; ID.; ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH AS A QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE; ABSENCE OF TREACHERY. — The appellants are found guilty of murder with abuse of superior strength not as an aggravating circumstance as found by the lower court but as a qualifying circumstance. We do not find the presence of treachery in the commission of the offense. The deceased was able to unsheathe his bolo and did offer a defense to the risk of his aggressors in consequence of which two of them were wounded. There was struggle and it was because of the overwhelming onslaugth upon the victim that he finally succumbed. The number of the aggressors here point to the attending circumstance of superior force, not treachery.


    D E C I S I O N


    LAUREL, J.:


    This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Davao convicting the appellants of murder, with the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength and sentencing each of them to suffer reclusion perpetua, with the accessory penalties of the law, to indemnify, jointly and severally, the heirs of Maximo Omboy in the sum of P1,000, and to pay the costs.

    Maximo Omboy (deceased) and Eustaquio Caroz, one of the defendants herein, had long been engrossed in dispute concerning a certain parcel of public land in the sitio of Mabo, barrio of Kingking, municipality of Pantukan, Province of Davao. Ombay filed a homestead application in 1930 for the land in dispute, which application was opposed by Caroz who filed a sales application therefor. The Director of Lands, however, approved Omboy’s application in 1931 and rejected the opposition and sales application of Caroz. On February 18, 1937, Omboy secured the issuance in his favor of a homestead patent.

    The relationship between the two claimants became more bitter because of the alleged frequent incursions of Eustaquio Caroz and’ the other defendants herein upon the property of Omboy. On February 8, 1937, Maximo Omboy charged Eustaquio Caroz, together with Bernabe and Panfilo Caroz and Enrique Awing, with robbery of 17 piculs of copra from his house. Again, on June 18,1937, Omboy accused Eustaquio Caroz, Panfilo Caroz and Felix Sanguenza of qualified theft of 929 coconuts. And again, on July 17, 1937, Omboy filed another charge against Eustaguio and Panfilo Caroz and Felix Sanguenza for qualified trespass of dwelling.

    With these antecedent circumstances, it is easy, in the language of the trial court, to understand the natural sequence of events which culminated in the unfortunate occurrence of July 28, 1937.

    In the afternoon of July 28, 1937, the deceased Maximo Omboy, together with his wife and laborer Agapito Panerio, went to the land to carry away the coconuts which they had gathered and piled up in the morning. There they found the appellants, sitting near the pile of nuts, all armed with bolos, except Eustaquio Caroz who was armed with a scythe. Nevertheless, Omboy nonchalantly proceeded to gather the coconuts, but Eustaquio Caroz faced him and asked him why he was gathering them. Omboy answered that they belonged to him, whereupon the other defendants surrounded him. While Omboy was engaged in conversation with Eustaquio Caroz, Bernabe Caroz dealt him a blow with a bolo on the left shoulder, and forthwith all the other defendants attacked Omboy with their weapons. Hemmed on every side and wounded, Omboy nevertheless managed to unsheathe his bolo and defended himself and succeeded in wounding Eustaquio and Panfilo Caroz. He nevertheless succumbed in the unequal combat, a fallen victim with twenty-two wounds, six of which were fatal.

    Alberta de Omboy and’ Agapito Panerio who witnessed the full enactment of the crime were afterwards pursued by Felix Sanguenza and Bernabe Caroz, but they managed to escape by hiding in a nearby bush. These two witnesses for the prosecution testified to the occurrence in the manner above narrated and the trial court gave full credence to their version.

    Defense counsel assigns several errors committed by the trial court. In substance, it is here urged that the defense version of the incident should be accepted as the true one.

    Eustaquio Caroz testified in the lower court that while he and his son Panfilo were occupied in putting the coconuts in a sack, the deceased Omboy, with his wife and Agapito Panerio, came and asked him why he was appropriating the fruits to which he answered that they were his; that thereupon Omboy dealt with a blow with a bolo on the left leg on account of which he fell to the ground; that Omboy then attacked his son Panfilo, hitting him on the head but that the latter was able to wrest the bolo from his assailant; and that while the two were engaged in a struggle he (Eustaquio) was able to retire to the house of his cousin, Bernabe Caroz.

    Panfilo Caroz declared that after Omboy had wounded his father the former then gave him a blow on the head, but that having secured hold of the wrist of Omboy he was able to wrest from him the bolo; that with bolo in hand he turned to flee, but Omboy pursued him and overtook and struck him with a piece of wood; and that in self-defense he used the bolo and inflicted upon Omboy the injuries which caused his death.

    As for Bernabe Caroz, it is averred that at the time of the fight he was taking a "siesta" in his house some two hundred meters away from the scene of the crime and woke up only after the arrival of Eustaquio and Panfilo Caroz who were both wounded, and that immediately thereafter he asked Rufo Roxas to notify the authorities. Felix Sanguenza stated that he had fever and was then confined In bed in the house of Eustaquio Caroz, while Enrique Awing averred that he was working in a field belonging to Bernabe Caroz around three hundred meters distant from the place of the incident.

    Defense version of the crime is diametrically opposed to that of the prosecution. We cannot, however, accept this version of the defense. It should be observed that Banfilo Caroz sustained four wounds, the most serious of which was an incision on the frontal and parietal region of the head with a corresponding fracture of the cranium. According to Dr. Manuel Babao of the Public Hospital of Davao who was presented as witness for the defense, this wound produced a partial paralysis of the face and deprived him of the power of speech for three days, and as to the fracture of the cranium this produced instant loss of consciousness. Under the circumstances, it was not likely that. as testified by him he was able to get hold of the wrist of his alleged assailant, wrest the bolo from him, run and afterwards defend himself and kill Omboy — a man whom he himself admitted was much bigger and stronger than he. Eustaquio Caroz, on the other hand, sustained a wound on the left leg which the trial judge observed to be "completamente transversal, de modo que, si se trazara una linea imazinaria paralela a la pierna, se formaria con aquella, un angulo recto" (p. 6, dec.; p. 102, rec.) . Said transverse wound could have been produced only by a person dealing the blow from a position at the level or at the height of the knee of Eustaquio, which fact supports the theory of the prosecution that Omboy defended himself when he was already lying down with his bolo which he was able to unsheathe before falling. If, as Eustaquo Caroz avers, he had been wounded by the deceased while the latter was standing by his left side, the natural and obvious direction of the wound would have been oblique and not transverse. Likewise, the other wounds sustained by Panfilo Caroz on the left forearm and on the left leg, which were all incised wounds and consequently could have been caused only by a sharp cutting instrument, must have been inflicted by Omboy while already Lying on the ground defending himself with his bolo. It should also be observed that the deceased Maximo Omboy sustained twenty-two wounds all over his body. It is not explained by the defense how, if Omboy was killed in a struggle with the defendant Panfilo Caroz alone, so many wounds were inflicted upon Omboy.

    With regards to the defense of alibi presented by Bernabe Caroz, Enrique Awing and Felix Sanguenza, we find it to be without merit. It appears that the house of Bernabe Caroz was only five hundred meters and that the plantation where Enrique Awing was alleged to be working was only three hundred meters away from the scene of the crime. It cannot, therefore, be said that it was impossible for both Bernabe Caroz and Enrique Awing to have gone to said places after their participation in the crime. (Klein v. People, 113 Ill., 596, cited in U. S. v. Oxiles, 29 Phil., 587, 593.)

    The alleged sickness of Felix Sanguenza was not of such gravity as to have made it impossible for him to participate in the perpetration of the crime, because he could walk, and as a matter of fact did help in carrying Eustaquio and Panfilo Caroz to the municipal building, a distance of about one and one-half kilometers (pp. 127, 194, t. s. n.; vide People v. Limbo and Limbo, 49 Phil., 94).

    The testimony of ex-policeman Wakan that in the afternoon of the occurrence of the crime, Alberta de Omboy had told him that it was only Eustaquio and Panfilo Caroz who attacked her husband is not worthy of credence not only because of disavowal of Alberta herself in the trial (p. 200, t s. n.) but also because the chief of police Albutra testified that Alberta could not be investigated that afternoon because she was crying over the death of her husband (p. 193, t. s. n.) .

    Alibis cannot stand and prevail over clear and convincing affirmations of credible witnesses. (People v. De Asis, 61 Phil., 384, citing People v. Cabantug, 49 Phil, 482, 484-86; People v. Palamos, 49 Phil., 601, 604, 605; People v. Medina, 69 Phil., 330; U. S. v. Garcia, 26 Phil., 289; People v. Cinco, 37 Off. Gaz., 2740.)

    The evidence for the prosecution, considered in the light of surrounding circumstances, point conclusively to the guilt of the appellants. We, however, find the appellants herein guilty of murder with abuse of superior strength not as an aggravating circumstance as found by the lower court but as a qualifying circumstance. We do not find the presence of treachery in the commission of the offense. The deceased was able to unsheathe his bolo and did offer a defense to the risk of his aggressors in consequence of which two of them were wounded. There was struggle and it was because of the overwhelming onslaught upon the victim that he finally succumbed. The number of the aggressors here point to the attending circumstance of superior force, not treachery. (U. S. v. Bañagale, 24 Phil., 69.)

    In view of the foregoing, we find the defendants-appellants guilty of murder as qualified by abuse of superior strength as this crime is defined and punished in article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. With the modification indicates, the judgment of the lower court sentencing each of the appellants to reclusion perpetua, with the accessory penalties of the law, to indemnify, jointly and severally the heirs of Maximo Omboy in the sum of P1,000, and to pay the costs, is affirmed. So ordered.

    Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz, Concepcion, and Moran, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 46068   September 23, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSTAQUIO CAROZ<br /><br />068 Phil 521


    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