G.R. No. L-3112 and L-3113 May 14, 1951
EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SEVERINO NOLASCO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

In the early morning of May 17, 1948, Sergio Licudan, his wife Juana Torio, their son Dominador, and his mother Lagera Baniqued were sleeping in their house in Barrio Taguiporo, San Manuel, Pangasinan. Sergio was awakened when someone stumbled on his foot. He immediately used his flashlight and saw that the person was Severino Nolasco. Nolasco attacked him with a bolo. Sergio defended himself with the flashlight until the bolo blade broke upon hitting it. The accused then ran away. After he left, Sergio’s mother lit a petroleum lamp and saw Sergio and the child Dominador lying down, both wounded and bathed in blood, with the broken bolo blade on the mat. The neighbors came to their cries, and Sergio and Dominador were taken to the house of Laureano Torio (Sergio’s father-in-law) in the poblacion, accompanied by Juana and Sergio’s mother. The municipal police were informed, and three policemen investigated at Laureano’s house. Policeman Cipriano Carbonell took the sworn statements of Sergio Licudan and Juana Torio, in which they identified Nolasco as the attacker. Dr. Vicente M. Soloria treated the victims. Dominador died about half an hour after the doctor’s arrival. Sergio incurred expenses for medicines and medical service. The doctor stated that without immediate medical assistance, Sergio would have died from his wounds.
The motive for the crime was a land dispute. On April 10, Sergio was constructing his house on the land when Nolasco prevented him under threat of death, claiming the land belonged to his brother-in-law, Daniel Palad. Sergio continued construction because his father-in-law had bought the land. He transferred to the house on May 15. There was tension between them. On the night of May 16, Sergio saw Nolasco under his house, but he ran away.
On the morning of May 17, the Chief of Police filed a complaint for murder against Nolasco (Criminal Case No. 18023), and the next day, another for frustrated murder (Criminal Case No. 18024). On June 3, Policeman Carbonell filed a complaint for murder against Anastacio Baquirin. The justice of the peace dismissed all three complaints on July 8. Upon petition of the aggrieved parties, the provincial fiscal reinvestigated and filed the two criminal cases against Nolasco in the Court of First Instance. The defense presented an alibi, claiming Nolasco never left his house that night, corroborated by Antonia Baldos.

ISSUE

1. Whether the accused, Severino Nolasco, is guilty of the crimes charged.
2. Whether the trial court erred in giving credit to the prosecution witnesses and not adopting the theory of the defense.
3. The proper classification of the crimes committed (murder vs. homicide, frustrated vs. attempted).

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction with modification on the classification of one crime.
1. The accused is guilty. The immediate filing of complaints against Nolasco on the day of and the day after the incident by the police, based on sworn statements, demonstrates their conviction that he was the perpetrator. The Court found the testimony of prosecution witnesses credible and the alibi defense unmeritorious. The alibi, supported only by Antonia Baldos, was received with caution as such defenses are easily fabricated. The Court disbelieved Policeman Carbonell’s later testimony suggesting Sergio did not initially identify his attacker, as it was contradicted by the Mayor, the Chief of Police, Pedro Torio, and Sergio Licudan himself. The Court concluded Carbonell’s later actions, including filing a complaint against Baquirin, were an attempt to save Nolasco.
2. The trial court did not err in giving credence to the prosecution witnesses. Their identification of Nolasco was direct and consistent from the initial investigation.
3. Regarding the death of Dominador Licudan: The crime is murder. Although Nolasco’s intent was to eliminate Sergio, he is criminally liable for killing Dominador. One who commits a felony is liable even if the wrong done is different from what he intended. The child was barely over a year old and asleep when attacked, qualifying the killing as murder.
Regarding the attack on Sergio Licudan: The crime is frustrated homicide, not frustrated murder. Although Sergio was lying down and in a disadvantageous position when attacked, he was able to defend himself with his flashlight. Therefore, the penalty for the murder of Dominador (reclusion perpetua) is affirmed. The penalty for the frustrated murder of Sergio (6 years and 1 day of prision mayor to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal) is reduced to an indeterminate penalty of 2 years, 4 months and 1 day of prision correccional, as minimum, to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as maximum, for frustrated homicide. The other dispositions of the appealed judgment are affirmed. Costs against the appellant.