Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1929 > December 1929 Decisions > G.R. No. 31320 December 3, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISPO LARA E ILANO

054 Phil 96:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 31320. December 3, 1929.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CRISPO LARA E ILANO, Defendant-Appellant.

Demetrio B. Encarnacion and Feria & La O, for Appellant.

Attorney-General Jaranilla, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; HOMICIDE; DYING DECLARATION. — The admissibility of the dying declaration of a deceased person with respect to the person who inflicted the fatal injury depends upon whether, at the time the declaration was made, the deceased believed that the injury received would be fatal. The circumstance that he thereafter recovered sufficiently to engender the belief that he was going to live, does not render the declaration inadmissible, where death in fact results from the same injury.


D E C I S I O N


STREET, J.:


This appeal has been brought upon appeal to the Supreme Court for the purpose of reversing a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Cavite, finding the appellant, Crispo Lara e Ilano, guilty of the offense of murder and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for twenty years, cadena temporal, with the accessories prescribed by law, and requiring him to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P1,000, and requiring him to pay the costs.

The deceased, Juan Advincula, was, in life, a resident of the barrio of Salitran, in the municipality of Dasmariñas, Province of Cavite. About three weeks prior to the occurrence which gave rise to this prosecution, the deceased was aroused in the nighttime by the barking of his dog; and, upon looking into the cause of the noise, he found the accused, Crispo Lara e Ilano, in his yard. Advincula thereupon asked the accused what he was doing, and the latter replied that he was not after anything. Advincula nevertheless scolded him, supposing that he had designs upon the chickens in the stable. So strong was this impression in the mind of Advincula that he reported the incident the same night to the municipal authorities.

In the late afternoon of July 22, 1927, the date of the homicide, Advincula was returning to his home, after having taken his carabaos to the corral of one Valentin Janoba. On the way he met the accused, and as to what occurred in this encounter, we have only the statement of Advincula, as delivered by him a short while thereafter in the house of his neighbor, Felix Ramirez. According to this statement the accused asked Advincula, "Are you angry at me?" Whereupon Advincula replied, "How should I not be angry with you, since if my dog had not barked you would have taken my chickens." To this the accused replied, saying "You are a liar," at the same time firing an automatic revolver at Advincula, wounding him in the left shoulder. Upon receiving this wound Advincula fled.

Directing his course to the house of a neighbor, one Felix Ramirez, Advincula found the family of Ramirez sitting at the table eating their evening meal; and he told them that he had been shot by the appellant under the circumstances above stated, at the same time exhibiting the bloody stain on his left side. Ramirez at once called, or sent for, the barrio lieutenant, one Ciriaco Reyes; and upon the arrival of the latter, Advincula repeated his account of the occurrence, adding that he was weak from the pain resulting from his wound and that he would not survive. The next day the justice of the peace of the municipality, one Restituto Paman, took Advincula’s affidavit (Exhibit C), in which the declarant reiterated what he had told the lieutenant, but upon this occasion he said he felt better and he indicated to the justice of the peace that he thought he would not die of the wound. On the next day Advincula was taken to the Philippine General Hospital in the City of Manila where he remained for three weeks, at the end of which time he was discharged. In a few days, however, the bullet, which had never been extracted, from the shoulder, began to make trouble again, and Advincula was taken back to the hospital, where blood poisoning from the internal wound soon developed and on August 30 Advincula died. A post-mortem examination showed that the bullet had lodged at the fifth rib on the left side and that the fourth and fifth ribs were broken.

Immediately following his conversation with Advincula in the house of Ramirez, in the evening of July 22, 1927, Ciriaco Reyes, the barrio lieutenant, went to the home of the accused, Crispo Lara, and was there told that Lara had gone to get a doctor for his mother who was then in the last stages of illness. It turned out, however, that Lara had stages of illness. It turned, out, however, that Lara had fled to Silang, a municipality about 13 kilometers distant from Dasmariñas. Here he remained for about a week and did not return even for the funeral obsequies of his mother, who in the meantime died.

The only testimony directly connecting the accused with the shooting of the deceased is contained in the statements made by the deceased subsequent to the shooting and prior to his death; and it is insisted for the appellant that these statements are not admissible is evidence. We are of the opinion that this contention is well taken with respect to the affidavit (Exhibit C) given to the justice of the peace by the deceased on the day after the fatal injury was inflicted, for the reason that when that declaration was made the deceased indicated that he was under the impression that the injury would not be fatal. On the other hand the statement made to Ciriaco Reyes, the barrio lieutenant, in the house of Felix Ramirez, was in our opinion admissible as a dying declaration, because when this declaration was made the deceased was weak, complained of the pain which he was suffering from the wound and stated that he would not survive. It is true that the deceased lived for nearly six weeks after that statement was made, and in this interval recovered, to external appearances, almost completely from the wound. Nevertheless it appears that in the end the deceased died from the same wound; and the admissibility of the first declaration depends upon the state of mind of the deceased when the declaration was made, and not upon the length of time that elapsed between the infliction of the wound and the declarant’s death. This statement supplies ample proof that the accused was the author of Advincula’s death.

With respect to the nature of the offense the Attorney-General suggests that it is murder, qualified by the circumstance of alevosia, and this view of the case was adopted by the trial court. The finding of alevosia tests, it appears, exclusively upon the fact that, in the statement made to Ciriaco Reyes, the deceased used the word "unexpectedly" in describing the act was unexpected to the deceased. But it appears that the two actors in the homicide were confronting each other and the use of the deadly weapons followed upon the words spoken by the deceased in which he charged the accused with an attempt to steal his chickens. These words were certainly of a provoking nature, whether true or false; and we are of the opinion that the circumstances that the use of a revolver by the accused may have been unexpected to the victim does not, under the circumstances, show that the shooting was qualified by treachery (alevosia) in the sense understood in the law, for there was nothing in the means, form, or method of the killing which could have been adopted for the purpose of insuring the execution of the homicide without risk of the agent. The case in our opinion is simple homicide, in which no aggravating or attenuating circumstance should be estimated, with the result that the appellant is amenable to imprisonment for a period within the medium degree of reclusion temporal.

It being understood, therefore, that the penalty of imprisonment is reduced to fourteen years, eight months and one day, reclusión temporal, with the accessories incident thereto, the judgment, as thus modified, is affirmed, with costs against the appellant. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Johnson, Malcolm, Ostrand, Johns and Romualdez, JJ., concur.




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-1929 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 30993 December 2, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PIO VIVAS

    054 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. 31397 December 2, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LIM QUINGSY

    054 Phil 88

  • G.R. No. 31088 December 3, 1929 - MIGUEL J. OSSORIO v. JUAN POSADAS

    056 Phil 748

  • G.R. No. 29959 December 3, 1929 - AURELIA DADIVAS DE VILLANUEVA v. RAFAEL VILLANUEVA

    054 Phil 92

  • G.R. No. 31320 December 3, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISPO LARA E ILANO

    054 Phil 96

  • G.R. No. 31883 December 3, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DEMETRIO CASTRO

    054 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. 30587 December 4, 1929 - SABINA REYES, ET AL. v. E. C. WELLS, ET AL.

    054 Phil 102

  • G.R. No. 31770 December 5, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONINO HERNANDEZ

    054 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 31686 December 14, 1929 - JAO YAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    054 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. 31953 December 16, 1929 - TEH HUAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    054 Phil 129

  • G.R. No. 30641 December 18, 1929 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. J. O. WAGNER, ET AL.

    054 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. 30874 December 26, 1929 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. ESTEBAN DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

    054 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. 30048 December 27, 1929 - LO BUN CHAY v. ALBINO PAULINO, ET AL.

    054 Phil 144

  • G.R. No. 31155 December 27, 1929 - HIJOS DE I. DE LA RAMA v. SALVADOR BETIA, ET AL.

    054 Phil 149

  • G.R. No. 31287 December 27, 1929 - ANNA HARTSKE v. FRED FRANKEL, ET AL.

    054 Phil 156

  • G.R. No. 31338 December 27, 1929 - CECILIA ORTIZ, ET AL. v. ALEJANDRO BALGOS

    054 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. 31508 December 27, 1929 - SAN JUAN DE DIOS HOSPITAL v. METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT

    054 Phil 174

  • G.R. No. 31763 December 27, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. H. JANSSEN

    054 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 31768 December 27, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICOLAS P. PAYUMO

    054 Phil 181

  • G.R. No. 30823 December 28, 1929 - ANGELO ANGELES, ET AL. v. ANATALIA LOZADA, ET AL.

    054 Phil 184

  • G.R. No. 31316 December 28, 1929 - LIM CHU LAN v. LIM CHU KUN

    054 Phil 190

  • G.R. No. 31346 December 28, 1929 - PO SUN TUN v. W. S. PRICE, ET AL.

    054 Phil 192

  • G.R. No. 31454 December 28, 1929 - ISIDRA GAAS, ET AL. v. PILAR FORTICH

    054 Phil 196

  • G.R. No. 31905 December 28, 1929 - CHUA QUIP v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    054 Phil 206

  • G.R. No. 31916 December 28, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO SUÑGA

    054 Phil 210