G.R. No. 10370 ; September 17, 1915
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NAZARIO PALERMO, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
Nazario Palermo, Angelo Palermo, Florencio Palermo, Norberto Palermo, Delfin Palermo, and Basilio Palomaria were charged with murder for the killing of Pascual Orozco on May 2, 1914, in Passi, Iloilo. The information alleged the qualifying circumstances of treachery, known premeditation, unnecessary cruelty, and that the crime was committed in a deserted place by a band. Norberto Palermo died before trial, and Basilio Palomaria was tried separately. The remaining four accused were tried together and convicted of murder. The trial court imposed varying penalties: cadena perpetua on Nazario Palermo (whose appeal was later dismissed), cadena temporal on Angelo, Florencio, and Basilio, and presidio mayor on Delfin. Angelo, Florencio, Delfin, and Basilio appealed.

The evidence established that a land dispute existed between Nazario Palermo and Pascual Orozco. On the day of the incident, Orozco was supervising work on the disputed land when Nazario and his brother Norberto attacked him with bolos. Orozco, who was armed with a revolver, fired shots during the struggle, fatally wounding Norberto. Orozco was then disarmed and fled but was intercepted by the four other accused (Angelo, Florencio, Delfin, and Basilio), who had arrived at the scene. Orozco was surrounded, thrown to the ground, and killed, sustaining six bolo wounds, at least two of which were mortal.

The trial court found that the evidence did not establish premeditation or treachery but held that the number and location of the wounds constituted the qualifying circumstance of ensañamiento (unnecessary cruelty). The court also considered the mitigating circumstance of lack of education and instruction for all accused and applied the privileged minority provision for Delfin Palermo, who was under 18.

ISSUE:
Whether the trial court correctly convicted the appellants of murder (asesinato) with the qualifying circumstance of ensañamiento.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the murder conviction and instead found the appellants guilty of homicide (homicidio).

The Court agreed with the trial court that the evidence did not establish premeditation or treachery (alevosia). The attack was not pre-planned, and an attack by two men on foot with bolos against a mounted man with a revolver did not constitute treachery, as the means adopted did not specially ensure the assailants’ safety from any defense by the victim.

Furthermore, the Court held that the trial court erred in finding the qualifying circumstance of ensañamiento. The mere number and gravity of wounds, without evidence of unnecessary mutilation or acts specifically intended to prolong suffering, are not conclusive proof of a deliberate and inhuman intent to increase the victim’s suffering. The multiple wounds could have been inflicted merely to ensure death.

The Court sustained the trial court’s appreciation of the mitigating circumstance of lack of education and instruction under Article 11 of the Penal Code for all appellants and the application of the privileged minority provision for Delfin Palermo. Considering this mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstances, the penalty for homicide should be imposed in its minimum degree.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court modified the judgment. Appellants Angelo Palermo, Florencio Palermo, and Basilio Palomaria were each sentenced to twelve years and one day of reclusión temporal. Delfin Palermo, due to his minority, was sentenced to six years and one day of prisión mayor. All were to suffer the accessory penalties, jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of Orozco in the amount of P1,000, and pay proportionate costs.