Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1949 > May 1949 Decisions > G.R. No. L-2252 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BARTOLOME BEDIA

083 Phil 909:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-2252. May 31, 1949.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BARTOLOME BEDIA, Defendant-Appellant.

Fulgencio Vega for Appellant.

First Assistant Solicitor General Roberto A. Gianzon and Solicitor Francisco Carreon for Appellee.

Vicente Hilado as amicus curi�.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; HOMICIDE; MOTIVE OF KILLING SUFFICIENTLY SHOWN BY EVIDENCE. — Upon the evidence, the Court came to the conclusion that the killing was committed in accordance with the version given by the witnesses for the prosecution. While S had no motive at all for killing appellant, the latter’s failure to secure a right of way through the land of the deceased appears to have induced appellant to obtain vengeance against the deceased. In the pre-killing incident concerning the right of way in question, it appears that S had the upper hand. He was a member of the municipal council, was powerful, and had the means to exercise political influence as well as to engage in judicial litigation, while appellant appeared to be lacking the means of retrieving himself from his failure to insist on the right of way and recovering his lost face among his neighbors.

2. ID.; ID.; TRIAL; TRIAL; JUDGE’S ACTIVE PARTICIPATION AS PROSECUTOR IMPROPER; CURTAILMENT OF ACCUSED’S RIGHT OF DEFENSE. — The Court cannot remain indifferent in the face of arbitrariness committed by the trial judge. The prosecution asserts that, while it is possible to justify one or two of the actuations of the court below, it must be admitted that on the whole the procedure and practice of the trial judge cannot be defended as proper. It is admitted that the trial judge had interfered with the examination of the witnesses, that the right of the defense to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses and the rights of the defense in the direct examination of its own witnesses have unduly been curtailed, that the trial judge attempted on two occasions to brow beat the defense, that the trial judge denied defense counsel the opportunity of filing a written memorandum. The trial judge’s conduct, on the whole, lays ground to the suspicion of being prejudiced against the cause of the defense as emphasized by the fact that, without waiting for any testimony or evidence that the parties may present, the trial judge had volunteered, in certain portions of the record, his personal knowledge as to the height and stature of the deceased S. S. The Court feels it unavoidably its duty to express its disapproval of the acts of arbitrariness committed by the trial judge, with the hope that he will not repeat them, nor will any other judicial officer follow his example. The administration of justice is a lofty function and is no less sacred than a religious mission itself. Those who are called upon to render service in it must follow that norm of conduct compatible only with public faith and trust in their impartiality, sense of responsibility, exercising the same devotion to duty and unction done by a priest in the performance of the most sacred ceremonies of a religious liturgy.


D E C I S I O N


PERFECTO, J.:


The trial court found appellant Bartolome Bedia guilty of the crime of homicide and sentenced him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of from eight (8) years of prision mayor to fourteen (14) years of reclusion temporal with the accessories of the law and to indemnify the heirs of Salvador Segovia in the sum of P2,000 and to pay the costs.

Upon examination of the evidence and perusal of the brief for the prosecution and that filed by an amicus curiae, the Court of Appeals was convinced that the crime committed by appellant is that of murder and is liable to be punished with reclusion perpetua, for which reason it decided to certify the case to the Supreme Court.

There is no dispute as to the fact that on December 17, 1946, at about 3:30 o’clock p. m., while returning with two companions to his hacienda on a jeep, which he himself was driving, and upon reaching a place on a road in barrio Tubungan Barotac Nuevo, Salvador Segovia was shot to death by appellant Bartolome Bedia.

The controversy in this case arises from the conflicting versions as to how appellant killed Segovia, given by the prosecution and the defense. According to the witnesses for the prosecution, Benjamin Bayas and Maximo Doligosa, companions of the deceased on the jeep, when the jeep was at about three meters from the place where appellant was standing, the latter suddenly drew his Super-38 automatic pistol and pointed it at the deceased exclaiming: "Commend yourself to Jesus," after which the accused pulled the trigger but no shot exploded — only the clicking sound of the striking hammer was heard. Then Segovia jumped out and fled to shield himself behind the jeep, but appellant pursued him and fired again, causing him to fall to the ground. After Segovia had fallen, appellant fired more shots at his body and struck the deceased on the mouth and nose with his pistol. Appellant then took the pistol of the deceased and that same afternoon presented himself to the chief of police, with his firearm and that of the deceased.

The version of the defense, based upon the testimonies of Beatriz Botavara and of appellant himself, is to the effect that, upon reaching the place of the incident, the deceased stopped his jeep and beckoned the appellant. When appellant was at about four arms-length from the jeep, the deceased shouted at him, "So you are the brave man of Tubungan? Get ready for I will kill you." The deceased then aimed his pistol at the appellant, who in turn drew his own gun and fired at the former. Segovia, with his gun pointed at the appellant, backed away towards the left rear side of the jeep, where the appellant fired at him again. Segovia retreated farther, still pointing his gun at the appellant, and when the deceased gained the right side of the jeep, appellant fired a third shot at him. The deceased went towards the front part of the jeep and he was yet standing there when the last and fourth shot was fired by appellant. When the deceased was falling, appellant was able to hit him on the face with his pistol. Appellant wants to show that he acted in self-defense.

We, carefully considering and analyzing the evidence, came to the conclusion that the killing was committed in accordance with the version given by the witnesses for the prosecution. While Segovia had no motive at all for killing appellant, the latter’s failure to secure a right of way through the land of the deceased appears to have induced appellant to obtain vengeance against the deceased. In the pre-killing incident concerning the right of way in question, it appears that Segovia had the upper hand. He was a member of the municipal council, was powerful, and had the means to exercise political influence as well as to engage in judicial litigation, while appellant appeared to be lacking the means of retrieving himself from his failure to insist on the right of way and recovering his lost face among his neighbors.

Appellant’s defense hinges on the jamming of the deceased’s pistol. His theory is that the deceased failed to fire his pistol because it jammed when he attempted to fire the first shot against appellant. It appears, however, upon expert testimony on record, that the jamming of the firearm was due not to any mechanical defect but to intentional insertion of a bullet from the outside into the pistol’s barrel. The fact that the appellant had experience in handling firearms and the fact that it took him more than the necessary length of time from the moment he took the pistol of the deceased to the moment when he presented it to the authorities together with his own, lay strong grounds for the belief that appellant concocted the jamming of the pistol so as to enable him to present in court a self-serving evidence.

In view of the facts sufficiently established, we find no error in the trial court’s finding that appellant is guilty of the crime of homicide, and in the sentence imposed, except that the indemnity to the heirs of Salvador Segovia must be increased to P6,000, in accordance with the precedent set in our decision in People v. Amansec (80 Phil., 424).

In his third assignment of error, appellant’s counsel alleges the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The trial court erred in converting itself into a prosecuting attorney by taking upon itself the duty, burden and responsibility to examine the witnesses for the prosecution without first waiting for the prosecuting attorney to finish his examination of his witnesses, and to cross-examine the witnesses for the defense without first allowing the prosecuting attorney to finish his cross-examination; by directing questions to the witnesses for the defense without first allowing the defense counsel to finish their direct examination of said witnesses; by not permitting defense counsel to ask questions on either direct or cross-examination-examination on matters which are material to the case; by intimidating the witnesses for the defense with imprisonment unless they answer the questions as propounded to them; by being arbitrary in its rulings; by showing partiality and bias in favor of the prosecution during the course of the trial of the case; and by not giving counsel for the defense time within which to present their written memorandum of the case by requiring the prosecution and defense to present their oral argument right after the trial and deciding the case the following morning in open court."cralaw virtua1aw library

To this, the Solicitor General made in his brief the following answer:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Appellant complains of alleged irregularities committed by the trial judge in the conduct of the trial of this case. While it is possible to justify one or two of the actuations of the court below, it must be admitted that on the whole the procedure and practice followed by the trial judge cannot be defended as proper. It is one thing, however, to say that irregularities have been committed and another thing to show that these irregularities constitute material error. Appellant not only concedes that some of the rulings of the trial judge were not prejudicial to the defense, but has in fact completely failed to establish that but for the errors and irregularities committed by the trial judge a different result would have been reached. The appellant has not undertaken to demonstrate, either here or during the trial, what facts decisive of the case in his favor might have been established if the lower court had not overly interfered with the examination of the witnesses, or if the defense had been allowed greater latitude in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and in the direct examination of its own witnesses, or if the trial judge had not attempted on one or two occasions to browbeat the defense witnesses. He has also failed to show that the appellant was denied any substantial right when his defense counsel, instead of being allowed to file a written memorandum, was required by the court to argue orally the case immediately upon the close of the trial, nor do was understand how the judgment of the court below would have been different had such memorandum been permitted to be filed. We cannot agree with the appellant that under Rule 115, section 3, paragraph (d) of the Rules of Court, counsel has the absolute right to file written memorandum in lieu of oral argument. This is a matter which we think lies in the sound discretion of the trial court."cralaw virtua1aw library

There is no dispute, therefore, that the trial court had acted with arbitrariness in the conduct of the trial, as borne out by the transcript. The trial judge had shown an unnecessary impatience and had unnecessarily curtailed defendant’s opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses for the prosecution and to freely enjoy all the means for defense. As shown, however, in prosecution’s brief, there was not enough showing to the effect that in this regard the trial court committed errors affecting so substantially the rights of appellant as to require a reversal of the appealed judgment. There is no showing that had the acts of arbitrariness not been committed by the trial judge, the result of the case would have been different, and that appellant would have been different, and that appellant would have been entitled to acquittal, or, at least, to a lighter penalty than the one meted out by the court a quo.

However, we cannot remain indifferent in the face of arbitrariness committed by the trial judge. The prosecution asserts that, while it is possible to justify one or two of the actuations of the court below, it must be admitted that on the whole the procedure and practice of the trial judge cannot be defended as proper. It is admitted that the trial judge had interfered with the examination of the witnesses, that the right of the defense to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses and the rights of the defense in the direct examination of its own witnesses have unduly been curtailed, that the trial judge attempted on two occasions to browbeat the defense, that the trial judge denied defense counsel the opportunity of filing a written memorandum. The trial judge’s conduct, on the whole, lays ground to the suspicion of being prejudiced against the cause of the defense as emphasized by the fact that, without waiting, for any testimony or evidence that the parties may present, the trial judge had volunteered, in certain portions of the record, his personal knowledge as to the height and stature of the deceased Salvador Segovia. We feel it unavoidably our duty to express our disapproval of the acts of arbitrariness committed by the trial judge, with the hope that he will not repeat them, nor will any other judicial officer follow his example. The administration of justice is a lofty function is no less sacred than a religious mission itself. Those who are called upon to render service in it must follow that norm of conduct compatible only with public faith and trust in their impartiality, sense of responsibility exercising the same devotion to duty and unction done by a priest in the performance of the most sacred ceremonies of a religious liturgy.

Modified with the increase of indemnity to the heirs of Salvador Segovia to P6,000 in conformity with the ruling laid down in People v. Amansec, supra, the appealed judgment is affirmed in all other respects, with costs against Appellant.

Paras, Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor and Reyes, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions


PERFECTO, J.:


We certify that the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Ozaeta voted in support of this decision.




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






May-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1674 May 9, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO SOMERA

    083 Phil 548

  • G.R. No. L-1765 May 9, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO TANDUG

    083 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. L-1881 May 9, 1949 - MANILA TERMINAL COMPANY v. LA CORTE DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    083 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. L-1512 May 12, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FEDERICO

    083 Phil 569

  • G.R. No. L-1900 May 12, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO LACSON

    083 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. L-2064 May 12, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIGIO TORRES

    083 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. L-1769 May 13, 1949 - PURITA PANAGUITON v. FLORENTINO PATUBO

    083 Phil 605

  • G.R. No. L-1833 May 13, 1949 - MEDARDO MUÑOZ v. EMILIO RILLORAZA

    083 Phil 609

  • G.R. No. L-792 May 14, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. E.C. CAÑADA

    083 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. L-1429 May 16, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO AQUINO Y ABALOS

    083 Phil 614

  • G.R. No. L-1950 May 16, 1949 - LAO SENG HIAN v. NATIVIDAD ALMEDA LOPEZ

    083 Phil 617

  • G.R. No. L-2014 May 16, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN Z. YELO

    083 Phil 618

  • G.R. No. L-1212 May 18, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. CELESTINO BASA Y OTROS

    083 Phil 622

  • G.R. No. L-1918 May 18, 1949 - PEDRO L. FLORES v. PERFECTO R. PALACIO

    083 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. L-2484 May 18, 1949 - LEE KO v. DIONISIO DE LEON

    083 Phil 628

  • G.R. No. L-2117 May 19, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIO SOMBILON

    083 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. L-1471 May 20, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIAN ORAZA

    083 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. L-1917 May 20, 1949 - CATALINO MAGLASANG v. CIRILO C. MACEREN

    083 Phil 637

  • G.R. No. L-2245 May 20, 1949 - AMBROSIO CARBUNGCO v. RAFAEL AMPARO

    083 Phil 638

  • G.R. No. L-2831 May 20, 1949 - BERNARDO TORRES v. MAMERTO S. RIBO

    083 Phil 642

  • G.R. No. L-432 May 23, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO CALINAWAN

    083 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. L-1795-6 May 23, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO VALDEZ

    083 Phil 650

  • G.R. No. L-1989 May 23, 1949 - JOSE REYES y RAMIREZ v. EL TRIBUNAL DE APELACION

    083 Phil 658

  • G.R. No. L-2203 May 23, 1949 - SAN MIGUEL BREWERY v. LA CORTE DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    083 Phil 663

  • G.R. No. L-2431 May 23, 1949 - CEFERINO TAVORA v. PEDRO OFIANA

    083 Phil 672

  • G.R. No. 213 May 24, 1949 - GENEROSA A. DIA v. FINANCE & MINING INVESTMENT CORP.

    083 Phil 675

  • G.R. No. L-1700 May 24, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO MINTU

    083 Phil 678

  • G.R. No. L-2004 May 24, 1949 - PABLO COTAOCO v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN

    083 Phil 681

  • G.R. No. L-2251 May 24, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ELISA TANDAG

    083 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. L-1980 May 25, 1949 - CIPRIANO SEVILLA v. CEFERINO DE LOS SANTOS

    083 Phil 686

  • G.R. No. L-944 May 26, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTO AVILA

    083 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. L-1823 May 26, 1949 - GERONIMO DE LOS REYES v. ARTEMIO ELEPAÑO

    083 Phil 691

  • G.R. No. L-1825 May 26, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. EUGENIO BERSIDA

    083 Phil 696

  • G.R. No. L-2022 May 26, 1949 - GUIA S. J0SE DE BAYER v. ERNESTO OPPEN

    083 Phil 700

  • G.R. No. L-2161 May 26, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAMES YOUNG

    083 Phil 702

  • G.R. No. L-2323 May 26, 1949 - M. A. ZARCAL v. S. HERRERO

    083 Phil 711

  • G.R. Nos. L-675 & L-676 May 27, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NEMESIO LASTIMOSO

    083 Phil 714

  • G.R. No. L-1274 May 27, 1949 - PHIL. TRANSIT ASSN. v. TREASURER OF MANILA

    083 Phil 722

  • G.R. No. L-1394 May 27, 1949 - RAFAEL ROA YROSTORZA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    083 Phil 727

  • G.R. No. L-1861 May 27, 1949 - RIZAL SURETY AND INSURANCE CO. v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    083 Phil 732

  • G.R. No. L-1869 May 27, 1949 - JOSE PIO BARRETTO v. N. ALMEDA LOPEZ

    083 Phil 734

  • G.R. No. L-2300 May 27, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO TUMAOB

    083 Phil 738

  • G.R. No. L-2382 May 27, 1949 - PABLO S. RIVERA v. FRANCISCO ARELLANO

    083 Phil 744

  • G.R. No. L-1606 May 28, 1949 - IN RE: YEE BO MANN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    083 Phil 749

  • G.R. No. L-2309 May 28, 1949 - LOPE SARREAL v. SOTERO RODAS

    083 Phil 751

  • G.R. No. L-2518 May 28, 1949 - DONATA OLIVEROS DE TAN v. ENGRACIO FABRE

    083 Phil 755

  • G.R. No. L-2539 May 28, 1949 - JOSE P. MONSALE v. PAULINO M. NICO

    083 Phil 758

  • G.R. No. L-1511 May 30, 1949 - MIGUEL OJO v. JOSE V. JAMITO

    083 Phil 764

  • G.R. No. L-1550 May 30, 1949 - IN RE: FREDERICK EDWARD GILBERT ZUELLIG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    083 Phil 768

  • G.R. No. L-1609 May 30, 1949 - REMIGIO M. PEÑA v. FRANCISCO ARELLANO

    083 Phil 773

  • G.R. No. L-1686 May 30, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. SANTOS TOLEDO

    083 Phil 777

  • G.R. No. L-1723 May 30, 1949 - LUZ MARQUEZ DE SANDOVAL v. VICENTE SANTIAGO

    083 Phil 784

  • G.R. No. L-1978 May 30, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ANTONIO ORCULLO Y OTROS

    083 Phil 787

  • G.R. No. L-1996 May 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALIP JULMAIN

    083 Phil 793

  • G.R. No. L-2031 May 30, 1949 - HERMOGENES C. LIM v. RESTITUTO L. CALAGUAS

    083 Phil 796

  • G.R. No. L-2069 May 30, 1949 - LUZON BROKERAGE CO. v. LUZON LABOR UNION

    083 Phil 801

  • G.R. No. L-2083 May 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR MALIG

    083 Phil 804

  • G.R. No. L-2098 May 30, 1949 - PIO MARQUEZ v. ARSENIO PRODIGALIDAD

    083 Phil 813

  • G.R. No. L-2099 May 30, 1949 - JOSE ONG v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    083 Phil 834

  • G.R. No. L-2130 May 30, 1949 - FRANCISCO SANCHEZ v. PEDRO SERRANO

    083 Phil 838

  • G.R. No. L-2132 May 30, 1949 - JUAN SAVINADA v. J. M. TUASON & CO.

    083 Phil 840

  • G.R. No. 49102 May 30, 1949 - W.C. OGAN v. BIBIANO L. MEER

    083 Phil 844

  • G.R. No. L-1104 May 31, 1949 - EASTERN THEATRICAL CO. v. VICTOR ALFONSO

    083 Phil 852

  • G.R. Nos. L-1264 & L-1265 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIMOTEO SAGARIO

    083 Phil 862

  • G.R. No. L-1271 May 31, 1949 - BENIGNO DEL RIO v. CARLOS PALANCA TANGUINLAY

    083 Phil 867

  • G.R. No. L-1281 May 31, 1949 - JOSEPH E. ICARD v. CITY COUNCIL OF BAGUIO

    083 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. L-1298 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO SANTOS BALINGIT

    083 Phil 877

  • G.R. No. L-1299 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JACOB J. LOEWINSOHN

    083 Phil 882

  • G.R. No. L-1827 May 31, 1949 - ALFREDO CATOLICO v. IRINEO RANJO

    083 Phil 885

  • G.R. No. L-1927 May 31, 1949 - CRISTOBAL ROÑO v. JOSE L. GOMEZ

    083 Phil 890

  • G.R. No. L-1952 May 31, 1949 - FRANCISCO R. VlLLAROMAN v. FLORENTINO J. TECHICO

    083 Phil 901

  • G.R. No. L-2108 May 31, 1949 - PAMPANGA BUS CO. v. LUIS G. ABLAZA

    083 Phil 905

  • G.R. No. L-2252 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BARTOLOME BEDIA

    083 Phil 909

  • G.R. No. L-2253 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERVANDO MANIEGO

    083 Phil 916

  • G.R. No. L-2283 May 31, 1949 - MARINA TAYZON and FLORDELIZA G. ANGELES v. RAMON YCASIANO

    083 Phil 921

  • G.R. No. L-2326 May 31, 1949 - FERNANDO ALEJO v. MARIANO GARCHITORENA

    083 Phil 924

  • G.R. No. L-2351 May 31, 1949 - FRANCISCO ARGOS v. DOMINADOR VELOSO

    083 Phil 929

  • G.R. No. L-2377 May 31, 1949 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JUSTA G. VDA. DE GUIDO

    083 Phil 934

  • G.R. No. L-2450 May 31, 1949 - VERONICA RUPERTO v. CEFERINO FERNANDO

    083 Phil 943