G.R. No. 2229 : July 1, 1905

FACTS:
The defendant, Robert McMann, and the deceased, McKay, were packers employed by the U.S. Army at Camp Vicars in Mindanao. On the day of the incident, both were intoxicated. McMann was in charge of mules some distance from camp, while McKay was nearby. McKay first attempted to enter the house of a Moro, Amay Pindolonan, with a revolver in hand but was prevented. McMann later arrived and also attempted to enter, holding his revolver with the hammer cocked. McMann forcibly took a bolo from another Moro, Master, cutting his fingers. Subsequently, while McKay and Pindolonan were seated close together, McMann, who was positioned nearby, raised his pistol and shot McKay in the back of the head, killing him instantly. When Pindolonan stood up and began to run, McMann shot him as well, causing injuries that required hospitalization. McMann also killed a dog on the premises. At trial, McMann admitted firing the shot but claimed it was accidental and that he had no intention of killing McKay, with whom he had been friends.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the killing of McKay was accidental.
2. Whether the crime was committed with alevosia (treachery).
3. Whether the defendant’s habitual drunkenness could be considered a mitigating circumstance.

RULING:
1. The killing was not accidental. The Court found no merit in the claim of accident. The positive testimony of several eyewitnesses who saw McMann deliberately discharge his revolver at McKay negated any possibility that the shooting was unintentional.
2. The crime was committed with alevosia (treachery). The trial court correctly qualified the crime with this aggravating circumstance. The evidence established that McMann shot McKay from behind, without any warning, provocation, or prior struggle. This manner of attack ensured the victim’s defenselessness and complied with the legal definition of treachery. The Spanish jurisprudence cited by the defense was distinguished as inapplicable to the clear facts of this case.
3. Habitual drunkenness is not a mitigating circumstance. The Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that McMann was a habitual drunkard based on witness testimony detailing his frequent intoxication. Citing American jurisprudence, the Court held that a “habitual drunkard” is one with a fixed habit of drunkenness. Since habitual intoxication is not a mitigating circumstance under the law, it could not be invoked to lessen his penalty.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The judgment of the court below convicting the defendant was AFFIRMED, with costs against the appellant.

CONCURRING JUSTICES:
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson, and Carson, JJ., concurred.