G.R. No. L-11497; August 1, 1916
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LORENZO BLANZA, SIXTO BLANZA and MARCOS BLANZA, defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
The accused, Lorenzo Blanza, Sixto Blanza, and Marcos Blanza, were charged with the murder of Telesforo Almazan on October 3, 1915, in the Province of Ilocos Sur. The information alleged they attacked the victim with bolos, employing premeditation and treachery. After trial, the court convicted them of the lesser crime of homicide. The court found the aggravating circumstance of superior force was present, as the three armed accused attacked the unarmed victim who defended himself only with his bare hands. However, the court offset this aggravating circumstance with the extenuating circumstance under Article 11 of the Penal Code, pertaining to the lack of instruction and ignorance of the accused. Consequently, the penalty was imposed in the medium degree of reclusion temporal, sentencing each accused to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal, with the corresponding accessories, indemnity, and costs. The accused appealed, not contesting their guilt but assigning as error the trial court’s alleged failure to properly consider their ignorance and lack of instruction in sentencing.

ISSUE:
Whether the trial court erred in not taking into consideration the ignorance and lack of instruction of the accused in imposing the penalty.

RULING:
No, the trial court did not err. The Supreme Court held that the trial court had, in fact, already taken the accused’s lack of instruction into account. The trial court expressly compensated the aggravating circumstance of superior force with the extenuating circumstance provided in Article 11 of the Penal Code, which the court described as “race taken in conjunction with the lack of instruction of the accused.” This application of an extenuating circumstance prevented the penalty from being imposed in its maximum degree due to the aggravating circumstance. The guilt of the accused was affirmed as proven beyond reasonable doubt by the testimonies of eyewitnesses, including the victim’s daughter and wife, who identified the appellants and described the unprovoked attack. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed in all respects.