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
 

   
August-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1261 August 2, 1949 - CATALINA OSMEÑA DE VALENCIA, ET AL. v. EMILIA RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

    084 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. L-3059 August 2, 1949 - VICENTE G. CRUZ, ET AL. v. PLACIDO RAMOS, ET AL.

    084 Phil 226

  • G.R. No. L-1494 August 3, 1949 - ALLISON J. GIBBS v. EULOGIO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

    084 Phil 230

  • G.R. No. L-1514 August 5, 1949 - BONIFACIO VILLAREAL v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    084 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. L-1826 August 5, 1949 - JOSE L. GOMEZ, ET AL. v. MIGUELA TABIA

    084 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. L-48346 August 9, 1949 - DESTILERIA C. AYALA, INC. v. LIGA NACIONAL OBRERA DE FILIPINAS, ET AL

    084 Phil 280

  • G.R. No. L-1438 August 11, 1949 - SOCORRO C. VDA. DE ARANETA v. REHABILITATION FINANCE CORP.

    084 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. L-1935 August 11, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELADIO BALOTOL

    084 Phil 289

  • G.R. No. L-2062 August 11, 1949 - JESUS B. LOPEZ v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN, ET AL.

    084 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. L-1367 August 16, 1949 - PIO PORTEA v. JACINTO PABELLON, ET AL.

    084 Phil 298

  • G.R. No. L-1892 August 16, 1949 - JACINTO NOTOR v. RAMON MARTINEZ, ET AL.

    084 Phil 300

  • G.R. No. L-1956 August 16, 1949 - LETICIA H. CALDERA, ET AL. v. EUSEBIO BALCUEBA, ET AL.

    084 Phil 304

  • G.R. No. L-3025 August 16, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ILDEFONSO DE CASTRO, JR.

    084 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. L-1648 August 17, 1949 - PEDRO SYQUIA, ET AL. v. NATIVIDAD ALMEDA LOPEZ

    084 Phil 312

  • G.R. No. L-1029 August 23, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO L. RAMOS

    084 Phil 326

  • G.R. No. L-2016 August 23, 1949 - RICHARD THOMAS FITZSIMMONS v. ATLANTIC, GULF & PACIFIC CO. OF MLA.

    084 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. L-2035 August 23, 1949 - ANGELITA V. VILLANUEVA, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF POSTS

    084 Phil 350

  • G.R. No. L-1761 August 24, 1949 - IN RE: JOSE LEELIN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    084 Phil 352

  • G.R. No. L-1544 August 25, 1949 - F. V. LARRAGA, ET AL. v. EULOGIA B. BAÑEZ, ET AL.

    084 Phil 354

  • G.R. No. L-2766 August 25, 1949 - PABLO P. ROBATON v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    084 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. L-2828 August 25, 1949 - JOAQUIN GOZUN, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL, ET AL.

    084 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. L-1760 August 26, 1949 - MARIA MOLATO, ET AL. v. CELEDONIA ARCOS, ET AL.

    084 Phil 361

  • G.R. No. L-2372 August 26, 1949 - INT’L. HARVESTER CO. OF THE PHIL. v. CRISANTO ARAGON, ET AL.

    084 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. L-2044 August 26, 1949 - J. ANTONIO ARANETA v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN, ET AL.

    084 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. L-1617 August 29, 1949 - PANFILO B. MORALES, ET AL. v. OSCAR VENTANILLA, ET AL.

    084 Phil 459

  • G.R. Nos. L-1625 & L-1626 August 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO PINEDA

    084 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. L-1563 August 30, 1949 - IN RE: JOSE GO v. ANTI-CHINESE LEAGUE OF THE PHIL.

    084 Phil 468

  • G.R. No. L-1542 August 30, 1949 - JOSE CRISTOBAL v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    084 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. L-1485 August 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO DESLATE

    084 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. L-1442 August 30, 1949 - MIGUEL R. MATEO v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    084 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. L-2166 August 30, 1949 - ESTRELLA LEDESMA v. EDUARDO ENRIQUEZ

    084 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. L-2452 August 30, 1949 - LORENZO LLAMOSO v. VICENTE FERRER, ET AL.

    084 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. L-2894 August 30, 1949 - BUCRA CORP. v. HIGINO B. MACADAEG. ET AL.

    084 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. L-3063 August 30, 1949 - MACARIO QUINTERO, ET AL. v. FELIX MARTINEZ, ET AL.

    084 Phil 496

  • G.R. No. L-3226 August 30, 1949 - DOMINADOR S. PONGOS v. HIDALGO ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL.

    084 Phil 499

  • G.R. No. L-1358 August 31, 1949 - MARIETA J. ROTEA, ET AL. v. LEVY HERMANOS, INC., ET AL.

    084 Phil 502

  • G.R. No. L-1827 August 31, 1949 - ALFREDO CATOLICO v. IRINEO RANJO, ET AL.

    084 Phil 505

  • G.R. No. L-2262 August 31, 1949 - FLORENTINA ZAFRA VDA. DE VALENZUELA v. BERNABE DE AQUINO, ET AL.

    084 Phil 507

  • G.R. No. L-2345 August 31, 1949 - SEGUNDO AGUSTIN, ET AL. v. MANUEL DE LA FUENTE

    084 Phil 515

  • G.R. No. L-2480 August 31, 1949 - FLORENTINA ZAFRA VDA. DE VALENZUELA v. IRENE ZAFRA DE AGUILAR

    084 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-2754 August 31, 1949 - FIDEL ABRIOL v. VICENTE HOMERES

    084 Phil 525

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-1935   August 11, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELADIO BALOTOL<br /><br />084 Phil 289

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-1935. August 11, 1949.]

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ELADIO BALOTOL, Defendant-Appellant.

    Baltazar M. Villanueva for the Appellant.

    First Assistant Solicitor General Roberto A. Gianzon and Solicitor Luis R. Feria for the appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. DOUBLE MURDER; WITNESSES; THEIR CREDIBILITY. — Under the circumstances of this case, it was held that the nature and the position of the two wounds of one of the victims completely belie the theory of the defense. Both wounds pierced through the body from back to front and could not have been inflicted by the accused in the manner claimed by him, that is to say, in a face-to-face fight. Moreover, the story of the witnesses for the defense as to how the other victim was wounded, namely, that the first victim accidentally hit him while he was pursuing the accused after the latter had wounded him twice, is unbelievable, as no man with two bolo wounds through his body, one through the abdominal region and the other through the thorax, could possibly run in pursuit of another; these wounds were necessarily so fatal as to cause instantaneous death.


    D E C I S I O N


    OZAETA, J.:


    This is an appeal from a sentence of the Court of First Instance of Samar convicting the appellant of double murder and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Potenciano Sabasido and Bernardino Lacambra in the sum of P2,000, respectively, and to pay the costs.

    In 1941 the deceased Potenciano Sabasido wounded the appellant. He was prosecuted for less serious physical injuries, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to suffer fifteen days of imprisonment.

    On the afternoon of May 24, 1942, the appellant saw Potenciano Sabasido for the first time since the latter was released from jail, at a cockpit in the barrio of Silaga, municipality of Santa Rita, Samar. According to the witnesses for the prosecution Sabasido was standing outside the ring close behind Bernardino Lacambra with his two hands holding the shoulders of the latter, witnessing a cockfight. The appellant approached Sabasido from behind and stabbed him with a bolo in the back. The weapon pierced thru the body of Sabasido at the abdominal region and wounded Lacambra also. Sabasido fell face downward and the appellant stabbed him again in the back near the right shoulder, the bolo again piercing thru his body. Sabasido died instantaneously and Lacambra, seven days later.

    The appellant admits having caused the death of Potenciano Sabasido but denies having wounded Bernardino Lacambra. "I do not know who caused the wound of Bernardino Lacambra," he testified. According to him, while he was walking around the ring of the cockpit looking for a bet, Potenciano Sabasido saw him and said to him: "So you are the one who filed a complaint against me. I am going to kill you." At that very moment, he said, Sabasido stabbed him and hit him on the left forearm above the elbow; that Sabasido again stabbed him and hit him on his left buttock; that then he held the right arm of Sabasido with his left hand and stabbed Sabasido on the right side of his body, "which is a little bit to the back. Sabasido released my hand which was holding his right arm and then stabbed me from left to right. Then I held his right wrist with my left hand and pushed same towards Sabasido’s body and I thrust him on his abdomen." After that he ran away, he said.

    The accused called two witnesses, Celso Palo and Basilio Lacambra, to corroborate his story. These two witnesses testified in substance to the same effect as the accused, except that they added that it was the deceased Potenciano Sabasido who wounded Bernardino Lacambra accidentally while the accused was running away and Sabasido was pursuing him.

    The trial court did not believe the testimony of the accused and his witnesses and believed that of the witnesses for the prosecution.

    After a careful and thorough study of the record we agree with the trial court. The nature and the position of the wounds of Potenciano Sabasido completely belie the theory of the defense. Both wounds pierced thru the body from back to front and could not have been inflicted by the accused in the manner claimed by him, that is to say, in a face-to-face fight. Moreover, the story of the witnesses for the defense as to how Bernardino Lacambra was wounded, namely, that Sabasido accidentally hit him while he was pursuing the appellant after the latter had wounded him twice, is unbelievable. No man with two bolo wounds thru his body, one thru the abdominal region and the other thru the thorax, could possibly run in pursuit of another. Those wounds were necessarily so fatal as to cause instantaneous death. On the other hand, the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution as to how both Sabasido and Lacambra were wounded, is confirmed by the nature and the position of the wounds of the two victims.

    The crime committed by the appellant was double murder, defined and penalized in article 248, in relation to article 48, of the Revised Penal Code. Article 48 provides that when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period. The penalty for murder is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. Since under article 48 this penalty must be applied in its maximum period, the appellant should be sentenced to death. However, in view of the lack of the necessary number of votes to impose the death penalty, we are constrained to apply the penalty next lower in degree, which is life imprisonment.

    The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

    Moran, C.J., Paras, Feria, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor and Reyes, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. L-1935   August 11, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELADIO BALOTOL<br /><br />084 Phil 289


    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