GR L 15635; (March, 1920) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-15635; March 16, 1920
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FULGENCIO TANDOC, ET AL., defendants. FULGENCIO TANDOC, JOSE CORPUS and BERNARDINO RUIZ, appellants.
FACTS:
On January 7, 1917, Melecio de Vera and his laborers, including Luis Moyalde, were harvesting tobacco on a piece of land in Urdaneta, Pangasinan, which was subject to a property dispute with Jose Bengzon. A group of more than thirteen men, led by Fulgencio Tandoc and including appellants Jose Corpus and Bernardino Ruiz, approached upon a horn signal, surrounded, and attacked de Vera’s group. During the attack, Luis Moyalde and another laborer were wounded. Moyalde died later that evening from the injuries, the most serious being a blow to the head inflicted by Fulgencio Tandoc. The appellants and their companions retreated after another horn signal. Only the death of Luis Moyalde was the subject of the information. The trial court convicted Fulgencio Tandoc, Luis de Vera, and Bernardino Ruiz of homicide committed in a tumultuous affray, sentencing them to four years of imprisonment. The appellants appealed.
ISSUE:
Whether the crime committed was homicide committed in a tumultuous affray or simple homicide.
RULING:
The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s judgment. It ruled that the crime was not homicide in a tumultuous affray under Articles 405 and 420 of the Penal Code, as that crime requires a confused affray where the specific author of the killing cannot be identified. Here, the facts showed a clear aggression by a known, organized group (the appellants and their companions) against another distinct group. Their unity of purpose was demonstrated by their coordinated attack and retreat via horn signals, and their cooperation in inflicting the fatal blows. Therefore, the crime constituted simple homicide under Article 404 of the Penal Code.
The Court further found the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength, due to the appellants’ numerical superiority and their being armed against the victims. This circumstance raised the penalty to its maximum degree. Consequently, the appellants were sentenced to seventeen years, four months, and one day of reclusion temporal. The rest of the trial court’s judgment was affirmed.