G.R. No. L-47919; April 8, 1941
EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AMADO JORGE, BONIFACIO VILLANUEVA, REMIGIO LIBAO, and ALFREDO ROMERO, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The four appellants were charged with murder in the Court of First Instance of Rizal but were convicted only of homicide for killing Teodorico Pascual on December 16, 1937. They were sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 8 years of prision mayor to 14 years, 8 months, and 1 day of reclusion temporal, plus costs and an indemnity of P2,000 to the victim’s heirs. They appealed, assigning five errors. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court by the Court of Appeals under the provisions of the Revised Administrative Code, as some members of that court believed the crime committed was murder, not simple homicide, qualified by abuse of superior strength and without any mitigating circumstances, for which the penalty is reclusion perpetua.
The incident began when the victim, Teodorico Pascual, admonished Perfecta Rivera, a relative of appellants Amado Jorge and Bonifacio Villanueva, to stop defecating on his lot. This led to an altercation where Perfecta insulted and hit Pascual with a clog, and in the struggle, she received a contusion. Pascual retreated to his house. About two hours later, the four appellants, having learned of the incident, sought out Pascual in his lot. Appellant Amado Jorge, without warning, attacked Pascual with a cutting instrument, inflicting wounds on his right arm, right hand, and right hypochondrium. Pascual ran but fell weakened by his wounds and internal hemorrhage. He was taken to the General Hospital and died around 4 a.m. the next day. The autopsy by Dr. Pablo Anzures established the wound in the right hypochondrium as the mortal cause of death.
The victim’s widow and daughter testified that after Pascual fell, the other three appellants also attacked him with bolos and a knife. However, the cadaver bore no wounds other than the three inflicted by Amado Jorge. The prosecution alleged conspiracy among the four appellants to kill Pascual.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of the victim’s widow and daughter.
2. Whether the trial court erred in giving probative value to Exhibit B (the alleged dying declaration of the victim).
3. Whether the trial court erred in not declaring that appellant Amado Jorge acted in legitimate self-defense.
4. Whether the trial court erred in declaring that the other three appellants, acting in concert, also wounded the victim after he fell.
5. Whether the trial court erred in convicting all four appellants of homicide beyond reasonable doubt.
Additionally, the Supreme Court addressed the proper classification of the crime committed.

RULING

The Supreme Court partially granted the appeal.
1. The Court found the appellants correct regarding the first error. The testimonies of the victim’s widow and daughter were not entirely credible. Given the late hour (around 10 p.m.), it was doubtful they saw clearly what occurred. Furthermore, the tangible fact that the cadaver bore no wounds other than those inflicted by Amado Jorge disproved their claim that the other three appellants also attacked the fallen victim.
2. The Court found the appellants correct regarding the second error, as the probative value of Exhibit B was not central to the final disposition.
3. The Court found the third error absolutely unfounded. Amado Jorge’s claim of self-defense was weak and unsustainable. The victim was unarmed and not expecting an attack while taking the fresh air in his lot two hours after the initial altercation. The justifying circumstance of self-defense requires clear proof that excludes any criminal aggression by the person invoking it. Jorge’s claim that the victim attacked him with a penknife and a piece of wood was extraordinary as he himself received no injury. His failure to present the alleged weapon (which he claimed belonged to the victim) further weakened his defense.
4. The Court found the appellants correct regarding the fourth error. The evidence did not convincingly prove conspiracy. The facts that Bonifacio Villanueva asked about the victim beforehand, that Alfredo Romero made threatening remarks during the earlier altercation, and that the three were present with Amado Jorge during the aggression did not necessarily prove a conspiracy or a shared purpose to kill. If they had such a purpose, being armed, they would have also wounded the victim.
5. Regarding the fifth error and the proper classification of the crime, the Court ruled:
* As to appellants Bonifacio Villanueva, Remigio Libao, and Alfredo Romero: The appealed judgment was reversed. They were acquitted due to lack of sufficient evidence proving conspiracy or direct participation.
* As to appellant Amado Jorge: The appealed judgment was modified. His act constituted the crime of murder (asesinato), qualified by the circumstance of known premeditation (premeditacion conocida). The allegation of treachery (alevosia) was based on mere conjecture, as the aggression was face-to-face, according to Dr. Anzures’s opinion and the location of the wounds. With no other modifying circumstances, he was sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua, to pay an indemnity of P2,000 to the heirs of Teodorico Pascual, and to pay one-fourth of the costs in both instances. The remaining three-fourths of the costs were to be taxed de oficio.