Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1954 > July 1954 Decisions > G.R. No. L-6585 July 16, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO LIBRIA

095 Phil 398:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-6585. July 16, 1954.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PEDRO LIBRIA, Defendant-Appellant.

Felix D. Agcaoili for Appellant.

Solicitor General Juan R. Liwag and Solicitor Antonio A. Torres for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES; OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MAY MITIGATE LIABILITY, UNDER ART. 13, PAR. 4, REVISED PENAL CODE. — Inasmuch as the killing was done several days after the wrong committed upon the accused by the deceased, it may not be considered as sufficient provocation that "immediately preceded" the act, under Art. 13, par. 4; or that the accused acted upon an impulse so powerful as to have produced passion and obfuscation under the same article, paragraph 6, of the Revised Penal Code. However, it is not difficult to see that the victim’s boxing the accused during a dance and in the presence of so many people, and he, an ex-soldier and ex-member of a military organization and unit, well-known and respected, undoubtedly produced rancour in the breast of the accused, who must have felt deeply insulted; and to vindicate himself and appease his self-respect, he committed the crime. The mitigation may well be found under paragraph 10 of the same article.


D E C I S I O N


MONTEMAYOR, J.:


Pedro Libria is appealing from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, finding him guilty of murder with the aggravating circumstance of treachery, and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of Jaime Idloy in the amount of P4,000, and to pay costs.

For the killing of Jaime Idloy, appellant Libria and Esteban Campo were originally accused of murder. Before trial, however, Campo was discharged from the information to be utilized as a witness for the Government.

We have carefully examined the evidence in this case and we agree with the trial court that the guilt of the appellant has been established beyond reasonable doubt. Briefly, the facts are as follows. During the fiesta of the barrio of Buri, municipality of Alang-alang, Leyte, and while a game of monte was being played, Jaime Idloy believing that Esteban Campo was keeping the tong collections, asked him for some money. Campo turned down the request, saying that he was not the tong collector and keeper, and Idloy boxed him. The same evening during a dance Idloy also boxed appellant Libria. From all this it would appear that Idloy was not exactly a peaceful citizen but rather was a bully, resorting to the use of force at the least or without any provocation.

About two weeks thereafter, or rather in the evening of June 12, 1950, Libria carrying a carbine, went to the house of Campo in the barrio of Buri. Campo and his wife Teofila Resano received him and he invited Campo to accompany him to look for Idloy to settle their differences; in other words, to avenge the wrong and injury he had committed against the two of them during the barrio fiesta and dance. Campo accompanied him on his mission of revenge, according to him, because of fear. However, it is not unreasonable to believe that he was not exactly averse to getting even with Idloy and so consented to go with Libria. In the barrio of Lingayon, they found or rather Libria found Idloy in the house of Paulino Verzosa, lying and stretched on a bench. The two remained in the yard below, Campo hiding behind a coconut tree and Libria seeking cover in a banana grove, watching. Soon Idloy got up from the bench and went down the house. Appellant was ready for him and as the victim was on the stairs and about to step on the ground Libria fired his carbine, the bullet piercing his two arms as well as the chest. Idloy collapsed to the ground and Libria fired a second shot again hitting him in the lower part of the trunk and fracturing the sacral bone. Idloy died almost instantly. It was an exhibition of sharp and accurate shooting, and it was not strange, because Libria was an ex-soldier of the Philippine Scouts. The actual shooting was witnessed and testified to by Campo, and the invitation to go out and take revenge upon Idloy was established by the testimony not only of Campo but also of his wife. The motive for the killing — revenge, has been sufficiently proved and already stated.

Appellant naturally, denied any participation in the murder and tried to establish an alibi, saying that in the evening of June 12, 1950, he was busy making copra in the house of one Pedrero, and at 11 :00 p.m. he was at a drinking party in the house of his witness Eleuterio Brando. The trial court did not give credence to this story and neither are we inclined to do so. Although the testimony of Campo as to the shooting is not entirely above suspicion, coming as it does from a polluted source because he was originally included in the information and he at least gave moral support to the killing, and the testimony of his wife about the invitation made by Libria may not be entirely impartial, still we find that appellant’s presence at the scene of the killing and his being identified with the shooting, to have been definitely established, thereby precluding acceptance of the defense of alibi.

As already stated, the trial court found appellant guilty of murder, the killing being qualified by evident premeditation, and aggravated by treachery, and sentenced him only to reclusion perpetua. The Solicitor General believes that the penalty for murder should have been imposed in its maximum degree namely, Death. The killing is not entirely without mitigation. Strictly speaking, inasmuch it was done several days after the wrong (boxing) committed on the appellant by the deceased, it may not be considered as sufficient provocation that "immediately preceded" the act, under Art. 13, paragraph 4; or that appellant acted upon an impulse so powerful as to have produced passion and obfuscation under the same article, paragraph 6, of the Penal Code. However, it is not difficult to see that Idloy’s boxing appellant during a dance and in the presence of so many people, and he, an ex-soldier and ex-member of a military organization and unit, well-known and respected, undoubtedly produced rancour in the breast of Libria who must have left deeply insulted; and to vindicate himself and appease his self-respect, he committed the crime. The mitigation may well be found under paragraph 10 of the same article which reads —

"And, finally, any other circumstance of a similar nature and analogous to those above mentioned."cralaw virtua1aw library

Finding no error in the decision appealed from, the same is hereby affirmed, with costs.

Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion and Reyes, J.B.L., 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






July-1954 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-6087 July 14, 1954 - LUCIA MISE v. MERCEDES RODRIGUEZ

    095 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. L-6585 July 16, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO LIBRIA

    095 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. L-7325 July 16, 1954 - MACARIO ENRIQUEZ, ET AL. v. ALEJANDRO PANLILIO, ET AL.

    095 Phil 402

  • G.R. No. L-5416 July 26, 1954 - ALFREDO MONTELIBANO v. BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO.

    095 Phil 407

  • G.R. No. L-6354 July 26, 1954 - EPIFANIO FARRALES v. ANTONIO FUENTECILLA, ET AL.

    095 Phil 417

  • G.R. No. L-6657 July 26, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANIEL GALAPON, ET AL.

    095 Phil 425

  • G.R. No. L-7013 July 26, 1954 - ELISEO FERNANDO v. ENRIQUE MAGLANOC, ETC., ET AL.

    095 Phil 431

  • G.R. No. L-7254 July 26, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOMAS BUAMA, ET AL.

    095 Phil 435

  • G.R. No. L-7598 July 26, 1954 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. DEMETRIO ENCARNACION, ET AL.

    095 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. L-6671 July 27, 1954 - ESTANISLAO DE LA CRUZ v. APOLINARIO DEL PILAR

    095 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. L-7043 July 27, 1954 - LORENZO SIA v. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF RIZAL, ET AL.

    095 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. L-4301 July 29, 1954 - MAXIMO OMANDAM v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    095 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. L-6327 July 29, 1954 - BENJAMIN BUYCO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

    095 Phil 453

  • G.R. No. L-6407 July 29, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PASCUAL CASTRO

    095 Phil 462

  • G.R. No. L-6445 July 29, 1954 - TOMAS BAGALAY v. GENARO URSAL

    095 Phil 473

  • G.R. Nos. L-6687 y L-6688 July 29, 1954 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ANG CHO KIO

    095 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. L-6600 July 30, 1954 - JUAN BONSATO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    095 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. L-6663 July 30, 1954 - REMIGIO PILLADO, ET AL. v. ESTELA FRANCISCO DE LASALA, ET AL.

    095 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. L-6772 July 30, 1954 - ANTONIO UY v. JOSE RODRIGUEZ

    095 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. L-7220 July 30, 1954 - TEODORO VAÑO v. HIPOLITO ALO

    095 Phil 495

  • G.R. Nos. L-3087 & L-3088 July 31, 1954 - IN RE: SILVINO SUNTAY v. FEDERICO C. SUNTAY

    095 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. L-5577 July 31, 1954 - H. E. HEACOCK CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION, ET AL.

    095 Phil 553

  • G.R. No. L-6335 July 31, 1954 - GLICERIA ROSETE v. PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF ZAMBALES, ET AL.

    095 Phil 560

  • G.R. No. L-6552 July 31, 1954 - JULITA R. VILLAREAL, ET AL. v. JUAN FRANCO

    095 Phil 565

  • G.R. No. L-6574 July 31, 1954 - GOOD DAY TRADING CORPORATION v. BOARD OF TAX APPEALS

    095 Phil 569

  • G.R. No. L-6768 July 31, 1954 - SALUD R. ARCA, ET AL. v. ALFREDO JAVIER

    095 Phil 579

  • G.R. No. L-7021 July 31, 1954 - JOSEPH FELDMAN v. DEMETRIO ENCARNACION, ET AL.

    095 Phil 588

  • G.R. No. L-7364 July 31, 1954 - MARCELA DIONISIO v. ROSARIO JIMENEZ, ET AL.

    095 Phil 594

  • G.R. No. L-7524 July 31, 1954 - GASPAR M. LLAMAS v. SEGUNDO MOSCOSO, ET AL.

    095 Phil 599

  • G.R. No. L-7662 July 31, 1954 - MAXIMINO COMETA v. WENCESLAO ANDANAR

    095 Phil 604

  • G.R. No. L-7691 July 31, 1954 - EDILBERTO ESGUERRA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, ET AL.

    095 Phil 609