G.R. No. 26481, March 2, 1927
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DOMINGO GONZALEZ, ET AL., defendants. DOMINGO GONZALEZ and HILARIO GONZALEZ, appellants.

FACTS

Domingo Gonzalez, Hilario Gonzalez, and Modesto Organo were charged with murder for the killing of Gregorio Ilustre. The prosecution’s evidence established that on April 11, 1926, Domingo Gonzalez, a municipal policeman, attempted to unlawfully enter the Ilustre family’s house through a rear balcony without a warrant. A struggle ensued between Domingo and Teodoro and Jose Ilustre, during which Domingo’s revolver was wrested from him and handed to his brother, Hilario Gonzalez. Shortly after, the elderly and sick Gregorio Ilustre went to the balcony to investigate the commotion. Multiple gunshots were fired, resulting in Gregorio’s death. The trial court acquitted Modesto Organo but convicted Domingo and Hilario Gonzalez of homicide.

ISSUES:
1. Whether the plea of self-defense by Domingo Gonzalez is valid.
2. Whether Hilario Gonzalez is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
3. Whether the judgment is null and void because the judge who signed the decision had been transferred to another judicial district at the time of signing.

RULING

1. No, Domingo Gonzalez’s plea of self-defense is not valid. The Court found his version of eventsthat he entered the house to apprehend gamblers and was attackedimprobable and unsupported by evidence. The location and timing made gambling unlikely, and his entry without a warrant or notifying his chief violated police instructions. The Court concluded Domingo initiated an unlawful assault, and his claim of self-defense was unfounded. His conviction for homicide was affirmed.

2. No, Hilario Gonzalez is not guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence against Hilario was inconclusive. While a prosecution witness testified she saw Hilario fire at the victim, other key witnesses did not see him shoot. The Court found reasonable doubt, noting the lack of strong motive for Hilario to attack the victim and the possibility that offended parties implicated innocent family members. Hilario was acquitted.

3. No, the judgment is not null and void. The appellants argued the decision was invalid because Judge Servillano Platon signed it after being transferred to the Albay court. The Court upheld the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. It considered that the judge may have signed the decision before taking his oath in Albay, and the designation “Juez de Primera Instancia de Albay” was likely a clerical error. Thus, the judgment was valid.

DISPOSITION:
The judgment of the trial court was AFFIRMED as to Domingo Gonzalez, who was found guilty of homicide. The judgment was REVERSED as to Hilario Gonzalez, who was acquitted. Costs were divided accordingly.

SEPARATE OPINION:
Justice Street concurred in affirming Domingo’s conviction but dissented from Hilario’s acquittal, believing the evidence proved Hilario fired the fatal shots.