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
 

   
May-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1674 May 9, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO SOMERA

    083 Phil 548

  • G.R. No. L-1765 May 9, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO TANDUG

    083 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. L-1881 May 9, 1949 - MANILA TERMINAL COMPANY v. LA CORTE DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    083 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. L-1512 May 12, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FEDERICO

    083 Phil 569

  • G.R. No. L-1900 May 12, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO LACSON

    083 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. L-2064 May 12, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIGIO TORRES

    083 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. L-1769 May 13, 1949 - PURITA PANAGUITON v. FLORENTINO PATUBO

    083 Phil 605

  • G.R. No. L-1833 May 13, 1949 - MEDARDO MUÑOZ v. EMILIO RILLORAZA

    083 Phil 609

  • G.R. No. L-792 May 14, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. E.C. CAÑADA

    083 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. L-1429 May 16, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO AQUINO Y ABALOS

    083 Phil 614

  • G.R. No. L-1950 May 16, 1949 - LAO SENG HIAN v. NATIVIDAD ALMEDA LOPEZ

    083 Phil 617

  • G.R. No. L-2014 May 16, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN Z. YELO

    083 Phil 618

  • G.R. No. L-1212 May 18, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. CELESTINO BASA Y OTROS

    083 Phil 622

  • G.R. No. L-1918 May 18, 1949 - PEDRO L. FLORES v. PERFECTO R. PALACIO

    083 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. L-2484 May 18, 1949 - LEE KO v. DIONISIO DE LEON

    083 Phil 628

  • G.R. No. L-2117 May 19, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIO SOMBILON

    083 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. L-1471 May 20, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIAN ORAZA

    083 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. L-1917 May 20, 1949 - CATALINO MAGLASANG v. CIRILO C. MACEREN

    083 Phil 637

  • G.R. No. L-2245 May 20, 1949 - AMBROSIO CARBUNGCO v. RAFAEL AMPARO

    083 Phil 638

  • G.R. No. L-2831 May 20, 1949 - BERNARDO TORRES v. MAMERTO S. RIBO

    083 Phil 642

  • G.R. No. L-432 May 23, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO CALINAWAN

    083 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. L-1795-6 May 23, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO VALDEZ

    083 Phil 650

  • G.R. No. L-1989 May 23, 1949 - JOSE REYES y RAMIREZ v. EL TRIBUNAL DE APELACION

    083 Phil 658

  • G.R. No. L-2203 May 23, 1949 - SAN MIGUEL BREWERY v. LA CORTE DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    083 Phil 663

  • G.R. No. L-2431 May 23, 1949 - CEFERINO TAVORA v. PEDRO OFIANA

    083 Phil 672

  • G.R. No. 213 May 24, 1949 - GENEROSA A. DIA v. FINANCE & MINING INVESTMENT CORP.

    083 Phil 675

  • G.R. No. L-1700 May 24, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO MINTU

    083 Phil 678

  • G.R. No. L-2004 May 24, 1949 - PABLO COTAOCO v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN

    083 Phil 681

  • G.R. No. L-2251 May 24, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ELISA TANDAG

    083 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. L-1980 May 25, 1949 - CIPRIANO SEVILLA v. CEFERINO DE LOS SANTOS

    083 Phil 686

  • G.R. No. L-944 May 26, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTO AVILA

    083 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. L-1823 May 26, 1949 - GERONIMO DE LOS REYES v. ARTEMIO ELEPAÑO

    083 Phil 691

  • G.R. No. L-1825 May 26, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. EUGENIO BERSIDA

    083 Phil 696

  • G.R. No. L-2022 May 26, 1949 - GUIA S. J0SE DE BAYER v. ERNESTO OPPEN

    083 Phil 700

  • G.R. No. L-2161 May 26, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAMES YOUNG

    083 Phil 702

  • G.R. No. L-2323 May 26, 1949 - M. A. ZARCAL v. S. HERRERO

    083 Phil 711

  • G.R. Nos. L-675 & L-676 May 27, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NEMESIO LASTIMOSO

    083 Phil 714

  • G.R. No. L-1274 May 27, 1949 - PHIL. TRANSIT ASSN. v. TREASURER OF MANILA

    083 Phil 722

  • G.R. No. L-1394 May 27, 1949 - RAFAEL ROA YROSTORZA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    083 Phil 727

  • G.R. No. L-1861 May 27, 1949 - RIZAL SURETY AND INSURANCE CO. v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    083 Phil 732

  • G.R. No. L-1869 May 27, 1949 - JOSE PIO BARRETTO v. N. ALMEDA LOPEZ

    083 Phil 734

  • G.R. No. L-2300 May 27, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO TUMAOB

    083 Phil 738

  • G.R. No. L-2382 May 27, 1949 - PABLO S. RIVERA v. FRANCISCO ARELLANO

    083 Phil 744

  • G.R. No. L-1606 May 28, 1949 - IN RE: YEE BO MANN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    083 Phil 749

  • G.R. No. L-2309 May 28, 1949 - LOPE SARREAL v. SOTERO RODAS

    083 Phil 751

  • G.R. No. L-2518 May 28, 1949 - DONATA OLIVEROS DE TAN v. ENGRACIO FABRE

    083 Phil 755

  • G.R. No. L-2539 May 28, 1949 - JOSE P. MONSALE v. PAULINO M. NICO

    083 Phil 758

  • G.R. No. L-1511 May 30, 1949 - MIGUEL OJO v. JOSE V. JAMITO

    083 Phil 764

  • G.R. No. L-1550 May 30, 1949 - IN RE: FREDERICK EDWARD GILBERT ZUELLIG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    083 Phil 768

  • G.R. No. L-1609 May 30, 1949 - REMIGIO M. PEÑA v. FRANCISCO ARELLANO

    083 Phil 773

  • G.R. No. L-1686 May 30, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. SANTOS TOLEDO

    083 Phil 777

  • G.R. No. L-1723 May 30, 1949 - LUZ MARQUEZ DE SANDOVAL v. VICENTE SANTIAGO

    083 Phil 784

  • G.R. No. L-1978 May 30, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ANTONIO ORCULLO Y OTROS

    083 Phil 787

  • G.R. No. L-1996 May 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALIP JULMAIN

    083 Phil 793

  • G.R. No. L-2031 May 30, 1949 - HERMOGENES C. LIM v. RESTITUTO L. CALAGUAS

    083 Phil 796

  • G.R. No. L-2069 May 30, 1949 - LUZON BROKERAGE CO. v. LUZON LABOR UNION

    083 Phil 801

  • G.R. No. L-2083 May 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR MALIG

    083 Phil 804

  • G.R. No. L-2098 May 30, 1949 - PIO MARQUEZ v. ARSENIO PRODIGALIDAD

    083 Phil 813

  • G.R. No. L-2099 May 30, 1949 - JOSE ONG v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    083 Phil 834

  • G.R. No. L-2130 May 30, 1949 - FRANCISCO SANCHEZ v. PEDRO SERRANO

    083 Phil 838

  • G.R. No. L-2132 May 30, 1949 - JUAN SAVINADA v. J. M. TUASON & CO.

    083 Phil 840

  • G.R. No. 49102 May 30, 1949 - W.C. OGAN v. BIBIANO L. MEER

    083 Phil 844

  • G.R. No. L-1104 May 31, 1949 - EASTERN THEATRICAL CO. v. VICTOR ALFONSO

    083 Phil 852

  • G.R. Nos. L-1264 & L-1265 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIMOTEO SAGARIO

    083 Phil 862

  • G.R. No. L-1271 May 31, 1949 - BENIGNO DEL RIO v. CARLOS PALANCA TANGUINLAY

    083 Phil 867

  • G.R. No. L-1281 May 31, 1949 - JOSEPH E. ICARD v. CITY COUNCIL OF BAGUIO

    083 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. L-1298 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO SANTOS BALINGIT

    083 Phil 877

  • G.R. No. L-1299 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JACOB J. LOEWINSOHN

    083 Phil 882

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

    083 Phil 885

  • G.R. No. L-1927 May 31, 1949 - CRISTOBAL ROÑO v. JOSE L. GOMEZ

    083 Phil 890

  • G.R. No. L-1952 May 31, 1949 - FRANCISCO R. VlLLAROMAN v. FLORENTINO J. TECHICO

    083 Phil 901

  • G.R. No. L-2108 May 31, 1949 - PAMPANGA BUS CO. v. LUIS G. ABLAZA

    083 Phil 905

  • G.R. No. L-2252 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BARTOLOME BEDIA

    083 Phil 909

  • G.R. No. L-2253 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERVANDO MANIEGO

    083 Phil 916

  • G.R. No. L-2283 May 31, 1949 - MARINA TAYZON and FLORDELIZA G. ANGELES v. RAMON YCASIANO

    083 Phil 921

  • G.R. No. L-2326 May 31, 1949 - FERNANDO ALEJO v. MARIANO GARCHITORENA

    083 Phil 924

  • G.R. No. L-2351 May 31, 1949 - FRANCISCO ARGOS v. DOMINADOR VELOSO

    083 Phil 929

  • G.R. No. L-2377 May 31, 1949 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JUSTA G. VDA. DE GUIDO

    083 Phil 934

  • G.R. No. L-2450 May 31, 1949 - VERONICA RUPERTO v. CEFERINO FERNANDO

    083 Phil 943

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-1795-6   May 23, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO VALDEZ<br /><br />083 Phil 650

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-1795-6. May 23, 1949.]

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. PEDRO VALDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

    Ricardo S. Licu for Appellant.

    Assistant Solicitor General Manuel P. Barcelona and Solicitor Jesus A. Avanceña for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. CRIMINAL LAW; MURDER; EVIDENCE; DYING DECLARATION. — The narration of the victim to the physician attending him, in detail the assault on the house and upon him and his son and that one of the assailants whom he recognized was P. V. and his belief that he would die from his wounds and the fact that despite the operation de died that same day, is proof of the serious and critical condition in which said victim was when he made the ante mortem statement which may be well regarded and admitted as a dying declaration.

    2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ALIBI AS A DEFENSE; CASE AT BAR. — Aside from the inherent weakness of this kind of defense, in the present case it is not strong enough to counteract or even affect the overwhelming evidence presented by the prosecution against him, particularly that portion of said evidence about his having been seen in the house and fully recognized and identified.

    3. ID.; ID.; AMNESTY PROCLAMATION NO. 76; CRIMES TO WHICH IT APPLIES. — Proclamation No. 76 (series of 1948) issued by the President of the Philippines refers to the crimes of rebellion, sedition, illegal association, assault upon, resistance, and disobedience to persons in authority, and/or illegal possession of firearms, or any other crime that may be shown to have been committed merely as an incident to or in furtherance of the commission of any of said crimes. The two murders in the present case have no relation or bearing at all with the crime covered by the said Amnesty Proclamation; they were based on the motivated by a private grudge entertained by the appellant; and were dissociated from his being a member of the PKM, or J. T.’s being a landlord.


    D E C I S I O N


    MONTEMAYOR, J.:


    Pedro Valdez is appealing from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Tarlac in criminal cases Nos. 130 and 143, for murder, — which were tried jointly for the reason that the two victims were killed on the same occasion, — finding him guilty in both cases and sentencing him in each case to suffer a penalty of reclusion perpetua, with the accessories of the law, to indemnify the respective heirs of each deceased in the sum of P2,000, and to pay the costs; provided, however, that in no case should the total period of both penalties exceed forty years.

    In the beginning of the year 1946, Jose Teodoro, Sr. was living in the barrio of Tariji, municipality of Tarlac, Province of Tarlac, a few kilometers from the poblacion. His household consisted of his wife Maria Lasam, his only child Jose Teodoro, Jr., aged 17, his grandson Felipe de Guzman, 15 years, and some maids. In a four-room house he lived in comparative comforts, even using a battery-operated radio, a luxury in a rural community like Tariji. He had a sugarmill and some ricelands, and, though not rich, he may be regarded as quite well-off. From classroom school teacher, he worked up to be a public school supervisor and there was every reason for him and his family to be happy and contented. That state of happiness and well being, was, however, short-lived, for, on the night of March 5th of that year, some evil persons, about five in number, assaulted his house, broke into it through the kitchen door, and, once inside and in the sala, fired at least five shots with a Thompson sub-machine gun, instantly killing his son Teodoro, Jr. and inflicting mortal wounds upon Jose Teodoro, Sr. himself, which, despite an operation the following morning at the Tarlac Provincial Hospital in a desperate effort to save his life, caused his death about 7:30 in the evening of March 6th.

    Now, for the identity of their killer or killers. The evidence for the prosecution has established conclusively and to the satisfaction of the trial court and of this Tribunal, that, shortly after suppertime on March 5, 1946, and while Jose Teodoro, Jr. and Felipe de Guzman were sitting at a table studying and doing their homeworks, the dogs in the yard began to bark furiously, indicating the presence or proximity of persons not known to them. Jose Teodoro, Sr. and the boys went to the window and looked out, and they could discern at some distance away behind a santol tree the blinking of flashlights. Thereafter, the lights disappeared, the dogs ceased to bark, and quiet was restored. But, Jose Teodoro, Sr., through sense of premonition, and suspecting that something untoward may happen, told his wife and the boys to put out the lights and go to bed, which they did. About midnight Teodoro, Sr., who may have been awakened by some noise, if he was not all that time awake in watchful waiting, woke Felipe up and asked him to accompany him to see if the pigs were being stolen. The evidence, however, fails to show where the pigs were, — whether they were down below in a pigsty or in the kitchen. It may be stated in this connection that the kitchen of the house was set apart from the main building but it was connected to the sala by means of a covered passage or pasillo. Teodoro, Sr. and Felipe proceeded toward the kitchen through the passage or pasillo, and, upon approaching it, they noticed a beam of a flashlight behind the door of the kitchen. Fearing that someone had already entered the kitchen, and to protect themselves from the prowlers, the two retreated towards the sala, but, at that very moment, the intruders started battering down the kitchen door leading to the passage and to the main building. By this time Teodoro, Sr. and Felipe had gained the sala and the former, who had with him a sort of a miner’s lamp (Exhibit E), turned it on and trained its beam in the direction of the kitchen door. By its light, Felipe saw two man, one behind the other, and the one in front and fully recognized by him being the defendant Pedro Valdez, dressed in khaki shirt and short pants, holding a Thompson sub-machine gun aimed at Teodoro, Sr. Felipe was so thoroughly scared that, without waiting for further developments, he fled into the bedroom occupied by him and Jose Teodoro, Jr. and there laid low. Almost immediately, he heared what sounded to him like a struggle in the sala, followed by two shots, still to be followed not long thereafter by three other shots and then someone moaning.

    In the meantime, shortly before and while all this was going on, Maria Lasam, the house wife, was awakened by the noise of the battering down of the kitchen door. She got up and, at that precise moment, her son Jose Teodoro, Jr., who had gone into her room from his, whispered to her: "Mama may laban" (meaning: Mother, there is fight). Then she went to the window and in the yard below she saw a man carrying a gun. Then she heard the same noise of struggle and gun reports heard by Felipe. Her husband Jose Teodoro, Sr. was no longer in their bedroom, so she decided to look for him and see what had happened. She lighted a lamp and proceeded to the sala and there she found him slumped on the floor, face downward. When she approached him, he told her to put out the light she was carrying, but, before she could do so and by its light, she saw a man hastening into, and disappear in, the kitchen. She could only see his back and not his face, but the man appeared to be of the same height and build as the appellant herein. Teodoro, Sr. further instructed her to tell the military police when they arrived that Pedro Valdez was the one who shot him and their son, he having recognized him by the light of the miner’s lamp which he was carrying, and that, for their safety, they must all leave the house because of the danger of the appellant and his followers coming back to harm them. At the time, Felipe ventured into the sala to join Maria Lasam and heard the admonition or advice given by Teodoro, Sr. about not telling anyone except the military police that he (Teodoro, Sr.) had recognized Pedro Valdez to be one of the assailants, because Valdez might adopt retaliatory measures and do them harm. Maria continued to look around and it was then that she found in a corner of the sala her son, Jose Teodoro, Jr., already dead. In her desperation, heedless of all danger, and forgetting the admonition of her husband, she began to cry out loudly, even hysterically, for help. Some neighbors came to their aid. As soon as a sufficient number of men became available, Jose Teodoro, Sr. was taken at his request to the provincial hospital of Tarlac. After Dr. Trinidad Esguerra, the attending physician, had examined his wounds, he decided to operate to save Teodoro, Sr.’s life. While his injuries were being examined, and in answer to questions as to how the wounds were caused, Teodoro, Sr. told Dr. Esguerra that he and his household had been assaulted by five persons and that he and his son had been shot, although he did not mention the names of the assailants. He, however, requested and insisted that he be allowed to see and confer with his uncle, Dr. Juan Nepomuceno. When the latter arrived at the hospital, Teodoro, Sr. recounted to him (Dr. Nepomuceno) in detail the assault on the house and upon him and his son, and said that one of the assailants whom he recognized was Pedro Valdez. Before and while making this ante mortem statement, there is no doubt that Teodoro, Sr. was of the belief that he would die from his wounds. He stated this belief several times, not only to Dr. Esguerra, but also to this uncle Dr. Nepomuceno. And the fact that despite the operation he died that same day, is proof of the serious and critical condition in which Teodoro, Sr. was when he made the statement to Dr. Nepomuceno as to the identity of his assailant. His statement may, therefore, be well regarded and admitted as a dying declaration.

    As soon as the identity of the appellant as the person who fired the fatal shots was known to the authorities, the police went to the house of Pedro Valdez and arrested him. At the time of his arrest, he was wearing a bloodstained khaki shirt and short pants, apparently the same apparel that he wore when recognized in Teodoro Sr.’s house by Felipe de Guzman. A search of his house resulted in the discovery of two hand-grenades (Exhibits J and J-1) wrapped in a sack and under the chicken roost.

    After the shooting that early morning of March 6, the authorities found in the sala of the Teodoro house the electric (miner’s) lamp (Exhibit E) belonging to Teodoro, a trigger pin of a hand-grenade (Exhibit H), an unexploded and hand-grenade, three empty .45 caliber shells which subsequent analysis showed to have been fired from a Thompson sub-machine gun, and a denim cap (Exhibit G-1) not belonging to anyone of th members of the Teodoro family.

    The motive for the crime may correctly and briefly be stated as follows: The appellant, as a tenant, was cultivating a piece of riceland belonging to the deceased Jose Teodoro, Sr. One part of the land was devoted to the cultivation of early rice, — the grain being merely scattered on the ground, — while the other part was planted to late rice. In January 1946, the appellant had a heated discussion with Teodoro, Sr. about the former’s share in the harvest, the appellant claiming that he was entitled to 80 per cent of the harvest of the early rice, Teodoro, Sr., on the other hand, insisting that the sharing be 70-30. Nothing was, however, decided between the two, and Teodoro, Sr. left the matter to Maria Lasam to handle. The discussion was later renewed, but no agreement could be reached and the defendant threateningly admonished Maria Lasam that if she did not agree to his claim of 80 per cent of the harvest, one day she would regret her attitude and action. To avoid further discussion and possible trouble, Maria Lasam finally gave in and allowed the defendant to get 80 per cent of the harvest of the early rice which was then deposited under the house of the Teodoro. Not long thereafter, the appellant returned to claim his share in the harvest of the late rice, again insisting that he be given 80 per cent thereof. Maria Lasam tried to convince him that he should get only 60 per cent inasmuch as the expenses of the planting and the harvesting of said late rice had been contributed by both himself and the Teodoros. Valdez was adamant in his attitude and, despite the intervention of Ramon Tabugan, local president of the PKM, who explained to the defendant that Maria’s offer was in accordance with the very rules of that association of which the defendant was a member, Valdez did not agree. He did not hide or disguise his disgust with the refusal of Maria Lasam to give him the 80 per cent he claimed. In fact, he never came back to renew his claim or to receive his share of the late rice. From all these, it is reasonable to believe that he entertained a grudge against the Teodoro family.

    The appellant put up the defense of alibi, claiming that during all the night of March 5th, 1946, until the next morning, he was asleep in his house. After analyzing this defense of alibi, the trial court rejected the same, and correctly. Aside from the inherent weakness of this kind of defense, in the present case it is not strong enough to counteract or even affect the overwhelming evidence presented by the prosecution against him, particularly that portion of said evidence about his having been seen in the house and fully recognized and identified.

    In an effort to show that none in the house of the Teodoros had recognized any of the men who had come up and shot to death two of its inmates, two witnesses for the defense, Sonsa and Tabugan, lieutenant and deputy lieutenant, respectively, of the barrio were presented to testify to the effect that when they came to the house of Teodoro early in the morning of March 6th, both Jose Teodoro, Sr. and Felipe de Guzman told them that they did not know who had come up the house and fired the fatal shots. The trial court did not give credence to this testimony for the reason that none of the two witnesses transmitted this important information to the authorities with a view to relieving the appellant of responsibility on the theory that he was really innocent. This attitude of the trial court is reasonable. But, even if Teodoro, Sr. and Felipe had really informed these two witnesses that they had not recognized any of the intruders, still there was reason for such statement. It was in line with and due to the desire and decision of Teodoro, Sr. not to reveal the identity of the appellant as the person who fired the fatal shots, except to the military police and to his uncle.

    Pending appeal in this Tribunal, counsel for the appellant filed a petition for the dismissal of this case, invoking the benefits of amnesty contained in Proclamation No. 76 (series of 1948) issued by the President of the Philippines. This petition is vigorously opposed by the Solicitor General on the ground that the appellant does not come under the proclamation. After a careful study of the case, we agree with the Solicitor General that the case of the appellant is not covered by the said Amnesty Proclamation. According to the terms of this proclamation, and as implemented by the Honorable Secretary of Justice in his circular No. 27 (series of 1948) relative to the enforcement of the said Amnesty Proclamation, the latter refers to the crimes of rebellion, sedition, illegal association, as-assault upon, resistance, and disobedience to persons in authority, and/or illegal possession of firearms, or any other crime that may be shown to have been committed merely as an incident to or in furtherance of the commission of any of said crimes. The two murders in the present case have no relation or bearing at all with the crimes covered by the said Amnesty Proclamation; they were based on and motivated by a private grudge entertained by the appellant; and were dissociated from his being a member of the PKM, or Jose Teodoro, Sr.’s being a landlord. In fact, the very president of the PKM association, Ramon Tabugan, was against the contention of the appellant as regards the percentage of his share in the late rice, said president being of the opinion that the basis should be 60-40 in favor of the appellant, as claimed by Maria Lasam, and not 80-20 as claimed by the Appellant.

    The killings in this case are qualified by treachery. The aggravating circumstance of nighttime may well be regarded as being absorbed in that of treachery. Moreover, there is the aggravating circumstance of dwelling. So that, following the recommendation of the Solicitor General, there being no mitigating circumstance to off-set the same, the penalty should be imposed in its maximum degree, that is to say, death. However, for lack of the necessary votes to impose this extreme penalty, we hereby impose that of life imprisonment, this, to apply to each of the two cases of murder. With this modification, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the Appellant.

    Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Paras, Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason and Reyes, JJ., concur.

    Separate Opinions


    PERFECTO, J.:


    Subject to our consistent opinion to the effect that the indemnity should not be less than P6,000, in accordance with the doctrine laid down in People v. Amansec, (80 Phil., 424), we concur in this decision.

    G.R. No. L-1795-6   May 23, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO VALDEZ<br /><br />083 Phil 650


    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