GR L 5749; (October, 1910) (Digest)
G.R. No. L‑5749
October 21, 1910
The United States (plaintiff‑appellee) v. Ponciano Esmedia & Mena Esmedia (defendants‑appellants)
—
FACTS
– The Abando family (Ciriaco, his wife, and son Santiago) owned a rice field adjacent to the Esmedia family (Gregorio, father of the accused, brother‑in‑law of Ciriaco).
– A long‑standing dispute over the ownership of the rice field existed.
– On 24 June 1909, while Santiago was draining water from the field as instructed by his father, Gregorio Esmedia attacked him, stabbing Santiago in the back. Santiago retaliated with a bolo, wounding Gregorio.
– The fight was ending when the two accused brothers, Ponciano and Mena, rushed to the scene to aid their father.
– Believing, in good faith, that Santiago would continue to attack their dying father, the brothers killed Santiago.
– Ciriaco, an 80‑year‑old man who arrived after the fight had ceased, was struck by the brothers and died instantly.
– The trial court sentenced both brothers to 12 years + 1 day of reclusion temporal and ordered them jointly and severally to pay ₱1,000 each to the heirs of Ciriaco and Santiago.
ISSUES
1. Whether the killing of Santiago Abando is exempt from criminal liability under Article 8, No. 5 of the Penal Code (defense of a person in immediate danger).
2. Whether the killing of Ciriaco Abando constitutes homicide, and if so, what aggravating or mitigating circumstances apply.
RULING
1. Exemption for Santiago’s death The Court held that the brothers acted in defense of their father, who was mortally wounded and they had a reasonable and honest belief that Santiago would continue his assault. Under Article 8, No. 5, the killing of Santiago is exempt from criminal responsibility; consequently, the brothers are relieved from the indemnity to Santiago’s heirs.
2. Liability for Ciriaco’s death Ciriaco was an unarmed, elderly man who entered the scene after the original quarrel had ended; the brothers killed him without any imminent threat to themselves.
– The act is therefore qualified homicide.
– The Court applied Article 10, No. 20 (aggravating circumstance for killing a person of advanced age) and rejected the claim of extenuation under Article 9, No. 7, because the provocation came from Santiago, not Ciriaco.
– The aggravating circumstance was mitigated by the defendants’ ignorance under Article 11 of the Penal Code.
3. Sentence The original conviction is affirmed, but the penalty is increased to 14 years, 8 months + 1 day of reclusion temporal (plus accessory penalties). The exemption for Santiago’s death stands, eliminating any liability for payment to his heirs.
—
Bottom line: Ponciano and Mena Esmedia are exempt from liability for the death of Santiago Abando (defense of a person in danger) but are criminally liable for the homicide of Ciriaco Abando, sentenced to 14 years 8 months + 1 day of reclusion temporal with the appropriate accessory penalties.