G.R. No. 27200, January 20, 1928
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANCISCO BUSTOS and ANTONIO MACASPAC, defendants-appellants.

Ponente: VILLA-REAL, J.

FACTS

On the afternoon of October 24, 1925, Francisco Bustos and Angel del Castillo had a dispute over land boundaries in the Guadalupe Estate. The altercation turned physical, with Bustos grabbing Angel by the neck. Antonio Macaspac and Mariano Montemayor intervened to separate them. Macaspac took Bustos to his house, while Montemayor stayed with Angel on the street. Shortly thereafter, Laureana Yumul (Angel’s wife) heard her deaf-mute daughter’s desperate cries and found her son, Felipe del Castillo (Angel’s son), lying mortally wounded on the ground. Before dying, Felipe told his mother that “Francisco Bustos and Antonio Macaspac have hacked me up.” An autopsy revealed multiple sharp wounds, including a fatal stab below the sternum. That same night, Bustos reported to authorities that he had been stoned, and he was treated for a forehead wound. Both accused were charged with homicide.

ISSUE

Did the trial court err in convicting Francisco Bustos and Antonio Macaspac of the crime of homicide based on the evidence presented?

RULING

NO. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty for Bustos. The evidence sufficiently established the guilt of both accused as principals by direct participation.

1. Credibility of Evidence: The Court found the testimony of Laureana Yumul credible, wherein she recounted the ante-mortem declaration of her dying son identifying Bustos and Macaspac as his assailants. This was corroborated by the testimony of Mariano del Castillo (the victim’s 8-year-old brother), who saw the two accused pursuing his brother, Bustos armed with a dagger and Macaspac with a bolo. The nature of the wounds (caused by both sharp and pointed weapons) also corroborated this account.

2. Rejection of Alibi: The Court rejected Macaspac’s defense of alibi (that he was in Manila at the time). Considering the assault occurred shortly before nightfall, it was not improbable that he left for Manila afterward to fabricate an alibi. His alibi could not prevail over the positive identification by the dying victim and the eyewitness.

3. Reconstruction of Events: The Court concluded that after the initial quarrel between Bustos and Angel del Castillo, the accused, upon encountering Felipe (Angel’s son), pursued him. Felipe threw a stone that hit Bustos, but the accused overtook him and inflicted the fatal wounds.

4. Crime and Penalty: The acts constituted Homicide under Article 404 of the Penal Code. The prescribed penalty is *reclusion temporal* in its full extent. The Court found no modifying circumstances in the commission of the crime. The claim of provocation by the deceased (Felipe’s stone-throwing) was not accepted, as it appeared the deceased acted only upon being pursued. The fact of two aggressors was not considered abuse of superior strength absent evidence of the relative physical strength of the parties.

5. Dispositive: The trial court’s judgment was modified regarding the penalty for Francisco Bustos. The mitigating circumstance of provocation in his favor was eliminated. Both accused were sentenced to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of *reclusion temporal*. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects.