G.R. No. 25267 , December 24, 1926
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARIO PAMINTUAN, defendant-appellant.

Ponente: Avanceña, C.J.

FACTS

On the night of April 19, 1925, Antonino Jacinto, the accused Mario Pamintuan, and Melecio Santos were at the house of Juan Cortez in Angeles, Pampanga. As they were leaving, Pamintuan went downstairs first. While Jacinto was rinsing his mouth on the porch, about to descend, a revolver shot was fired from beneath the bamboo porch, wounding him. Jacinto cried out that Pamintuan had shot him and repeated this accusation to the justice of the peace and others, stating he believed he was about to die. He died the next morning from his wounds. An empty cartridge was found on the porch. Later, a .45 automatic Colt revolver, smelling of powder, was retrieved from under Pamintuan’s house at the instance of his brother. The defense, supported by the testimony of the victim’s wife and daughter, claimed Pamintuan had left earlier and was at home when the shooting occurred.

ISSUE

1. Whether the guilt of the accused, Mario Pamintuan, for the crime of murder has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Whether the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity should be appreciated.

RULING

1. Yes, the guilt of the accused for murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court affirmed the conviction. The sequence of eventsPamintuan leaving just before the victim, the shot fired from below immediately after, the victim’s dying declaration identifying Pamintuan, and the recovery of the recently fired revolver hidden under Pamintuan’s houseconstituted a chain of circumstantial evidence leading to the inescapable conclusion of his guilt. The Court found the testimony of the defense witnesses (the victim’s wife and daughter) unreliable due to their demonstrated favoritism towards the accused and indifference to the victim.

2. No, the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity should not be appreciated. The Court held that nocturnity was not deliberately sought by the accused to facilitate the crime. The evidence showed the meeting at Cortez’s house was not pre-arranged for the purpose of committing the crime at night; rather, the accused took advantage of the existing nighttime conditions. Therefore, nocturnity was considered a generic aggravating circumstance that was not proven to have been deliberately sought.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The appealed judgment was AFFIRMED. The accused was sentenced to *cadena perpetua* (life imprisonment), with the accessories of the law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased (other than the widow and two daughters named) in the sum of P1,000, and to pay the costs.

DISSENTING OPINION (Street, J.):
Justice Street dissented, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He found the dying declaration questionable, the recovery of the revolver suspicious and inadequately linked to the crime, and gave more credence to the alibi supported by the victim’s family. He concluded the accused should have been acquitted.