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
 

   
April-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1749 April 2, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCAS GEMPES

    083 Phil 267

  • G.R. No. L-1441 April 7, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL N. MORENO

    083 Phil 286

  • G.R. No. L-2179 April 12, 1949 - MANILA TRADING petitioner v. MANILA TRADING LABORERS’ ASSN.

    083 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. L-979 April 13, 1949 - COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHIL. v. FAR EASTERN SURETY

    083 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. L-2745 April 13, 1949 - FLAVIANO ROMERO v. POTENCIANO PECSON

    083 Phil 308

  • G.R. No. L-856 April 18, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SUSANO PEREZ

    083 Phil 314

  • G.R. No. L-493 April 19, 1949 - SANTIAGO BANAAG v. VICENTE SINGSON ENCARNACION

    083 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. L-1545 April 19, 1949 - E. R. CRUZ v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN.

    083 Phil 333

  • G.R. No. 48671 April 19, 1949 - EUSEBIO BELVIZ v. CATALINO BUENAVENTURA

    083 Phil 337

  • G.R. No. L-364 April 25, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO T. JAUCIAN

    083 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. L-1282 April 25, 1949 - JUAN S. BARROZO v. MARCELINO T. MACARAEG

    083 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. L-2525 April 26, 1949 - MARY BURKE DESBARATS v. TOMAS DE VERA

    083 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. 48676 April 26, 1949 - LEON ORACION v. PACITA JUANILLO

    083 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. L-793 April 27, 1949 - FELISA R. PAEZ v. FRANCISCO MAGNO

    083 Phil 403

  • G.R. No. L-1259 April 27, 1949 - IN RE: CRISANTO DE BORJA v. JULIANA DE BORJA

    083 Phil 405

  • G.R. No. L-1370 April 27, 1949 - BERNARDA DE VASQUEZ v. ALFONSO DIVA

    083 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. L-1399 April 27, 1949 - IN RE: GONZALO T. DAVID v. CARLOS M. SISON

    083 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. L-1590 April 27, 1949 - RAYMUNDA SIVA v. FELIXBERTO IMPERIAL REYES

    083 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. L-1627 April 27, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. MAMERTO RAMIREZ

    083 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. L-1976 April 27, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARULA

    083 Phil 425

  • G.R. No. L-2056 April 27, 1949 - SANTIAGO ALERIA v. JUAN MENDOZA

    083 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. L-2336 April 27, 1949 - ANGELINA CANAYNAY v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    083 Phil 429

  • CA. No. 2592-R April 27, 1949 - SATURNINA ZAPANTA v. VIRGILIO BARTOLOME

    083 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. L-2612 April 27, 1949 - RURAL PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION v. DOMINADOR TEMPOROSA

    083 Phil 438

  • G.R. No. L-855 April 28, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TROADIO BUTAWAN

    083 Phil 440

  • G.R. No. L-1275 April 28, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FULGENCIO BUSTILLOS.

    083 Phil 443

  • G.R. No. L-1661 April 28, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO CANTOS

    083 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. L-1672 April 28, 1949 - IN RE: ZENAIDA JIRO-MORI

    083 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. L-2028 April 28, 1949 - PHIL. SHEET METAL WORKERS’ UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    083 Phil 453

  • CA. No. 332 April 29, 1949 - CHINA INSURANCE & SURETY COMPANY v. B. K. BERKENKOTTER

    083 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. L-1650 April 29, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GORGONIO MACABUHAY

    083 Phil 464

  • G.R. No. L-2899 April 29, 1949 - NATIONAL COCONUT CORPORATION v. FRANCISCO GERONIMO

    083 Phil 467

  • G.R. No. L-150 April 30, 1949 - VICENTE HILADO v. FELIX DE LA COSTA

    083 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. L-1234 April 30, 1949 - VICTORINO FLORO v. SANTIAGO H. GRANADA

    083 Phil 487

  • G.R. No. L-1383 April 30, 1949 - PAZ ESCARELLA DE RALLA v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    083 Phil 491

  • G.R. No. L-1523 April 30, 1949 - BIÑAN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. FIDEL IBAÑEZ

    083 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. L-1783 April 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO CARPIO Y ESTACIO

    083 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. L-1916 April 30, 1949 - PABLO C. SIBULO v. LOPE ALTAR

    083 Phil 513

  • G.R. No. L-2009 April 30, 1949 - SUNRIPE COCONUT PRODUCTS CO. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    083 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-2122 April 30, 1949 - FAUSTINO BUTER v. TRIBUNAL DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    083 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. L-46798 April 30, 1949 - PINDANGAN AGRICULTURAL CO., INC. v. ERNEST A. SCHENKEL Y OTRO

    083 Phil 529

  • G.R. No. 49167 April 30, 1949 - CO TAO v. JOAQUIN CHAN CHICO

    083 Phil 543

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-1650   April 29, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GORGONIO MACABUHAY<br /><br />083 Phil 464

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-1650. April 29, 1949.]

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GORGONIO MACABUHAY, JUAN MACABUHAY, MAXIMO MACABUHAY, ALEJANDRO SALVADOR, and PERFECTO BACASNO, Defendants-Appellants.

    James Madison Ross for Appellants.

    Assistant Solicitor General Manuel P. Barcelona and Solicitor Esmeraldo Umali for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    CRIMINAL LAW; MURDER; ACCUSED’S COMMON RESPONSIBILITY AS AUTHORS ANIMATED BY ONE MOTIVE WITH SIMULTANEOUS ATTACK MADE ON THE VICTIM. — All the accused, animated by one motive (to avenge the stone-throwing) proceeded to the A house for a showdown, and there simultaneously attacked F. S. in pursuance of such purpose. Therefore, all and each of them were authors of his untimely demise.


    D E C I S I O N


    BENGZON, J.:


    For having murdered Fidel Saborrido, the five appellants were sentenced, last July, in the Court of First Instance of Samar to suffer life imprisonment and to indemnify his surviving heirs.

    In the municipality of Basey, same province, early in the evening of March 16, 1947, Fidel Saborrido met bloody death at the point of a bolo wielded by the accused Gorgonio Macabuhay. A few minutes before the encounter the victim was enjoying a song feast in the house of Alfredo Aclesto, in the company of Luis Graboso, Alfredo Graboso, Sofronio Distrajo and Fernando Regala. At the same time, while the five accused were making pilipig in the home of Felix Ramos about forty yards away, someone threw a stone that almost hit Perfecto Bacasno. Wherefore all said accused marched to the residence of Aclesto obviously suspecting the culprit was there. And what happened afterwards, Guillermo Graboso (corroborated by Luis Graboso) describes as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "After Sofronio Distrajo, a girl of the house and myself had rendered vocal selections, Perfecto Bacasno and the other accused arrived at the yard. Perfecto entered the house and asked who had east the stone. We all denied having done it. He scrutinized each of us. Then he climbed downstairs. Immediately thereafter Alejandro Salvador called on Fidel Saborrido to go down. Fidel approached the door and inquired, "What is it Tata." Alejandro replied, "Just come down." Fidel did as requested; but once on the ground he was all of a sudden seized and held fast by Perfecto, Juan, Maximo and Alejandro even as Gorgonio stabbed him on the right nipple with a small bolo. Thus wounded, Fidel was released by his attackers and he ran to the beach where he fell and expired."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The local health officer declared in open court that the wound caused the death of Fidel.

    In an attempt to clear himself and his conferees Gorgonio Macabuhay told the judge that he killed Saborrido because the latter had boxed him twice. And to be consistent, he swore that his co- accused took no part in the fight. However he failed to explain how and why the quarrel took place, and his tale of self-defense was not corroborated by anybody.

    The other appellants — except Maximo Macabuhay — also testified, denying all culpable connection with the unhappy incident. They even denied having witnessed it. Yet they unwittingly confirmed some material points of the people’s version, to wit: the presence of Guillermo Graboso and Luis Graboso in the scene of the crime; the stoning of Ramos’ residence which showed the motive for the assault; the search for the unknown stone-thrower by Perfecto Bacasno and Alejandro Salvador; and the attendance at the pilipig party of Juan Macabuhay and Maximo Macabuhay, attendance which Gorgonio had stubbornly denied in an unfortunate try to save his two brothers from just punishment.

    Indeed after closely examining the contradictory declarations of these defendants we found it easy to accept the prosecution’s theory, notwithstanding the apparent defects which the attorney-de-officio has indicated in conscientious discharge of his official duty. We are persuaded that appellants, incensed at the stone-throwing took vengeance upon Fidel Saborrido, by attacking him in the form described by Guillermo Graboso. That all of them were rounded up that very night is added evidence of their known participation in the tragic occurrence.

    And this brings up the question whether, like Gorgonio, the other appellants are responsible authors of the killing. The Solicitor General ably sustains the affirmative, and previous decisions of this court in parallel situations support this view. 1 It seems clear from the evidence that all the accused, animated by one motive (to avenge the stone-throwing) proceeded to the Aclesto house for a showdown, and there simultaneously attacked Fidel Saborrido in pursuance of such purpose. Therefore, all and each of them were in fact and in law the cause of his untimely demise. Pity that one life should be forfeited in consequence of a youngster’s prank.

    In view of the foregoing, the verdict of the trial judge that appellants are guilty of murder 2 must be and is hereby affirmed. The penalty imposed must also be approved, it being in accordance with law (art. 248 Rev. Penal Code). However, we agree with counsel on both sides that Gorgonio Macabuhay is entitled to mitigation because he was less than eighteen when he committed the offense. His term of imprisonment is therefore fixed as not less than fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months and not more than twenty (20) years. Thus modified the appealed judgment is affirmed in all other respects. With costs. So ordered.

    Paras, Feria, Pablo, Tuason, Montemayor and Reyes, JJ., concur.

    Separate Opinions


    PERFECTO, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Our concurrence in the decision is subject to our consistent opinion that the indemnity should not be less than P6,000 in accordance with the doctrine set in People v. Amansec (80 Phil., 424).

    PARAS, J.:


    I hereby certify that Chief Justice Moran voted to modify the decision as above indicated.

    Endnotes:



    1. United States v. De la Cruz, 17 Phil., 527; United States v. Cueva, 23 Phil., 553;

    People v. Manalo, 52 Phil., 484.

    2. United States v. Feria, 2 Phil., 45; United States v. De la Cruz, supra; United States v. Manalo, supra.

    G.R. No. L-1650   April 29, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GORGONIO MACABUHAY<br /><br />083 Phil 464


    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