Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1951 > May 1951 Decisions > G.R. No. L-3002 May 23, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANICETO MARTIN

089 Phil 18:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-3002. May 23, 1951.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANICETO MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant.

E. L. Peralta for Appellant.

Solicitor General Felix Bautista Angelo and Solicitor Ramon L. Avanceña for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; LIABILITY FOR CONSEQUENCES OF ONE’S ACTS; ILLNESS OF VICTIM DOES NOT RELIEVE ACCUSED FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY. — A person is responsible for the consequences of his criminal act, and even if the deceased had been shown to be suffering from a diseased heart (which was not shown), appellant’s assault being the proximate cause of the death, he would be responsible. (U. S. v. Luciano, 2 Phil. 96; U. S. v. Lugo and Lugo, 8 Phil. 80; U. S. v. Brobst, 14 Phil. 310; U. S. v. Rodriquez, 23 Phil. 22.)

2. ID.; MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES. — When there is unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased without sufficient provocation by the defendant, but the latter uses means not reasonably necessary, there is incomplete self-defense on the part of the defendant, which may be considered a mitigating circumstance.


D E C I S I O N


JUGO, J.:


Aniceto Martin was accused of the complex crime of parricide with abortion before the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte. After trial he was acquitted of abortion, but found guilty of parricide and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P2,000, with the accessory penalties of the law, and to pay the costs. He appealed.

We shall not consider the charge of abortion as he was acquitted of it, confining our review to that of parricide.

The defendant, twenty-eight years old, a farmer, was living in the barrio No. 12 of the municipality of Laoag, Ilocos Norte. He courted the girl Laura Luiz of the same barrio for several months and was accepted. They had sexual intercourse before marriage and she became pregnant. In an advanced stage of pregnancy, she came to live with the family of the defendant and demanded marriage, which was duly solemnized on June 7, 1948, and they continued to live as husband and wife.

Between four and five o’clock in the morning of August 1, 1948, the corpse of Laura was found inside the family toilet, which was at a certain distance from their home, with a maguey rope, six meters long and one centimeter in diameter, around her neck, leaving a circular mark around it with the exception of the nape which was unmarked undoubtedly due to her long and thick hair covering it. The corpse was first seen by Anselma Martin, sister of the accused, who was living in the same house, and Saturnino Tumaneng, brother-in-law of Laura, who happened to be passing by. The defendant was absent from home.

The barrio lieutenant immediately reported the matter to the chief of police who, accompanied by a policeman, came to the barrio that same morning to make an investigation. When the chief of police arrived, the defendant had not yet returned home. A relative looked for him, finding him in a farm which was at a considerable distance from the defendant’s house, and brought him to the latter. Upon being interrogated by the police officer, the defendant at first denied any knowledge of the event, but later promised to make a statement in the municipal building.

The police took possession of the rope and put the defendant in a jeep bound for the municipal building. There the defendant made a confession in the Ilocano language, which he signed and swore to at about noon before the provincial fiscal at the latter’s house. Said confession, as translated into English, reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"I, Aniceto Martin, married, 27 years old, resident of Bo. No. 12, Laoag, Ilocos Norte, after having been sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby declare the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Policeman: — Why are you here in the office of the Chief of Police of Laoag, Ilocos Norte, this 1st day of August, 1948?

"Aniceto: — I am here, sir, in the office of the Chief of Police of Laoag as I came to report what I did to my wife, Laura Luiz, because I killed her and the killing was perpetrated as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That at dawn, today August 1, 1948, at about 4 o’clock, I awoke and my wife also awoke and she said to me, ’Why is it that you seem to have no interest in me?’, and I answered her I do not have interest in you and I did not love you with intent to marry you because I am not the author of your pregnancy; again she said to me, ’Why is it that you consented to be wedded with me if you did not love me?’, and in answer, I again told her that I merely consented to be married to you, because otherwise, you would file an action against me, I then went down to our closet west of our house at barrio No. 12, Laoag, Ilocos Norte, for major personal necessity, and my wife, Laura Luiz, came after me to the toilet with a rope in her hands and, as she approached me while I was in the very act of ejecting waste matters inside the toilet she placed around my neck the rope which she had in her hands, and immediately, I gripped the rope and took it off and I said, ’Why did you do this?’ my wife also said, ’Yes, because you do not love me.’ I snatched the rope from my wife and in turn I placed same around her neck, and in that position I tightened the rope with my two hands and when my wife, Laura Luiz, died I laid her then and there at the foot of the door of our closet with her head towards the east. Soon after my wife expired I left her already and I proceeded to the country where we use to go, barrio Barit, No. 55, Laoag, west of the barrio school thereat.

"Q. How did you place the rope around the neck of your wife, Laura Luis, for which reason she died? — A. I wound the rope one turn around the neck of my wife, Laura Luiz, and my two hands tightened the rope and when she expired I laid her at the foot of the door of the toilet and then I went away.

"Q. The rope which you used in throttling your wife, where is it? — A. It was just laid down at the place where she was, sir.

"Q. Who knows about and who saw what had you done to your wife which caused her death? — A. Nobody knows about it and saw it, sir, I, alone.

"Q. Is it not true that the reason why you killed your wife was that you made a preconcerted plan with your sister, Anselma Martin and your mother, Ciriaca Tomas to commit the crime? — A. No, sir, I have no companion, I am alone.

"Q. Why did you treat your wife in that way? — A. I became obfuscated, sir, when she placed the rope around my neck, and in turn, I tried the same in her person but, in so trying she died.

"Q. Are you, therefore, very positive that the death of your wife. Laura Luiz, was caused by you in having tightened the rope that was wound around her neck? — A. Yes, sir, that was the cause of her death, I have no doubt that I was the one who killed my wife, Laura Luiz, today August 1, 1948. I killed her in our toilet at barrio No. 12, Laoag.

"Q. Have you some more to say? — A. I say, no more, sir.

"Q. Were you, in any manner compelled, threatened, maltreated or remunerated by somebody in having made this declaration of yours? — A. Absolutely, there was none, sir, that compelled me, but I spontaneously made my declaration above, it being the whole truth that I committed against my wife, Laura Luiz.

"Q. Are you willing to sign your name at the bottom and at the margin of your declaration? — A. Willingly, sir, because said declaration is what in truth and in fact I did, and in testimony hereof, I sign my name in the presence of attending witnesses this 1st day of August, 1948, at Laoag, Ilocos Norte."cralaw virtua1aw library

Dr. Roman de la Cuesta, resident physician of the Ilocos Norte Provincial Hospital, performed an autopsy on the corpse of Laura and issued a certificate which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"This is to certify that the undersigned performed an autopsy on the person one Laura Luiz Martin, on August 1, 1948, at 9 o’clock a. m. at the request of the Chief of Police of Laoag, Ilocos Norte, with the following findings:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(a) Acute dilatation, heart

"(b) Spleen, enlarged, malarial

"(c) Pregnancy, 8 month, female foetus

"(d) Almost circular contusion around the neck, but absent in the occipital region

"(e) No evidence of strangulation in the lungs.

"In the opinion of the undersigned the cause of death was acute dilatation of the heart. (Heart failure.)"

Dr. De la Cuesta testified that Laura must have died five or six hours before he examined her corpse at about nine o’clock in the morning of August 1; that the cause of death Was heart failure due to fright or shock; that the deceased was eight months pregnant at the time of her death; that there was no expulsion of the foetus; and that the foetus must have been alive at the time of the death of Laura.

At the trial the defendant testified that while he was moving his bowels in the toilet with his back toward the door of the same, he felt that a rope was being put around his neck from behind. He forthwith snatched the rope and wound it around the neck of the person who had attempted to strangle him without knowing who that person was. The person fell and upon looking at the same he found that it was his wife.

This version cannot be believed, for although it was dark, his wife must have shouted or given some sign of who she was when she felt the rope tightening around her neck. Furthermore, this version is against that freely given by him in his spontaneous confession made before the chief of police and sworn to before the provincial fiscal. There is no reason for supposing that either the chief of police or the provincial fiscal had any motive for wringing from him a forced false confession.

As to the motive of the defendant, it may be found in the fact that the defendant married Laura unwillingly due to fear of being sued, because he suspected that he was not responsible for her pregnancy.

The appellant contends that the death of Laura was not due to the strangling, but to her heart disease. It should be noted, however, that the heart failure was due to the fright or shock caused by the strangling, and consequently, the defendant was responsible for the death, notwithstanding the fact that the victim was already sick. Had not the defendant strangled the deceased, the latter, notwithstanding her illness, would not have died. In other words, the defendant directly caused her death.

In the case of People v. Reyes (61 Phil. 341, 343,) the Court held:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . A person is responsible for the consequences of his criminal act and even if the deceased had been shown to be suffering from a diseased heart (which was not shown), appellant’s assault being the proximate cause of the death, he would be responsible. (U. S. v. Luciano, 2 Phil., 96; U. S. v. Lugo & Lugo, 8 Phil., 80; U. S. v. Brobst, 14 Phil. 310; U. S. v. Rodriquez, 23 Phil. 22.)"

In the case of U. S. v. Brobst (14 Phil. 310), the following doctrine was established:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Where death results as the direct consequence of the use of illegal violence, the mere fact that the diseased or weakened condition of the injured person contributed to his death, does not relieve the illegal aggressor of criminal responsibility." (Syllabus)

The trial court considered two mitigating circumstances in favor of the defendant: (1) that of unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased without any sufficient provocation on the part of the defendant — which in this case is equivalent to incomplete self- defense on the part of the defendant, for after having snatched the rope from the deceased, he should not have wound it around her neck and tightened it — and (2) the lack of instruction, without any aggravating circumstance to offset them. We agree with this finding of the trial court. There being two mitigating circumstances without any aggravating circumstance to offset them, the penalty next lower in degree should be imposed, which is that of reclusion temporal.

In view of the foregoing, the judgment appealed from is modified by imposing upon the appellant the penalty of from twelve (12) years of prision mayor to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, with the accessory penalties of the law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P6,000, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. It is so ordered.

Paras, C.J., Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason and Motemayor, JJ., concur.

PARAS, C.J. :


Mr. Justice Padilla voted with the majority.




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-1951 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-4638 May 8, 1951 - TOMAS L. CABILI, ET AL. v. VICENTE FRANCISCO, ET AL.

    088 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. L-2926 May 11, 1951 - PAZ JARIN, ET AL. v. DANIEL SARINAS, ET AL.

    088 Phil 660

  • G.R. No. L-3254 May 11, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO NATE, ET AL.

    088 Phil 663

  • G.R. No. L-2260 May 14, 1951 - HONORATO DE VERA v. JOSE C. FERNANDEZ

    088 Phil 668

  • G.R. No. L-2843 May 14, 1951 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. BENITO GUHITING, ET AL.

    088 Phil 672

  • G.R. Nos. L-3112 & L-3113 May 14, 1951 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. SEVERINO NOLASCO

    088 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. L-2236 May 16, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BLAS CRUZ

    088 Phil 684

  • G.R. No. L-3047 May 16, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUADALUPE ZAPATA, ET AL.

    088 Phil 688

  • G.R. Nos. L-3248 & L-3249 May 16, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO AGUILAR

    088 Phil 693

  • G.R. No. L-3321 May 16, 1951 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. PAZ E. DE LA CRUZ

    088 Phil 699

  • G.R. No. L-3824 May 16, 1951 - BENJAMIN v. HON. MARIANO C. MELENDRES

    088 Phil 703

  • G.R. No. L-2464 May 18, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO AGUILA

    088 Phil 711

  • G.R. No. L-2755 May 18, 1951 - JOHNNY CHAUSINTEK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    088 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. L-3345 May 18, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS S. TAPANG

    088 Phil 721

  • G.R. Nos. L-3386 & L-3387 May 18, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO IBALI

    088 Phil 724

  • G.R. No. L-3497 May 18, 1951 - VALENTINA CUEVAS v. PILAR ACHACOSO

    088 Phil 730

  • G.R. No. L-3987 May 18, 1951 - JOHNLO TRADING COMPANY v. JOSE P. FLORES, ET AL.

    088 Phil 741

  • G.R. No. L-4459 May 18, 1951 - JOHNLO TRADING COMPANY v. JOSE C. ZULUETA

    088 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. L-2311 May 21, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN NADURATA

    088 Phil 754

  • G.R. No. L-2525 May 21, 1951 - MARY BURKE DESBARATS, ET AL. v. TOMAS DE VERA

    088 Phil 762

  • G.R. No. L-3099 May 21, 1951 - CIPRIANA GONZALES v. PURIFICACION, ET AL.

    088 Phil 770

  • G.R. No. L-3325 May 21, 1951 - FELIX BARRACA v. SOCORRO ZAYCO

    088 Phil 774

  • G.R. No. L-3537 May 21, 1951 - SISENANDO ARGUIETA, ET AL. v. VICENTE CORCUERA, ET AL.

    088 Phil 777

  • G.R. No. L-2155 May 23, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAKADATO ALAMADA

    089 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-1687 May 23, 1951 - CIPRIANO KING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    089 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. L-2834 May 23, 1951 - ENCARNACION CAPARAS v. NICASIO YATCO

    089 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. L-2956 May 23, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELEUTERIO ICARO

    089 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. L-2998 May 23, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOAQUIN FLAVIER

    089 Phil 15

  • G.R. No. L-3002 May 23, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANICETO MARTIN

    089 Phil 18

  • G.R. No. L-3324 May 23, 1951 - QUINCIANO ISAAC v. TACHUAN LEONG

    089 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. L-3430 May 23, 1951 - PAZ E. SIGUION v. GO TECSON

    089 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-3495 May 23, 1951 - ISIDORE FALEK v. NATIVIDAD GANDIONGCO DE SINGSON

    089 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. L-3549 May 23, 1951 - BERNARDO P. TIMBOL v. MARIA KABAKAW

    089 Phil 36

  • G.R. No. L-3561 May 23, 1951 - CESAR REYES v. AGRIPINO ZABALLERO

    089 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. L-3621 May 23, 1951 - DOMINGO T. DIKIT v. RAMON A. YCASIANO

    089 Phil 44

  • G.R. No. L-3694 May 23, 1951 - LIBERTY CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY CO. v. POTENCIANO PECSON

    089 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. L-2294 May 25, 1951 - FILIPINAS COMPAÑIA DE SEGUROS v. CHRISTERN

    089 Phil 54

  • G.R. No. L-1594 May 28, 1951 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. HONORIO CABILING

    089 Phil 60

  • G.R. No. L-1967 May 28, 1951 - MATILDE MENCIANO v. PAZ NERI SAN JOSE

    089 Phil 63

  • G.R. No. L-2645 May 28, 1951 - IN RE: ALFONSO R. LIM SO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    089 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. L-2695 May 28, 1951 - FERMIN TABANDA v. COURT OF APPEALS

    089 Phil 76

  • G.R. No. L-2841 May 28, 1951 - PINDAÑGAN AGRICULTURAL Co. v. LUDOVICO ESTRADA

    089 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. L-2847 May 28, 1951 - MAXIMINO VALDEZ v. MAGDALENA MENDOZA

    089 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-2959 May 28, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELO ALMAZORA

    089 Phil 87

  • G.R. Nos. L-3267 & L-3268 May 28, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE SABADO

    089 Phil 92

  • G.R. No. L-3339 May 28, 1951 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. CRISPIN RODILLAS

    089 Phil 99

  • G.R. No. L-3490 May 28, 1951 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FILEMON CARLON

    089 Phil 105

  • G.R. Nos. L-4053-55 May 28, 1951 - LA PAZ ICE PLANT & COLD STORAGE CO. v. COMISION DE UTILIDADES PUBLICAS

    089 Phil 109

  • G.R. No. L-4143 May 28, 1951 - SIXTO PAÑGILINAN v. EMILIO PEÑA

    089 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. L-1743 May 29, 1951 - DOMINADOR NICOLAS v. VICENTA MATIAS

    089 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. L-1162 May 30, 1951 - IN RE: ROSARIO DIA v. JUAN ZUÑIGA

    089 Phil 129

  • G.R. No. L-1364 May 30, 1951 - LOO SOO and VY LIONG LEE v. DONATO OSORIO

    089 Phil 135

  • G.R. No. L-1866 May 30, 1951 - QUIRINO RANJO v. LEONITA PAYOMO

    089 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. L-2100 May 30, 1951 - GERARDO VASQUEZ v. PATROCINIO GARCIA

    089 Phil 152

  • G.R. No. L-2263 May 30, 1951 - PAZ Y. OCAMPO v. CONRADO POTENCIANO

    089 Phil 159

  • G.R. No. L-2474 May 30, 1951 - MARIANO ANDAL v. EDUVIGIS MACARAIG

    089 Phil 165

  • G.R. No. L-2552 May 30, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO DIWA

    089 Phil 170

  • G.R. No. L-2586 May 30, 1951 - ANITA TOMACRUZ v. BEATRIZ B. VALERO

    089 Phil 177

  • G.R. No. L-2664 May 30, 1951 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. GAN TAN

    089 Phil 184

  • G.R. No. L-2715 May 30, 1951 - TERESA ALBERTO v. CASIMIRO MANANGHALA

    089 Phil 188

  • G.R. No. L-2819 May 30, 1951 - MARCIANA ESCOTO v. BENITO M. ARCILLA

    089 Phil 199

  • G.R. No. L-2872 May 30, 1951 - MELECIO ARCEO v. ANDRES VARELA

    089 Phil 212

  • G.R. No. L-3004 May 30, 1951 - BENITA TOMIAS v. CONRADO TOMIAS

    089 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. L-3411 May 30, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENGRACIO ARLATINCO

    089 Phil 220

  • G.R. Nos. L-3491-93 May 30, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO HAMIANA

    089 Phil 225

  • G.R. No. L-3510 May 30, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANIEL MAGNAYE

    089 Phil 233

  • G.R. No. L-4179 May 30, 1951 - CRISANTO DE BORJA v. DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION

    089 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. L-4663 May 30, 1951 - FERDINAND E. MARCOS v. CHIEF OF STAFF

    089 Phil 246

  • G.R. No. L-4670 May 30, 1951 - NICANOR MARONILLA-SEVA v. LORENZO B. ANDRADA

    089 Phil 252