GR 568; (April, 1902) (Digest)
G.R. No. 568 : April 30, 1902
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. FRANCISCO CABE, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
FACTS:
Late on a night in January 1901, a group of ten to twelve armed men went to the barrio of San Antonio, San Nicolas, Pangasinan. They entered the house of Celedonia Bienes and seized Francisco and Daniel Gascon, and from a neighboring house captured Sotero Alquero. The three captives were bound and taken toward the Agno River. Alquero was freed along the way. Upon reaching the river, Roman Cabe, acting under orders from Francisco Cabe, shot Francisco Gascon from behind and then decapitated him with a bolo, throwing the body into the river. Julian Serios then attacked Daniel Gascon with a bolo, inflicting five wounds, and left him for dead in the river. Daniel survived, managed to escape, and later identified the three accused as participants. The Gascon brothers were policemen under the American administration.
ISSUE:
Whether the accused are guilty of the crime of murder, and what are the proper aggravating and mitigating circumstances to be considered in imposing the penalty.
RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, finding the accused guilty of murder. The killing of Francisco Gascon was committed with treachery (alevosia), as the victim was bound and helpless, eliminating any risk of defense. The Court also found the generic aggravating circumstances of known premeditation and commission by an armed band in an uninhabited place at nighttime. Although the circumstance of commission by an armed band was offset by the mitigating circumstance under Article 11 of the Penal Code (considering the defendants’ personal conditions and the political passions involved), the qualifying circumstance of known premeditation remained. Consequently, the maximum penalty for murder was imposed. The civil indemnity was set at 1,000 pesos.
Separate Opinion (Dissent):
Justice Torres, joined by Justice Mapa, dissented. While agreeing that the crime was murder committed with treachery, he argued that known premeditation was not sufficiently proven, as the record did not show reflective meditation prior to the crime. He considered only one generic aggravating circumstancecommission by an armed band in an uninhabited place at nighttimewhich was offset by the mitigating circumstance under Article 11. Thus, he believed the medium penalty for murder (life imprisonment) should be applied, not the maximum.