Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1932 > March 1932 Decisions > G.R. No. 35756 March 23, 1932 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIO GULES

056 Phil 673:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 35756. March 23, 1932.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VICTORIO GULES (alias VICTOR), Defendant-Appellant.

Celso B. Jamora, for Appellant.

Attorney-General Jaranilla, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; MURDER; PENALTY. — There can be no question of the defendant’s guilt. The crime committed is murder, punished under the new Penal Code with reclusion temporal. There was present one mitigating circumstance, obfuscation, without any aggravating circumstance in the commission of the crime. As the penalty imposed by the court below, seventeen years and one day of cadena temporal, is not entirely correct it must be modified by imposing upon the accused a penalty of seventeen years, four months and one day of reclusion temporal.


D E C I S I O N


OSTRAND,J p:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The accused was charged with the crime of murder in the court of First Instance of Leyte, the information reading as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Que en o hacia el 23 de febrero de 1931, en el Municipio de Cabalian, Provincia de Leyte, Islas Filipinas, y dentro de la jurisdiccion de este Juzgado, el referido accusado, con un bolo de que estaba provisto, voluntaria, ilegal y criminalmente, y con premeditacion conocida, agredio alevosamente al Dr. Jose Hipe en las espalda fuera de la columna vertebral al lado izquierdo, que le causo la muerte despues de dieciocho dias."cralaw virtua1aw library

After due trial the court below found the defendant guilty of the crime charged, with the mitigating circumstance of obfuscation, and sentenced him to seventeen years and one day of cadena temporal with the accessory penalties, to indemnify the family of the deceased in the amount of P1,000, and to pay the costs. Thereupon the defendant appealed to this court.

The evidence establishes that on February 22, 1931, the defendant, Victorio Gules, asked Dr. Jose Hipe to cure him and three children. In reply to the request, Dr. Hipe went to the defendant’s residence and began treating him and his children. On the afternoon of that day one of the children died, and the defendant lost faith in Dr. Hipe. The defendant thereupon had himself and his children treated by a quack doctor. Hipe resented this, although he was prevailed upon by the defendant’s wife to come and continue treating her children.

On the afternoon of the next day, Dr. Hipe went to the defendant’s residence to continue his treatment, but the defendant told him not to give the same medicine as that he had already given to the child who had died. This annoyed Dr. Hipe, and he refused to continue curing the defendant’s children, and at the same time he demanded the payment of the medicines that he had administered to them. The defendant remonstrated, saying that he had no money at that time. He thereupon went to the kitchen to get drinking water for the sick children, and he there saw a bolo, which he took, and then returned to Dr. Hipe, insisting that the latter should treat the children. The doctor persisted in his refusal, and as he was going down stairs, the defendant stabbed him in the back with the bolo and thereby inflicted the wound which caused Dr. Hipe’s death nineteen days later.

The facts as stated above are established not only by the testimony of Narcisa Saludo and Eliseo Saludo, widow and father-in-law respectively of the deceased, but also by the testimony of the defendant himself. He admitted that he had wounded Dr. Hipe, but alleged that he could not tell how he did it, because he was then obfuscated.

There can be no question of the defendant’s guilt. The crime committed is murder, which is punished under the new Penal Code with reclusion temporal. As indicated above, there is one mitigating circumstance, namely obfuscation, in favor of the defendant, and without any aggravating circumstance against him.

The court below sentenced the defendant to seventeen years and one day of cadena temporal. As that penalty is not entirely correct, it must be modified by imposing upon the accused a penalty of seventeen years, four months, and one day of reclusion temporal. In all other respects the judgment of the court below is correct. With costs against the appellant. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Romualdez and Imperial, JJ., concur.

Villa-Real, J., concurs in the result.




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-1932 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 34021 March 3, 1932 - RICARDO P. PARDO v. MUNICIPALITY OF GUINOBATAN

    056 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. 34845 March 3, 1932 - ATANASIO PINEDA v. MARGARITA SANTOS

    056 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. 35442 March 4, 1932 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORO TUMAYAO

    056 Phil 587

  • G.R. No. 34618 March 5, 1932 - ANTONIA FERRER v. JOSE S. LOPEZ, ET AL.

    056 Phil 592

  • G.R. No. 34655 March 5, 1932 - SIY CONG BIENG & CO. v. HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION

    056 Phil 598

  • G.R. No. 34696 March 8, 1932 - ANTONIO D. MAURI v. SAN AGUSTIN PLANTATION CO.

    056 Phil 607

  • G.R. No. 36971 March 8, 1932 - ALEJANDRO SAMIA v. IRENE MEDINA, ET AL.

    056 Phil 613

  • G.R. No. 34727 March 9, 1932 - PACIFIC COMMERCIAL COMPANY v. ERMITA MARKET & COLD STORES, INC.

    056 Phil 617

  • G.R. No. 36080 March 14, 1932 - CHANG KA HEE v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    056 Phil 622

  • G.R. No. 34895 March 15, 1932 - MACARIO SULIT v. FAUSTA SANTOS, ET AL.

    056 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. 35469 March 17, 1932 - E. S. LYONS v. C. W. ROSENSTOCK

    056 Phil 632

  • G.R. No. 35524 March 18, 1932 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIAN SUMICAD

    056 Phil 643

  • G.R. No. 35763 March 18, 1932 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CANUTO TUZON

    056 Phil 649

  • G.R. No. 34294 March 19, 1932 - MARIA LUISA MEDINA v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

    056 Phil 651

  • G.R. No. 34474 March 23, 1932 - POLICARPO S. MENOR v. VICENTE QUINTANS, ET AL.

    056 Phil 657

  • G.R. No. 35587 March 23, 1932 - IN RE: PAUL A. BELL v. ATTORNEY- GENERAL

    056 Phil 667

  • G.R. No. 35756 March 23, 1932 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIO GULES

    056 Phil 673

  • G.R. No. 35866 March 23, 1932 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TAMBAROSO

    056 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. 34697 March 26, 1932 - JESUS TERAN v. FRANCISCA VILLANUEVA

    056 Phil 677

  • G.R. No. 35753 March 26, 1932 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO PINEDA

    056 Phil 688

  • IN RE: J. F. YEAGER : March 23, 1932 - 056 Phil 691

  • G.R. No. 37108 March 28, 1932 - ANTONIO DIRECTO v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    056 Phil 692

  • G.R. No. 36928 March 30, 1932 - TOMAS DIZON v. JUAN CAILLES

    056 Phil 695

  • G.R. No. 34533 March 31, 1932 - TAN TUA SIA, ET AL. v. YU BIAO SONTUA, ET AL.

    056 Phil 707

  • G.R. No. 34581 March 31, 1932 - LAZARO MOTA, ET AL. v. VENANCIO CONCEPCION, ET. AL.

    056 Phil 712

  • G.R. No. 35504 March 31, 1932 - CHARTERED BANK OF INDIA v. DIONISIO CONSTANTINO, ET AL.

    056 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. 35867 March 31, 1932 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO ROSIL

    056 Phil 722

  • G.R. No. 35963 March 31, 1932 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMAN CAPA

    056 Phil 726

  • G.R. No. 35988 March 31, 1932 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO PAÑGAN, ET AL.

    056 Phil 728

  • G.R. No. 36083 March 31, 1932 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMAN DAMIAO

    056 Phil 734

  • G.R. No. 36112 March 31, 1932 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO LEACHON

    056 Phil 737