Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1953 > May 1953 Decisions > G.R. Nos. L-5363 & L-5364 May 27, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAIWAN LUCAS

093 Phil 203:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. Nos. L-5363 & L-5364. May 27, 1953.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAIWAN LUCAS, Defendant-Appellant.

First Assistant Solicitor General Roberto A. Ganzon and Solicitor Pacifico P. de Castro for Appellee.

Arturo Miranda, Jr., for Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CONCEALMENT, INDICATIVE OF GUILT. — Departure from the place of crime and concealment for more than a year are indicative of his guilty conscience.


D E C I S I O N


PARAS, J.:


This is an appeal by the defendant, Daiwan Lucas, from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Cotabato, finding him guilty of two separate murders and sentencing him (a) for the killing of Ali Baguilan to 20 years of reclusion temporal, with legal accessories, and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P3,000, plus the costs, and (b) for the killing of Baguilan Impol to 20 years of reclusion temporal, with the accessories of the law, and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P3,000, plus the costs.

At about 10:30 in the morning of December 26, 1946, while Baguilan Impol and Ali Baguilan were walking in the vicinity of the provincial building in Cotabato, Cotabato, they were fired upon by the appellant with a pistol, as a result of which both fell down on the street. This was witnessed by Onsing Mangalem, who was then resting near the provincial building on his return from the high school two kilometers away and who, upon hearing the first shot, still saw the appellant firing at his victims. At the same time Salik Hadji Abubakar, son-in-law of Baguilan Impol, happened to be nearby and, after investigation, saw his father-in-law lying on the ground. Whereupon, Abubakar rushed to his side and no sooner had he lifted the wounded man than appellant’s father (Moro Lucas) attempted to strike Abubakar with an iron bar, but the blow intended for his target landed on Baguilan Impol. Moro Lucas again failed in a second attempt to strike Abubakar who, upon the other hand, was able to stab the former repeatedly with a dagger, as a consequence of which Moro Lucas died. Abubakar also found Ali Baguilan flat on the ground, but did not see the appellant in the act of discharging his pistol, though Abubakar saw him carrying the weapon. Baguilan Impol and Ali Baguilan were brought to the Cotabato Public Hospital where the first died at about 1:50 p.m. on December 29, 1946, and the second at about 5:45 p.m. on December 28, 1946. According to the examining physician, they received the following wounds:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"On Baguilan Simpod (Impol):jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. Wound, gunshot, 8 mm., left molar region, penetrating side of maxillary bone, left, and disarticulating upper molar teeth, crossing vocal cavity, hitting and fracturing completely right lower jaw and another impact fracture of right anterior left lower jaw and exit wound, 1 1/2 cm. right lower chin, beneath the right end of lip.

"2. Wound, lacerated, vertical, 1/2 cm. complete depression fracture of front temporal bone. (Wound extending inside to cranial cavity upwards.)

"3. Wound, scalp, lacerated, occipital region, 1 1/2 cm. transverse.

"4. Hematoma, conjuctival ball; left."cralaw virtua1aw library

"On Ali Baguilan:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. Wound, gunshot, entrance, 1 cm. to 1 1/2 cm., right iliac region, penetrating, lacerating small intestines (2 wounds) and passing through postero lateral abdominal right wall, bullet lodging at the buttock, right.

"2. Wound, gunshot, entrance, right upper thigh, and exit wound below it."cralaw virtua1aw library

Admitting having shot Baguilan Impol and Ali Baguilan, the appellant claims that he did so in defense of his father. His story is to the effect that as he came from school on the date in question, he found Baguilan Impol and Ali Baguilan stabbing his father, and this naturally caused him to shoot first Baguilan Impol and then Ali Baguilan; that Abubakar, another assailant, thereupon fled; and that appellant thereafter hid himself for fear that the relatives of the deceased would wreak vengeance on him.

This defense, far from being established by convincing proof, cannot overcome the positive incriminating testimony of Onsing Mangalem and Abubakar. Abubakar testified that the deceased Baguilan Impol and Ali Baguilan had no participation whatsoever in the stabbing of appellant’s father Moro Lucas, and that the latter received his fatal injuries from Abubakar in the manner already mentioned. As a matter of fact, Abubakar was subsequently acquitted of a murder charge filed against him for the killing of Moro Lucas, on the ground of self-defense. If, as alleged by appellant, Baguilan Impol and Ali Baguilan were shot in rapid succession while they were attacking Moro Lucas, the dead bodies of the three would not, as proven in this case, be far apart.

Moreover, the testimony of Onsing Mangalem that Baguilan Impol and Ali Baguilan were shot while they were walking, is corroborated by that of Abdula Omar, as well as by the dying declaration of Ali Baguilan to the effect that he and his father Baguilan Impol were walking when they were shot treacherously by the appellant. The admissibility of this dying declaration was not questioned.

The appellant presented as witnesses Kagi Adam and Ernesto Finoner to corroborate his theory. It is surprising, however, that Kagi Adam failed to volunteer as a defense witness in the trial for murder of his acquaintance, Guialil Guiaman, it appearing that the latter was so prosecuted because he was mentioned by Ali Baguilan as the companion of appellant. If Guiaman was ultimately freed, it was only after the appellant had surrendered and confessed having shot Baguilan Impol and his son Ali Baguilan.

The testimony of Ernesto Finoner in a way supports the theory of the prosecution, since his allegation that he saw two men attacking another with daggers, must have referred to the fact that, while Abubakar was trying to lift his father-in-law, Baguilan Impol, from the ground, Moro Lucas was hitting with an iron bar, the witness Finoner being obviously led to believe that Abubakar was also attacking his fallen father-in-law. The circumstance that the deceased Moro Lucas was shown to have been unhurt on the head likewise negatives appellant’s claim that Ali Baguilan struck the head of Moro Lucas with a bolo. Upon the other hand, the physician’s finding that Baguilan Impol also had cerebral concussion and contusion corroborates the testimony of Abubakar that it was Baguilan Impol who received the blow intended for Abubakar by Moro Lucas with an iron bar. Appellant’s guilty conscience is further indicated when he fled and concealed himself for more than a year, even before knowing what was to be the fate of his father during the incident in question.

It is unnecessary to dwell at length on the motive of the killing herein charged, in view of the admitted authorship by the appellant of the fatal assault and the way this was carried out as established by the direct testimony of eyewitnesses. And yet there is indication in the record that there was bad blood between appellant’s group and that of his victims. Neither does the fact that the witnesses for the prosecution are related to the deceased, destroy the case fully established by the prosecution, especially because, if there were in fact other disinterested witnesses, there is no showing that they were not also available to or could not have been presented by the defense.

The judgment of conviction is correct, but as no modifying circumstance has been proved herein, the proper penalty for each of the two murders should be imposed in the medium period, or reclusion perpetua. It being understood, therefore, that the appellant is sentenced to reclusion perpetua for each murder, the appealed judgment is affirmed. So ordered, with costs.

Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, 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






May-1953 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-5078 May 4, 1953 - LUIS FRANCISCO v. MAXIMA VDA. DE BLAS, ET AL.

    093 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-5195 May 4, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NAPOLEON LIBRE, ET AL.

    093 Phil 5

  • G.R. No. L-3772 May 13, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAUTI LINGCUAN, ET AL.

    093 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. L-5217 May 13, 1953 - VICENTE VILORIA v. ISIDORO VILORIA

    093 Phil 15

  • G.R. No. L-5292 May 13, 1953 - PELAGIA ARANTE v. ARCADIO ROSEL

    093 Phil 18

  • G.R. No. L-5331 May 13, 1953 - NG YOUNG v. ANA VILLA

    093 Phil 21

  • G.R. No. L-4258 May 15, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO FRANCISCO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-4716 May 15, 1953 - FELICISIMA DAPITON v. NICOLAS VELOSO

    093 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. L-4847 May 15, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MOROS ANSANG

    093 Phil 44

  • G.R. No. L-5089 May 15, 1953 - JUAN MORTOS v. VICTOR ELLO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. L-5117 May 15, 1953 - IN RE: FRANCISCO ANG VELOSO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    093 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. L-5529 May 15, 1953 - FORTUNATA RAMENTO, ET AL. v. GUADALUPE COSUANGCO

    093 Phil 56

  • G.R. No. L-5594 May 15, 1953 - ATOK-BIG WEDGE MINING CO., INC. v. ATOK-BIG WEDGE MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOC.

    093 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. L-6165 May 15, 1953 - ISABELO CENTENO, v. DOLORES GALLARDO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 63

  • G.R. No. L-3708 May 18, 1953 - ROYAL L. RUTTER v. PLACIDO J. ESTEBAN

    093 Phil 68

  • G.R. No. L-4880 May 18, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUTIQUIANO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

    093 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-4565 May 20, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIO RAIZ

    093 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. L-5963 May 20, 1953 - LEYTE-SAMAR SALES CO., ET AL. v. SULPICIO V. CEA, ET AL.

    093 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. L-4376 May 22, 1953 - ASSOCIATION OF CUSTOMS BROKERS, INC. v. MUNICIPAL BOARD, ET AL.

    093 Phil 107

  • G.R. No. L-4572 May 22, 1953 - DOLORITO M. FELICIANO, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS

    093 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. L-5029 May 22, 1953 - IN RE: CHUA TIONG CHIA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    093 Phil 117

  • G.R. No. L-5829 May 22, 1953 - JOSE NONO v. RUPERTO NEQUIA y OTROS

    093 Phil 120

  • G.R. Nos. L-4517-20 May 25, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GODOFREDO ROMERO

    093 Phil 128

  • G.R. No. L-4628 May 25, 1953 - VICENTE M. JOVEN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    093 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. L-4641 May 25, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs.PEDRO JIMENEZ, ET AL.

    093 Phil 137

  • G.R. No. L-4888 May 25, 1953 - JOSE MERZA v. PEDRO LOPEZ PORRAS

    093 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-5086 May 25, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VENTURA LANAS

    093 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. L-5236 May 25, 1953 - JOSE TORRES v. HERMENEGILDA SICAT VDA. DE MORALES

    093 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. L-5677 May 25, 1953 - LA CAMPANA COFFEE FACTORY, INC., ET AL. v. KAISAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA LA CAMPANA, ET AL.

    093 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. L-6108 May 25, 1953 - FRANCISCO DE BORJA, ET AL. v. BIENVENIDO TAN, ET AL.

    093 Phil 167

  • G.R. No. L-6528 May 25, 1953 - MUNICIPALITY OF BOCAUE, ET AL. v. SEVERINO MANOTOK, ET AL.

    093 Phil 173

  • G.R. No. L-4478 May 27, 1953 - VICENTE DY SUN v. RICARDO BRILLANTES, ET AL.

    093 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. L-5127 May 27, 1953 - PEDRO BATUNGBAKAL v. NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, ET AL.

    093 Phil 182

  • G.R. No. L-5145 May 27, 1953 - FRANCISCO BASTIDA, ET AL. v. DY BUNCIO & CO. INC.

    093 Phil 195

  • G.R. Nos. L-5363 & L-5364 May 27, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAIWAN LUCAS

    093 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. L-5554 May 27, 1953 - BENITO CHUA KUY v. EVERRETT STEAMSHIP CORPORATION

    093 Phil 207

  • G.R. No. L-4177 May 29, 1953 - IN RE: YAP CHIN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    093 Phil 215

  • G.R. No. L-4433 May 29, 1953 - SALUD PATENTE v. ROMAN OMEGA

    093 Phil 218

  • G.R. No. L-4629 May 29, 1953 - JUAN D. SALVADOR, ET AL. v. GUILLERMO LOCSIN

    093 Phil 225

  • G.R. No. L-4645 May 29, 1953 - LORENZO GAUIRAN v. RUFINO SAHAGUN

    093 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. L-5184 May 29, 1953 - MACONDRAY & CO. v. CONNECTICUT FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD

    093 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. L-5282 May 29, 1953 - GERONIMO DE LOS REYES v. ARTEMIO ELEPAÑO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. L-5296 May 29, 1953 - GREGORIO ENRIQUEZ v. DONATO PEREZ

    093 Phil 246

  • G.R. No. L-5345 May 29, 1953 - COMMUNITY INVESTMENT FINANCE CORP. v. EUTIQUIANO GARCIA

    093 Phil 250

  • G.R. No. L-5406 May 29, 1953 - TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO. v. TALISAY EMPLOYEES AND LABORERS’ UNION

    093 Phil 251

  • G.R. Nos. L-5426-28 May 29, 1953 - RAMON JOAQUIN v. ANTONIO C. NAVARRO

    093 Phil 257

  • G.R. No. L-5535 May 29, 1953 - U. S. COMMERCIAL CO. v. FORTUNATO F. HALILI

    093 Phil 271

  • G.R. No. L-5567 May 29, 1953 - JUAN EVANGELISTA v. GUILLERMO MONTAÑO

    093 Phil 275

  • G.R. No. L-5601 May 29, 1953 - LEON VELEZ v. VICENTE VARELA

    093 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. L-5640 May 29, 1953 - ESTEBAN G. LAPID v. GUILLERMO CABRERA, ETC., ET AL.

    093 Phil 285

  • G.R. No. L-5783 May 29, 1953 - MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY CO. v. MANILA TRADING LABOR ASSOCIATION

    093 Phil 288

  • Adm. Case No. 72 May 30, 1953 - PLACIDO MANALO v. PEDRO N. GAN

    093 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. L-4758 May 30, 1953 - CALTEX [PHIL. ] INC. v. PHILIPPINE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS

    093 Phil 295

  • G.R. No. L-4887 May 30, 1953 - UY MATIAO & CO., INC. v. CITY OF CEBU, ET AL.

    093 Phil 300

  • G.R. No. L-5301 May 30, 1953 - LOURDES T. PAGUIO v. MARIA ROSADO DE RUIZ

    093 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. L-6121 May 30, 1953 - MANUEL S. GAMALINDA v. JOSE V. YAP

    093 Phil 310