GR L 15251; (November, 1919) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-15251; November 15, 1919
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CANDIDO BACONG and DIEGO CAPALAC, defendants-appellants.
FACTS:
On the night of September 30, 1918, a monte game was held in the house of accused Candido Bacong in Liloan, Cebu. After some players left, the game continued among Dionisio Pepito (the banker), Raimundo Calo, Valeriano Atis, Diego Capalac, and Bacong. Bacong, who was losing, insisted on continuing the game after Pepito refused due to the players betting on credit and handling the cards. A heated argument ensued between Bacong and Pepito. Diego Capalac then struck Pepito with his fist, whereupon Bacong took a stone-cutting tool called a “maret” and struck Pepito on the left temple. Pepito fell, bleeding profusely, and died. Witnesses Valeriano Atis, Raimundo Calo, and Anacleta Calo testified to these events. After the killing, Bacong threw the body out of the window, placed it in a bamboo basket, and later, with the help of Capalac, carried it to a river where it was disposed of and never recovered. The trial court convicted Bacong as principal and Capalac as an accessory.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the accused Candido Bacong is guilty of homicide.
2. Whether the accused Diego Capalac is liable as an accessory to the crime.
RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
1. As to Candido Bacong: The Court found him guilty of the crime of homicide under Article 404 of the Penal Code. The killing was proven, and no qualifying circumstances (such as those for murder or parricide) or generic mitigating or aggravating circumstances were present. He was sentenced to reclusion temporal in its medium degree (fourteen years, eight months, and one day to seventeen years and four months), with the corresponding accessory penalties, and ordered to indemnify the heirs of Dionisio Pepito in the amount of P1,000.
2. As to Diego Capalac: The Court found him liable as an accessory under Article 68 of the Penal Code for helping hide and dispose of the victim’s body to prevent discovery of the crime. He was sentenced to a penalty two degrees lower than that imposed on the principal (two years, four months, and one day of prision correcional), with the corresponding accessory penalties. He was also held subsidiarily liable for the indemnity in case of Bacong’s insolvency.
Costs were imposed on both accused.