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. 46298   September 30, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DATU AMBIS<br /><br />068 Phil 635

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 46298. September 30, 1939.]

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DATU AMBIS (Bagobo), Defendant-Appellant.

    Mario Bengzon for Appellant.

    Solicitor-General Ozaeta for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE; MURDER; QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF TREACHERY AND THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF DWELLING. — The accused denied having been the author of the crime and attempted to establish the defense of alibi, which was rejected by the court. In this appeal, his attorney de oficio does not question the established facts set out in the decision, but maintains that the crime committed is homicide. The qualification is erroneous and is not in accordance with the facts because the crime is qualified by treachery, the deceased having been fired upon while he had his back turned, and was also attended by the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, which was correctly compensated by the mitigating circumstance of lack of education and instruction.


    D E C I S I O N


    IMPERIAL, J.:


    Datu Ambis, the accused, appealed from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Davao finding him guilty of the crime of murder qualified by treachery, and attended by the aggravating circumstance of dwelling which was compensated by the mitigating circumstance of lack of education and instruction, and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, with the accessory penalties prescribed by law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P1,000 and to pay the costs.

    When Ambrosia Puton (alias Fortunata, alias Ambuyong), became a widow, the herein accused desired to take her as one of his wives, but she declined, alleging that he already had five. The accused did not insist but he resentfully threatened her that should she marry again he would kill her second husband. Ambuyong, for the second time, married Esteban Fameron and both spouses, together with Ambuyong’s five children had with her first husband, lived in their new residence in Baracatan, municipality of Sta. Cruz, Davao. At about 7 o’clock in the evening of May 13, 1938 while both spouses were seated at the table preparing for supper and Esteban Fameron was taking some viands from a saucepan, a report of a firearm was heard and Esteban fell face downward to the floor, dead. Ambuyong looked toward the door where the report came from and to which Esteban had his back turned and saw the accused carrying a gun and leaving the place. Upon hearing the cries for help, Saito Puton, brother-in-law of Ambuyong, went to the latter’s house and on his way thereto he recognized the accused and saw the weapon carried by him. The body of the deceased was examined by sanitary inspector Manuel Jumilla who found several wounds therein all of which were produced by buckshots from a shotgun cartridge. According to him the wounds received by the deceased on the left side of the stomach, below the ribs, were mortal and produced his instantaneous death.

    The accused denied having been the author of the crime and attempted to establish the defense of alibi, which was rejected by the court. In this appeal, his attorney de oficio does not question the above-stated established facts, but maintains that the crime committed is homicide. The qualification is erroneous and is not in accordance with the facts because the crime is qualified by treachery, the deceased having been fired upon while he had his back turned, and was also attended by the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, which was correctly compensated by the mitigating circumstance of lack of education and instruction.

    The crime committed by the appellant is defined by article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and punished with penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, the medium period of which is reclusion perpetua, for which reason the penalty imposed by the court is in accordance with law. The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with the cost this instance to the appellant. So ordered.

    Avanceña, C.J., Diaz, Concepcion, and Moran, JJ., concur.

    Separate Opinions


    VILLA-REAL, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    I regret to have to dissent from the majority opinion in so far as it appreciates the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, the accused not having penetrated the house of the deceased in committing the crime of which he stands convicted. The ground of the Penal Code — which may be termed a socio-philosophical one — for considering dwelling as an aggravating circumstance, is explained by renowned commentators of the Spanish Penal Code in their works.

    Viada, in his commentaries on the Penal Code, 5th edition, Volume II, pages 323-324, says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "The home is a sort of sacred place for its owner. He who goes to another’s house to slander him, hurt him or do him wrong, is more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere, and he furthermore abuses the confidence which has been reposed in him by opening the door to him.

    "The aggravating circumstance, however, must not be appreciated when it is the offended party who has provoked the incident, because then he loses his right to the respect and consideration due him in his own house, or when treating of crimes which cannot be committed except in the house of another, as robbery in an inhabited place, trespass to dwelling, etc."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Groizard, in his commentaries on the Penal Code of 1870, Volume I, pages 462-463, states as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "To commit the act in the dwelling of the offended party when he has not provoked the incident. — The home has always been considered as a sort of sanctuary worthy of respect and, to a certain extent, inaccessible to those who do not dwell therein. The ancients as well as the modernists have always considered it in this light. And this consideration is well founded. It is in the home where one’s private life and his family life unfold, and these deserve everybody’s consideration and respect. Therefore, any offense committed by strangers in this sort of sanctuary, in addition to its own import, involves another breach of that respect due and which should be shown in everybody’s dwelling."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Cuello y Calon, in his commentaries on the same Code, Volume I, pages 138-139, says as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "The other aggravating circumstance included in this number is the commission of the crime in the dwelling of the offended party when he has not provoked the incident. According to jurisprudence, the basis thereof rests on the greater perversity assumed in the guilty persons and the greater alarm produced by the offense. The Supreme Court, in some decision, has held that this aggravating circumstance cannot be appreciated when the accused has the same domicile as the offended party. According to the doctrine laid down by the same court, the juridical concept of dwelling, for the purpose of this aggravating circumstance, extends to every dependency of the house which forms an integral part thereof."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Jimenez de Asua, in his work entitled DERECHO PENAL, page 177, also states as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "The dwelling is the extension in space of our own personality. We reign in it as in the intimacy of our own conscience. It is for this reason that the inviolability of the home is consecrated in the Constitution (article 6), and the Penal Code considers it as an aggravating circumstance to commit the crime in the dwelling of the victim himself. It is clear that if the offended party himself provoked the incident, the reason for the aggravation disappears."cralaw virtua1aw library

    If, in the opinion of the eminent commentators above-mentioned, what aggravates the commission of a crime perpetrated in the house of the offended party is the abuse of the confidence which he reposes in the offender by opening the door to him, or the violation of the sanctity of the home by trespassing thereon with violence or against the will of the resident, therefore, when the offender does not penetrate the house in order to commit the crime but does so from without, the appreciation of dwelling as an aggravating circumstance, made in this case, is unfounded.

    LAUREL, J.:


    I concur in the preceding dissent of Mr. Justice Villa-Real.

    G.R. No. 46298   September 30, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DATU AMBIS<br /><br />068 Phil 635


    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