Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1903 > March 1903 Decisions > G.R. No. 1017 March 21, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. GUILLERMO VILLANUEVA

002 Phil 61:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 1017. March 21, 1903. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Complainant-Appellee, v. GUILLERMO VILLANUEVA, Defendant-Appellant.

Eusebio Orense for Appellant.

Solicitor-General Araneta for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; FRUSTRATED PARRICIDE. — Where the defendant discharges a revolver at his wife at a distance of three yards from her back, striking her in an ordinarily vital part, her recovery must be independent of his will and the crime is frustrated parricide.

2. ID.; ID.; "ALEVOSIA." — The circumstance of treachery (alevosia) in connection with the crime of frustrated parricide is not to be considered as a specific qualifying circumstance but only as an ordinary generic circumstance.

3. ID.; ID.; PASSION. — Where the defendant has reasons to be jealous of his wife and attempts to kill her under the influence of resulting passion, the penalty for the frustrated parricide must be reduced by this extenuating circumstance.


D E C I S I O N


TORRES, J. :


On the night of July 9, 1902, while Juana Aguinaldo was going up the stairway of her house in the town of San Mateo, followed by her husband, Guillermo Villanueva, the latter, impelled by the passion of jealousy, fired at his wife with a revolver which he, in his capacity as a member of the police force, was carrying in his belt. The shot was fired at a distance of some three yards. The bullet struck the woman in the back and went through her body. The bullet entered between the sixth and seventh ribs on the right side, near the omoplate and the lung, ranging upward, the point of egress being near the nipple of the right breast. Notwithstanding the seriousness of the wound, which, according to the physician who examined her, might well have been mortal, the judgment appealed stated that on the 7th of August the woman was still alive, and that the wound received by her was healing.

These facts, fully established by the evidence, constitute the crime of frustrated parricide, defined and punished in article 402 in connection with articles 3 and 407 of the Penal Code. The defendant, when aiming and discharging his revolver at his wife’s hack, performed all the acts which necessarily and ordinarily would produce the violent death of the victim. The fact that she did not die at once or a few days after receiving the wound was due to causes independent of the defendant’s will. Upon his part he doubtless fully intended to kill the victim. He made use of a deadly weapon, and in the commission of the offense availed himself of means which directly and specially tended to insure the consummation of the crime without and risk to himself which might arise from an attempt at defense on the part of his victim, who, as she looked back, attracted by the noise of the weapon, received the shot in her back.

The accused, upon being arraigned on the complaint, stated that he had done the act charged, but that he did not regard himself as guilty of a crime. He stated in his defense that the suspicion that his wife was unfaithful to him had made him jealous and that on the night in question he had gone to look for her in the house of one Captain Lucas, knowing that his wife was there at that time. Upon his asking for his wife, Lucas’s wife told him that she was not there, but a few moments afterwards the defendant, lying in wait near the house, saw her emerge from it. The answers she gave to his questions and her embarrassed manner led him to the conclusion, in connection with other information in his possession concerning her conduct, that his suspicion was not unfounded. He then took her home, and upon arriving there saw an old woman called Pilar Pineda, the one who had taken his wife to the house of Lucas, in the act of packing up some clothes, which he supposed belonged to his wife. At this, overcome by his jealousy, he fired at his wife with the revolver he was carrying.

Until the contrary is proven the act of wounding his wife in the back must be regarded as voluntary, and therefore intentional, and so the accused himself testifies in his statements as a witness for the defense. The record does not disclose that the act was committed without intent to harm the complainant, who still lives notwithstanding the gravity of the wound received, and her recovery, if not due to chance, must be attributed to the medical attention which she received shortly after the wound. In other words, her recovery was due to causes independent of the will of the aggressor.

The facts in the ease fall within the definition of the crime of frustrated parricide, as above stated, owing to the relationship between the complainant and the defendant. This circumstance and the fact that the woman is still living and on the way to recovery make it necessary to classify the crime, not as frustrated homicide or murder, but as frustrated parricide inasmuch as it appears from the record to be fully proven that the defendant performed all the acts the natural tendency of which was to produce the death of his wife. The fact that he availed himself of a deadly weapon, that he discharged it at a distance of three yards, at which range such projectiles have a , great penetrating and destructive force, that he aimed the shot at the part of his victims body in which a wound was most likely to deprive her of life, and that he wounded her in the back without her having received the slightest intimation of the commencement of an are aggression, are all details which demonstrate the most complete intention to kill, and if this purpose was not accomplished it was due to facts completed independent of the will of the accused, and wholly foreign to his criminal intent.

In the commission of the crime the concurrence of the mitigating circumstances No. 7 of article 9 of the Code must be considered, to wit, the fact that the accused acted upon the impulse of the passion of jealousy which doubtless at the time of the commission of the crime had deprived him of reason and judgment. This circumstance is offset in its favorable effect by the concurrence of the circumstance of treachery (alevosia), No. 2 of article 10 of the Code. This circumstance in the case of a frustrated parricide is not to be regarded as a specific qualifying circumstance, but only as an ordinary generic circumstance, as the crime in question is undoubtedly graver than that of frustrated murder.

With respect to the adequate penalty, the court, in consideration of the circumstances of the case and of the fact that this crime was evidently due to passion, considers it proper to make use of the authority conferred by article 407 of the Penal Code, imposing upon the accused the penalty inferior by one degree to that of cadena temporal, to wit, that of presidio mayor in its medium degree.

We are therefore of the opinion that the judgment appealed should be reversed, and the defendant, Guillermo Villanueva, condemned to the penalty of eight years and one day of presidio mayor, with the accessories of absolute temporary disqualification and subjection to the vigilance of the authorities for a term equal to that of the principal penalty, to run from the expiration of the principal penalty, to the payment to the complainant, Juana Aguinaldo, of an indemnification of 600 Mexican pesos, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency (as provided by art. 51 of the Code), and to pay the costs of both instances. So ordered.

Cooper, Willard and Ladd, JJ., concur.

Arellano, C.J. and Mapa, J., dissent.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-1903 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 1000 March 6, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. CARLOS SANTIAGO, ET AL.

    002 Phil 6

  • G.R. No. 1025 March 6, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. BONIFACIO PLANA, ET AL.

    002 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. 955 March 7, 1903 - RAMON CHAVES v. RAMON NERY LINAN

    002 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 948 March 9, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. MACARIO CALLOTES

    002 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. 1042 March 9, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. EXEQUIEL CASTILLO, ET AL.

    002 Phil 17

  • G.R. No. 866 March 11, 1903 - UNlTED STATES v. APOLONIO SAMSON

    002 Phil 20

  • G.R. No. 1030 March 11, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. NICOLAS TIQUIO, ET AL

    002 Phil 21

  • G.R. No. 453 March 12, 1903 - ANTONIO VENTURA v. PAUL A. MILLER

    002 Phil 22

  • G.R. No. 911 March 12, 1903 - MAXIMO CORTES v. JOSE PALANCA YU-TIBO

    002 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. 559 March 14, 1903 - MANUEL B. BARRIOS v. MARIA PASCUALA DOLO, ET AL.

    002 Phil 44

  • G.R. No. 1021 March 14, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO LESCANO

    002 Phil 47

  • G.R. No. 1101 March 16, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. ISAAC BAILOSES

    002 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. 893 March 18, 1903 - I. O. CONCHEGULL v. JOSEPH B. HYAMS

    002 Phil 51

  • G.R. No. 1010 March 19, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN FERIA, ET AL.

    002 Phil 54

  • G.R. No. 1099 March 19, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL NAVARRO, ET AL.

    002 Phil 58

  • G.R. No. 1228 March 19, 1903 - JUAN ARANETA v. HEIRS OF TRANQUILINO GUSTILO

    002 Phil 60

  • G.R. No. 1017 March 21, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. GUILLERMO VILLANUEVA

    002 Phil 61

  • G.R. No. 1046 March 21, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. FELIX MANALANG

    002 Phil 64

  • G.R. No. 1047 March 24, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN DE CASTRO

    002 Phil 67

  • G.R. No. 1060 March 26, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. GUILLERMO LAUREAGA, ET AL.

    002 Phil 71

  • G.R. No. 1251 March 27, 1903 - FRANK MEKIN v. GEORGE N. WOLFE

    002 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. 1006 March 30, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. NAZARIO ALHAMBRA, ET AL.

    002 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. 1034 March 31, 1903 - DOMINGO S. HERNAEZ v. W. F. NORRIS

    002 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. 1093 March 31, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO MERIN

    002 Phil 88

  • G.R. No. 1114 March 31, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. BARTOLOME OSTREA, ET AL.

    002 Phil 93