G.R. No. 7498 , September 12, 1912
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SANTIAGO GINOSOLONGO, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On October 19, 1904, police officers, led by Corporal Cesareo Padayao, were in the barrio of Tobod, Dumanjug, Cebu, to investigate compliance with personal registration certificate (cedula) requirements. They approached the house of Santiago, Feliciano, and Ciriaco Ginosolongo. Upon stating their purpose, they were invited inside. Only the unarmed Corporal Padayao entered, while the other three armed policemen remained in the yard. When Padayao asked for their cedulas, one of the defendants offered him a cigar and said they would show the certificates. While they were supposedly retrieving the cedulas, Santiago Ginosolongo extinguished the light and suddenly stabbed Padayao with a “pinuti” (long pointed bolo), piercing his body. As the wounded corporal fled down the stairs, he was pursued and stabbed again. Hearing his cries, the other policemen responded. A struggle ensued in the yard between Santiago and policeman Felix Cambonga, during which Cambonga was wounded, and the defendants’ father (Antonio) and sister (Petra) were killed. Padayao died from his wounds. The provincial fiscal filed a complaint charging Santiago, Feliciano, and Ciriaco Ginosolongo with the crime of homicide.

ISSUE

1. Whether the defendants are guilty of the crime of homicide.
2. Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery (alevosia) can be considered to elevate the crime to murder despite the complaint only charging homicide.
3. Whether the defendants acted in self-defense.
4. Whether the other defendants, Feliciano and Ciriaco, are liable as co-conspirators or accomplices.

RULING

1. Yes, but only Santiago Ginosolongo is guilty of homicide. The Court found that Santiago Ginosolongo was the direct and sole perpetrator of the killing of Corporal Padayao. His act of suddenly and unexpectedly stabbing the unarmed corporal, who was performing his official duty and was under the impression of a friendly reception, constituted the crime of homicide. The Court noted that the attack was actually characterized by treachery, which would qualify the crime as murder. However, since the information only charged homicide, the Court could not convict for murder. The treachery was instead considered as a generic aggravating circumstance.

2. No, the crime cannot be classified as murder in this case. While the Court found that the killing was committed with treachery (alevosia), which under Article 403 of the Penal Code would constitute murder, the prosecution’s complaint only alleged the crime of homicide. Following the rule that a person cannot be convicted of an offense more serious than that charged in the complaint, the Court was constrained to treat the case as one for simple homicide under Article 404. The circumstance of treachery was properly considered only as an aggravating circumstance for purposes of penalty.

3. No, self-defense was not established. Santiago Ginosolongo’s claim that he acted in defense of his father and sister was rejected. The evidence did not show that the policemen had entered the house to commit abuse or that they had assaulted his family members prior to his attack on Padayao. The struggle that resulted in the deaths of his father and sister occurred later in the yard, after Padayao had already been fatally wounded and was fleeing. Therefore, there was no unlawful aggression to justify the act of self-defense.

4. No, Feliciano and Ciriaco Ginosolongo are acquitted. The evidence against Feliciano and Ciriaco was insufficient to prove their participation in the killing of Padayao beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of policeman Felix Cambonga that they threw stones at him was uncorroborated. In the absence of clear proof of conspiracy or direct participation, they were entitled to acquittal based on reasonable doubt.

DISPOSITIVE:
The judgment of the trial court was modified.
Santiago Ginosolongo was found guilty of homicide, aggravated by treachery. He was sentenced to seventeen years, four months, and one day of reclusion temporal, with the corresponding accessories, and ordered to indemnify the heirs of Corporal Padayao in the amount of P1,000, and to pay one-third of the costs.
Feliciano Ginosolongo and Ciriaco Ginosolongo were acquitted and ordered released unless detained for another cause. Two-thirds of the costs were de oficio.