Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1905 > December 1905 Decisions > G.R. No. 2456 December 28, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ELICERIO AMOROSO, ET AL.

005 Phil 466:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 2456. December 28, 1905. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ELICERIO AMOROSO, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

J.F. Boomer, for Appellants.

Solicitor-General Araneta, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; PREMEDITATION; ALEVOSIA. — Held, That neither evident premeditation nor alevosia was proven by the evidence in this case.

2. PRINCIPALS. — Though the defendant inflicted no wound upon the deceased, he was none the less a principal in the crime.


D E C I S I O N


MAPA, J. :


The judgment appealed from holds the accused guilty of the murder of Leoncia Bucalan, Canuto as principal and Elicerio as accomplice, and sentenced the first to life imprisonment (cadena perpetua) and the second to ten years imprisonment (prision mayor.) The judge held that premeditation was a qualifying circumstance of the said crime, it having been inferred from the fact that the crime was committed in a dark place where the defendants were in hiding with the instruments necessary to execute the crime.

The fiscal in this instance, in conformity with the legal qualification of the crime, makes the circumstance of the crime consist in alevosia and not in premeditation, which, according to him, has not concurred in the commission of the act under prosecution.

We believe that neither circumstance should be taken into account, and that the crime should therefore be qualified as simple homicide and not murder. Premeditation should not be taken into account as there is nothing in the cause that can serve as a ground to determine when the accused conceived the determination to commit the crime, nor, consequently to determine if the said criminal resolution was meditated, reflected upon, and persisted in which is that which constitutes the circumstance of known premeditation, as has been repeatedly held in the decision of this court. Neither the facts set forth by the judge in the judgment appealed from as grounds for his findings, nor the threats uttered prior to the crime by the defendants against the deceased are sufficient in themselves to constitute that circumstance, said threats not having been followed by subsequent acts revealing on the part of the defendants, aside from the execution of the crime, a firm and decided purpose to carry out the said threats and that they coolly and with reflection had persisted in their purpose for carrying out the same.

As regards alevosia the merits of the trial are also not sufficient to estimate their concurrence in the commission of the act under prosecution. With relation to this point the only eyewitness, Gregorio Pariño, said as follows: "We came down together (the deceased and myself) by the kitchen stairs of said house without knowing that the defendants were under the house where my wife was assaulted by the defendant Canuto, she being unable to say anything but ’Jesus, Mary and Joseph succor us.’" As is seen, the witness simply says in general terms that his wife was assaulted by one of the defendants without being able to say the manner and form in which it was done, for which reason it is not possible to establish with all certainty based on known facts, and not on mere conjectures or deductions more or less founded, as would be necessary to establish alevosia; that the defendants used means and methods which tended directly or indirectly to make impossible every defense on the part of the deceased and her companion Gregorio Pariño who was also assaulted on that occasion.

The evidence sufficiently shows the guilt of the defendants. Both should be qualified as principals of the crime under prosecution, for though Elicerio did not inflict any wound on the deceased, it is a clear and evident deduction from the facts proved in the trial that he accompanied his codefendant to the place of the crime, armed with an axe, by virtue of a prior agreement between the two tending to assure their cooperation in the execution of the crime. His presence there with the deadly arm which he carried contributed to increase the offensive power of his said codefendant, it being probable that without it the latter would not have decided to assault the deceased on seeing her accompanied by Gregorio Pariño. His cooperation was moreover real and effective, he having assaulted the latter at the precise moment that he came to the defense of the deceased, wounding him severely and preventing him in this manner from making the said defense, which resulted in the deceased being left at the complete mercy of her assailant. Without his said cooperation the crime would perhaps not have been consummated by reason of the timely intervention of Pariño in the quarrel. In view of all the circumstances of the case we hold that the defendant Elicerio cooperated in the execution of the act by acts without which the latter would not have been effected and that he is therefore co- author of the same in accordance with the Penal Code.

The aggravating circumstance of nocturnity should be taken into account, and there being no extenuating circumstance, there should therefore be imposed upon the defendants the penalty for the crime of homicide in its maximum degree, though we believe that the discretional power granted to the courts by rule 7 of article 81 of the Penal Code could properly be exercised; that within the said degree Elicerio is entitled to lesser penalty than his codefendant Canuto.

With reversal of the judgment appealed from, we sentence Canuto Amoroso to twenty years’ imprisonment (reclusion temporal) and Elicerio Amoroso to seventeen years four months and one day of the same penalty, and both to pay to the heirs of the deceased an indemnity of 500 pesos, Philippine currency, with the costs of this instance to the said defendants. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Johnson, Carson and Willard, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





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