🔎 Search our Comprehensive Legal Repository...
G.R. No. 1828 : January 27, 1905
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. FERMIN MANGADO, defendant-appellant.
The defendant, Fermin Mangado, was charged with the crime of homicide. The incident occurred in the barrio of Salusoy, pueblo of Meycauayan, Province of Bulacan, in August 1900. The evidence established that the defendant, accompanied by several unidentified persons, went to the house of Perfecto Ronudel around midnight. The defendant called out to Ronudel, who was asleep inside. When Ronudel appeared, the defendant shot him with a gun. The bullet entered Ronudel’s stomach and passed through his body, causing his immediate death. This account was supported by the testimony of Ronudel’s wife and a witness named Julian Geronimo, and was corroborated by other witnesses. The defendant did not present any evidence in his defense. The trial court found him guilty and imposed the penalty of reclusion temporal for seventeen years and one day, considering the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity.
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. FERMIN MANGADO, defendant-appellant.
FACTS:
The defendant, Fermin Mangado, was charged with the crime of homicide. The incident occurred in the barrio of Salusoy, pueblo of Meycauayan, Province of Bulacan, in August 1900. The evidence established that the defendant, accompanied by several unidentified persons, went to the house of Perfecto Ronudel around midnight. The defendant called out to Ronudel, who was asleep inside. When Ronudel appeared, the defendant shot him with a gun. The bullet entered Ronudel’s stomach and passed through his body, causing his immediate death. This account was supported by the testimony of Ronudel’s wife and a witness named Julian Geronimo, and was corroborated by other witnesses. The defendant did not present any evidence in his defense. The trial court found him guilty and imposed the penalty of reclusion temporal for seventeen years and one day, considering the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity.
ISSUE:
Whether the trial court correctly convicted the defendant of homicide and properly imposed the penalty considering the aggravating circumstance.
RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. The evidence presented was sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime of homicide. The Court agreed with the trial court’s consideration of nocturnity as an aggravating circumstance, which justified the imposition of the maximum penalty under Articles 81 and 404 of the Penal Code. The sentence was therefore affirmed in its entirety.
⚖️ AI-Assisted Research Notice
This legal summary was synthesized using Artificial Intelligence to assist in mapping jurisprudence. This content is for educational purposes only and does not constitute a lawyer-client relationship or legal advice. Users are strictly advised to verify these points against the official full-text decisions from the Supreme Court.
