Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1905 > December 1905 Decisions > G.R. No. 2106 December 8, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE R. PADILLA

005 Phil 396:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 2106. December 8, 1905. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSE R. PADILLA, Defendant-Appellant.

Thos. D. Aitken, for Appellant.

Solicitor-General Araneta, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CONSTABULARY; HOMICIDE. — A Constabulary who was acting as sentry and singing at the time, was told by the deceased that he had no voice for singing. Words were exchanged and the deceased seized the defendant by the throat, whereupon the latter killed the deceased with the rifle. Held, That such killing was not justified.


D E C I S I O N


TORRES, J. :


In an information filed in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga on July 8, 1904, Jose R. Padilla, an enlisted man of the Constabulary, was charged with the crime of homicide, in that while acting as sentry at the barracks in Isabela de Basilan, on the 6th day of July, 1904, he killed Emiliano de los Santos by firing a shot at him with his rifle, under the circumstances set forth in the information, an act constitutive of the crime of homicide committed within the jurisdiction of the said court, and contrary to law.

As a result of the cause formulated upon the information, the judge sentenced the defendant to twelve years and one day imprisonment (reclusion temporal) at hard labor, together with the costs and other accessories mentioned in the judgment.

From the evidence adduced at the trial it was disclosed that at half-past 6 o’clock on the morning of the said 6th day of July, while the defendant, Jose R. Padilla, was doing sentry duty as an enlisted man of the Constabulary and singing in from of the barracks and jail on the Island of Isabela de Basilan, he passed near the deceased, Emiliano de los Santos, who told him that he had no voice for singing; to this Padilla replied that as he was doing sentry duty he would permit no jesting, as he was not allowed to talk, and thereupon continued walking his post; but on passing Santos again, the latter repeated the jest and the defendant warned him that if he did not keep still he would strike him with the butt of his rifle. On hearing this, the deceased, still in a spirit of fun grasped Padilla around the throat with both hands, but the defendant was able to free himself at once and fired a shot at Santos, which entering the right cheek, passed out close to the left ear.

There is no doubt that the crime of homicide, as defined in article 404 of the Penal Code, was committed, it having been proved that Emiliano de los Santos lost his life by violence as the result of a gunshot would, without there having been attendant in the commission of the crime any of the qualifying circumstances enumerated in article 403 of the Penal Code.

The defendant did not plead guilty and yet he was proved the sole, direct, and confessed author of the crime of which he was convicted, he having fired upon the deceased Emiliano de los Santos, and caused his instant death as the result of a moral wound inflicted by the rifle ball which entered his right cheek and passed out near his left ear, said wound having been inflicted by Padilla because Santos had made game of him and seized him by the throat in a spirit of fun.

In the commission of the crime only the two attendant extenuating circumstances 4 and 7 of article 9 of the Penal Code can be considered, there being no aggravating circumstance to offset their effect, as it was established in the trial that the deceased provoked the occurrence by his persistent jesting, to which the defendant objected from the beginning; the defendant having at last been driven to act in a sudden and blind burst of passion, when grasped by the throat by the deceased, even though the latter did so in a spirit of fun, though without consideration of the fact that the defendant was then on sentry duty. These two circumstances in the case are held to be of a qualifying character, with the result that the proper penalty ought to be the one immediately below that fixed by law in the corresponding degree, according to the number and importance of said circumstances under the provisions of article 81, paragraph 5, of the Penal Code.

The acquittal of the defendant by virtue of the exempting circumstance of self-defense is not right, there having been no previous illegal aggression, the first and principal element of that circumstance, without which essential requisite paragraph 4 of article 8 of the Penal Code can not be applied.

The fact that the deceased seized the defendant around the throat and exerted pressure thereon in one of his frolics which he had persistently kept up with notorious imprudence, and in spite of the opposition of the defendant, can not be considered as an illegal aggression in the case of two companions in arms quartered in the same barracks.

It is true that the defendant had warned the deceased that he would strike him with the but of his rifle if the latter persisted in making game of him with the but of his rifle if the latter persisted in making game of him and that the deceased kept on doing so, but nevertheless this, and the fact that the defendant was on sentry duty, did not justify him in shooting and killing the imprudent joker; nor can the shot be called accidental, as it was established in the trial that the sentry is not in the habit of carrying his rifle loaded, and it is to be presumed that the defendant intended to punish the man who had been plaguing him, by killing him unlawfully and that to do so he was obliged to load his gun.

He might have complained to his superior officer instead of committing a crime which, under the circumstances in which he committed it, deserves at least mitigated punishment, as he has no right to deprive a fellow-being of life, except in those cases of absolute necessity expressly exempted by the penal law.

In view of the above considerations, it is right in our opinion that the sentence from be reversed and the defendant, Jose R. Padilla, be sentenced to six years and one day imprisonment (prision mayor), the accessory penalties provided by article 61 of the Penal Code, the payment of an indemnity of 1,000 pesos to the heirs of the deceased, without subsidiary imprisonment considering the nature of the penalty, and to the costs in both instances. Let the case be remanded to the trial court together with a certified copy of this judgment and of the sentence which shall be entered for execution. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Mapa and Johnson, JJ., concur.

Carson, J., dissents.




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






December-1905 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 1619 December 2, 1905 - FILOMENA B. VILLARRUEL v. PETRONILA ENCARNACION

    005 Phil 360

  • G.R. No. 1638 December 2, 1905 - ANTONIO IRIBAR, ET AL. v. MILLAT

    005 Phil 362

  • G.R. No. 2273 December 4, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCIS J. BERRY

    005 Phil 370

  • G.R. No. 1594 December 5, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SILVINO ROXAS

    005 Phil 375

  • G.R. No. 2168 December 5, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. BLAS CASAÑAS

    005 Phil 377

  • G.R. No. 2354 December 5, 1905 - GEORGE W. SIMMIE v. H. BRODEK

    005 Phil 379

  • G.R. No. 2965 December 5, 1905 - JOAQUIN MA. HERRER v. ARSENIO CRUZ HERRERA

    005 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. 2083 December 6, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL CHAN-CUN-CHAY

    005 Phil 385

  • G.R. No. 1556 December 7, 1905 - JOAQUIN LAFONT v. MARIA YIA PASCASIO

    005 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. 2106 December 8, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE R. PADILLA

    005 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. 2933 December 8, 1905 - PHILIPPINE TRADING COMPANY v. A.S. CROSSFIELD

    005 Phil 400

  • G.R. No. 1724 December 11, 1905 - ALEJANDRO REYES v. FRANCISCO MARTINEZ

    005 Phil 402

  • G.R. No. 2370 December 12, 1905 - MARIANO ESCUETA v. LEON SY-JUILLIONG

    005 Phil 405

  • G.R. No. 2273 December 13, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCIS J. BERRY

    005 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. 2496 December 13, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SIXTO MOLO

    005 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. 2368 December 14, 1905 - CIRILO ESTRELLA v. BONIFACIO ZAMORA, ET AL.

    005 Phil 415

  • G.R. No. 2422 December 14, 1905 - EL BANCO ESPAÑOL FILIPINO v. DONALDSON SIM & CO., ET AL.

    005 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. 1788 December 15, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN TULAGAN, ET AL.

    005 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. 2364 December 15, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ARCADIO HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    005 Phil 429

  • G.R. No. 2764 December 16, 1905 - ENRIQUE SERRANO, ET AL. v. DIONISIO CHANCO

    005 Phil 431

  • G.R. No. 2108 December 19, 1905 - JUANA PIMENTEL v. ENGRACIO PALANCA

    005 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 2423 December 19, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. BONIFACIO MORALES

    005 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. 2075 December 20, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. VICTOR QUIAMSON

    005 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. 2120 December 21, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SIMPLICIO LEYSON

    005 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. 2340 December 21, 1905 - JOSE TORRENTE v. W.C. GROVE

    005 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 2614 December 21, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SILVERIO PADERES

    005 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. 2058 December 22, 1905 - JOSE MAS v. TIMOTEO LANUZA, ET AL.

    005 Phil 457

  • G.R. No. 2061 December 28, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MARCOS ZAFRA

    005 Phil 460

  • G.R. No. 2201 December 28, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO MATEO

    005 Phil 462

  • G.R. No. 2298 December 28, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. IGNACIO SIATONG

    005 Phil 463

  • G.R. No. 2453 December 28, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. INOCENTES ANDRADA

    005 Phil 464

  • G.R. No. 2456 December 28, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ELICERIO AMOROSO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 466

  • G.R. No. 2709 December 28, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ISIDORO ARAGON

    005 Phil 469