G.R. No. 31320 / December 3, 1929
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS vs. CRISPO LARA E ILANO

FACTS

The appellant, Crispo Lara e Ilano, was convicted of murder for the killing of Juan Advincula. The incident stemmed from an event three weeks prior, where Advincula found Lara in his yard at night and suspected him of attempting to steal chickens, leading Advincula to report the matter to authorities. On July 22, 1927, Advincula, while returning home, encountered Lara. According to Advincula’s subsequent statements, Lara asked if Advincula was angry with him; Advincula replied affirmatively, accusing Lara of intending to steal his chickens. Lara then called Advincula a liar and shot him in the left shoulder with an automatic revolver. Advincula fled to a neighbor’s house, where he recounted the incident to the barrio lieutenant, Ciriaco Reyes, expressing weakness, pain, and a belief that he would not survive. Advincula later gave an affidavit to a justice of the peace but indicated he thought he would recover. He was hospitalized, initially discharged, but readmitted due to complications from the lodged bullet and died from blood poisoning on August 30, 1927. Lara fled after the shooting and did not return even for his mother’s funeral. The prosecution relied on Advincula’s statements as dying declarations to establish Lara’s guilt.

ISSUE

1. Whether Advincula’s statements are admissible as dying declarations.
2. Whether the crime committed is murder qualified by treachery (alevosia) or simple homicide.

RULING

1. On the admissibility of dying declarations: The Supreme Court held that Advincula’s statement to Barrio Lieutenant Ciriaco Reyes was admissible as a dying declaration. At the time, Advincula was weak, in pain, and expressed that he would not survive, meeting the requirement of consciousness of impending death. The affidavit given to the justice of the peace, however, was inadmissible because Advincula then believed he would recover. The admissibility depends on the declarant’s state of mind when the statement was made, not the actual time of death. The admissible declaration provided sufficient proof that Lara was the perpetrator.

2. On the nature of the offense: The Court reduced the crime from murder to simple homicide. The trial court found treachery (alevosia) based on Advincula’s use of the word “unexpectedly” to describe the shooting. However, the Court ruled that treachery was not present because the parties were confronting each other, and the shooting immediately followed Advincula’s provocative accusation. There was no evidence that the means of attack were deliberately chosen to ensure the execution without risk to the aggressor. Thus, the killing lacked the qualifying circumstance of alevosia.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The penalty was modified from twenty years of cadena temporal to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal, with accessories. The judgment was affirmed as modified, with costs against the appellant.