G.R. No. L‑5190
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff‑appellee, vs. JOSE CONSUELO, defendant‑appellant

—

FACTS: – On 7 December 1908, Rosa Reposar was killed in her home by her husband, Jose Consuelo, who attacked her with a bolo, inflicting a neck wound and two chest wounds.
– The crime was discovered by relatives who found Rosa’s body; the accused was seen leaving the scene, blood‑stained, and later turned himself in at the municipal building, voluntarily confessing to the police.
– Prior to the murder, Consuelo had been convicted of “ill‑treatment and threats” against Rosa and, while serving a fifteen‑day sentence, repeatedly expressed intent to kill her.
– The child‑witness, his ten‑year‑old son Marcelo, testified that his father had been sharpening the bolo on the night of the murder.
– The provincial fiscal charged Consuelo with parricide (Art. 402, Revised Penal Code) with premeditation, treachery and cruelty as aggravating circumstances, and the trial court sentenced him to death, ₱ 500 indemnity, and, if pardoned, the accessory penalties of Art. 53.

ISSUE: Whether the conviction and the imposition of the death penalty (the higher of the two indivisible penalties under Art. 402) with the attendant indemnity and accessory penalties are legally warranted given the factual findings and the applicable provisions of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING: – The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
– It held that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Consuelo personally and intentionally killed his lawful wife, satisfying the elements of parricide.
– The existence of premeditation (evidenced by prior threats, the sharpening of the weapon, and his own admissions) and abuse of superiority (use of a lethal weapon against an unarmed spouse) constituted aggravating circumstances under Art. 80, Rule 1 of the Penal Code.
– No mitigating circumstance was shown. Accordingly, the appropriate penalty is the higher indivisible penaltydeathwith the accessory penalties of Art. 53 and an indemnity of ₱ 1,000 to the heirs, payable in addition to costs.
– The Court ordered the execution of the death sentence in accordance with Acts Nos. 451 and 1577, subject to any future pardon.

Concurrence: Arellano, C.J., and Justices Johnson, Carson, and Moreland.