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-2300   May 27, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO TUMAOB<br /><br />083 Phil 738

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-2300. May 27, 1949.]

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARCELINO TUMAOB, Defendant-Appellant.

    Emilio L. Galang and Roberto J. Ignacio for Appellant.

    First Assistant Solicitor General Roberto A. Gianzon and Solicitor Esmeraldo Umali for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. CRIMINAL LAW; HOMICIDE; TREACHERY, WHEN THERE IS. — There is treachery when the culprit employs means, methods or forms of execution which tend directly and specially to insure the commission of the crime and at the same time to eliminate or diminish the risk to his own person from a defense which the other party might offer.

    2. ID.; WHEN SUDDEN AND UNEXPECTED ATTACK DO NOT CONSTITUTE TREACHERY. — The circumstance that an attack was sudden and unexpected to the person assaulted did not constitute the element of alevosia necessary to raise a homicide to murder, where it did not appear that the aggressor had consciously adopted a mode of attack intended to facilitate the perpetration of the homicide without risk to himself.


    D E C I S I O N


    TUASON, J.:


    Marcelino Tumaob was found guilty of murder by the Court of First Instance of Samar and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P2,000, and to pay the costs. This is an appeal from that judgment.

    The uncontroverted facts are these: The defendant was a civilian security guard in the employ of the Surplus Property Commission on the Island of Tubabao, municipality of Guiuan, Samar. On December 1, 1947, he was posted as a sentry in a sentry box or shade outside a compound or so-called warehouse where surplus property was being kept and which was a roofless affair enclosed by chickenwire on four sides with open gates at both ends and at one side. Eduardo Basas, 17 years, ventured into that enclosure on the above mentioned date, at 10 o’clock a.m., and was shot and killed. Basas’ wound was thus described by an examining surgeon: "Gun shot wound in the right buttock about 2 inches lateral from the tip of the coccyx right side. The slug traversed upwards obliquely perforating the small intestine at five points and penetrated (passed through both walls) the internal eliac vein, right side, just below the bifurcation of the abdominal vein. The bullet made its exit at the left side of the abdomen about 2 inches above the unbilecal stump and 2 inches lateral to it."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The accused, shortly after Basas was shot, reported the killing to his superior officers and was placed under arrest. What he told his superiors is not known. The direct evidence against him consists of what purports to be his statement to the chief of police in which he is said to have admitted to be the killer, and an ante-mortem declaration of the now deceased stating that he had been shot by one whom he did not know while he was gathering firewood.

    At the trial the defendant denied having made any statement to the chief of police. He gave substantially the following version of the occurrence:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    On December 1, 1947, at about 10:00 a.m., he was on sentry duty in a sentry box or shade a short distance from the SPC compound. Inside this compound he spotted a man from his post. He fired twice into the air to stop the intruder. Then he walked into the compound passing through the front gate. Inside, not far from that entrance, he was fired upon by someone whom then he could not see. When they had stopped shooting he fired in the direction of where the gunmen were supposed to be. From his position, after he let off two shots, he saw two men dash away through the rear or opposite gate. He came out of the front gate and turned around one side of the compound in pursuit of the fleeing thieves. He did not open fire outside the compound because the men quickly disappeared in the jungle. After that he returned to the compound and there saw Basas sprawled on the ground facing the side door and dying. Then he reported the matter at the Investigation Section of the Surplus Property Commission.

    The accused stated that in the compound there were piles of boxes containing refrigerators and other heavy appliances. When, he said, he was shot at, the attackers were behind some of those boxes, that being the reason why he could not see them until they started to flee.

    This testimony can not be given credence. It is entirely inconsistent with defendant’s statement to the chief of police made soon after the killing and before he had time to reflect on the best manner to get himself out of his predicament. To the chief of police he categorically admitted that he had shot Basas as the latter was gathering firewood. The position of Basas’ wound tends to corroborate this statement and the ante-mortem declaration of the deceased, that the latter was in a stooping position picking firewood when he was hit.

    We have no reason to distrust the veracity of the chief of police. He sustained no relation to the decedent and had no motive to desire the defendant’s punishment on fabricated evidence for a crime for which he was not criminally responsible. The chief of police’s testimony pitted against that of the defendant appears to be the more coherent, more sensible and more trustworthy of the two.

    The accused has given evidence of unreliability for truth. He denied that any one ever questioned or tried to question him in connection with the killing at bar. The fact is that Arcadio Salvo, an employee of the Surplus Property Commission in Guiuan whose veracity is unquestioned, swore that on December 1, he was acting as "desk man" at the Investigation Section of the Surplus Property Commission; that the accused presented himself and reported the incident; that he tried to get from the defendant the details of the shooting but that the defendant refused to answer. Incidentally, this refusal was out of keeping with the idea that there had been an exchange of fire and that the deceased had been hit accidentally in the process either from the defendant’s gun or from the looters’

    That the defendant, when he reported the killing, stated or at least gave to understand that he was the killer, is to be inferred from the fact that according to his own testimony he was ordered lodged immediately in the guardhouse "for his protection."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Amidst many uncertainties in the case one thing is certain; it is that the accused before his trial never said to anyone that he had seen in the depot persons other than the deceased. The incident narrated by the accused on the witness stand, that he was attacked, was too important not to be mentioned, let alone stressed, by him before his interrogators, if such incident had occurred.

    There is another detail that belies the defendant’s theory that two would-be looters fired several times against him from behind the boxes and that he returned the fire. The accused admitted that he did not find any empty shells in the compound nor any sign of any of the boxes having been hit by bullets.

    Justification for the killing is not claimed. The defendant himself said that Basas was merely picking firewood unarmed, and that the time was ten o’clock in the morning. As far as the evidence would show, the surplus property in the depot consisted of bulky and heavy boxes which one boy could not and would not have dared carry away in the daytime with a guard or sentry around.

    However, we do not agree with the trial court that the crime committed was murder. The qualifying circumstance of treachery can not logically be appreciated because the accused did not make any preparation to kill the deceased in such a manner as to insure the commission of the crime or to make it impossible or hard for the person attacked to defend himself or retaliate. This circumstance can only be applied, according to the tenor of article 13, sub-section 16 of the Revised Penal Code, when the culprit employs means, methods or forms of execution which tend directly and specially to insure the commission of the crime and at the same time to eliminate or diminish the risk to his own person from a defense which the other party might offer. In United States v. Namit, 38 Phil., 926, it was held that the circumstance that an attack was sudden and unexpected to the person assaulted did not constitute the element of alevosia necessary to raise a homicide to murder, where it did not appear that the aggressor had consciously adopted a mode of attack intended to facilitate the perpetration of the homicide without risk to himself. In the present case, the circumstances negative the hypothesis that the defendant reflected on the means, method and form of killing the offended party. There was absolutely nothing personal between the accused and Basas. He was, so he thought, erroneously, protecting the property which he was detailed to watch by killing the stranger. His purpose was to kill, the decision was sudden, and the position of the stranger was accidental and did not matter. In fact, in the nature of things, to give the other man an opportunity to defend himself or to return the attack would have been a contradiction.

    In an analogous case decided by the Supreme Court of Spain on April 3, 1888, and reported in Vol. II, Viada, 5th ed., pp. 171, 172, with Señor Viada’s comment, the Court held that it was error to hold the killing as murder qualified by treachery:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "El que estando guardando una finca de la propiedad de su padre, al ver de noche subido a una higuera a un hombre que estaba cogiendo brevas, le apunta con la escopeta y le dispara un tiro, infiriendole una lesion que le produce la muerte, żdebera ser calificado de autor del delito de asesinato, o simplemente de homicidio? — La Audiencia de lo criminal de Cartagena, aplicando la disposicion del art. 10, num. 2. ° por la letra que mata, estimo lo primero; mas el Tribunal Supremo, interpretandola por el espiritu que vivifica, declaro que no existia alevosia en el hecho expuesto. Veanse los notables fundamentos de su sentencia: ’Considerando que es condicion esencial de la alevosia que califica de asesinato la muerte violenta de alguna persona que los hechos que la determinen, ya preparados o ya ejecutados sin anterior preparacion, sean libre expresion y resultado de pensamiento y proposito del culpable de aprovechar para el exito de su accion las ventajas que le ofrezca la situacion en que en el momento del delito se halle, siquiera accidentalmente, respecto del ofendido, y que se encaminen con especial direccion a evitar al primero el riesgo personal en que racionalmente pueda tener que le pondrian los actos de defensa con que el ultimo tratara de rechazar la agresion: Considerando qus los terminos en que se describe la alevosia en el num. 2. ° del art. 10 del Codigo Penal implican este concepto, puesto que requieren que los medios, modos y formas de ejecucion en que consiste y por donde se revela tiendan directa y especialmente, es decir, como resultado consciente de determinacion de la voluntad, a la seguridad del exito intentado y a eludir a la ves probables o siquiera temidas consecuencias de retorsion, por lo que no es aplicable al caso procesal, a causa de que el procesado, al disparar un arma contra la persona para el entonces desconocida que vio en el arbol sustrayendo frutos que el guardaba, obro no tanto con el deseo y la intencion de darle segura muerte sin riesgo propio, como por el de castigar, sin cuidarse del resultado natural de su acto, la accion ilicita que en perjuicio de su padre se realizaba a su propia vista por quien, cualquiera que fuese, debia temer alguna consecuencia por ejecutar sigilosamente un hecho punible, etc.’."cralaw virtua1aw library

    We hold that the crime committed by the accused is simple homicide with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and without any aggravating circumstance.

    Wherefore, the judgment of the lower court will be modified so as to sentence the accused to an indeterminate penalty of from 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor to 12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal, with the accessories of law, to pay the heirs of the deceased the sum of P6,000 as indemnity and to pay the costs. It is so ordered.

    Ozaeta, Paras, Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Bengzon, Montemayor and Reyes, JJ., concur.

    Separate Opinions


    TUASON, J.:


    I certify that the Chief Justice concurs in this decision.

    G.R. No. L-2300   May 27, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO TUMAOB<br /><br />083 Phil 738


    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