G.R. No. L-4846
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VICENTE MAQUIRAYA and JOSE ACQUEBAY, defendant-appellants.
October 9, 1909

FACTS:
A.C. Wright, an Internal Revenue agent, and his assistant, Damian Maggudatu, were investigating a clandestine distillery in Cagayan, suspected to be operated by Vicente Maquiraya. Upon discovering the distillery, most persons present fled, but Wright apprehended Jorge Mañgabilin, who identified Maquiraya and Jose Acquebay as associates. Maquiraya, Acquebay, and others were found at Mañgabilin’s house and agreed to help Wright remove items from the distillery.

Before returning to the distillery, and after learning they were to be arrested for operating it, Maquiraya, along with Mañgabilin, Acquebay, and others, conspired to kill Wright and his companion. While Wright was inside the distillery taking notes, Maquiraya attacked him from behind with a bolo, inflicting a severe wound that destroyed Wright’s left eye and cut his jawbone. Maquiraya then wounded Maggudatu. Wright fired his revolver, causing the assailants, including Maquiraya and Acquebay, to flee.

The Court of First Instance convicted both Maquiraya and Acquebay of frustrated assassination (asesinato frustrado). Maquiraya was sentenced to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of cadena temporal, and Acquebay to eight years and one day of presidio mayor. Both defendants appealed.

ISSUE:
1. Was there sufficient proof of Maquiraya’s guilt and the existence of premeditation?
2. Was Jose Acquebay properly convicted as a participant in the crime?
3. Was the penalty imposed on Maquiraya appropriate, considering aggravating circumstances?

RULING:
1. Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed that Vicente Maquiraya inflicted the wound, as testified by Wright himself, Maggudatu, and an accomplice, Fernando Ballatin. The Court also found that premeditation was clearly established through Ballatin’s testimony, corroborated by circumstances such as the accused being armed, engaging in secret conversations, Maquiraya’s explicit command to “kill all of them” during the assault, and the collective flight of the accused. The severe nature of the wound inflicted on Wright demonstrated a clear intent to kill.

2. No. The Supreme Court found that the evidence was insufficient to sustain Jose Acquebay’s conviction. At the time of the assault, Acquebay was outside the distillery, occupied in removing earthen jars, and did not assist in the attack on Wright. Crucially, there was no proof that he took part in the agreement to kill Wright.

3. No. The Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in not considering the aggravating circumstances of alevosia (treachery), as the attack on Wright was sudden and from behind while he was defenseless, and en despoblado (committed in an uninhabited place), as the clandestine distillery was located in a sparsely settled district, at least one mile from any habitation. These circumstances warranted the imposition of the maximum penalty.

The judgment of the lower court was reversed as to Jose Acquebay, and he was found not guilty and ordered discharged. The judgment was modified as to Vicente Maquiraya, who was condemned to seventeen years and four months of cadena temporal, with all accessories prescribed by law, and the right to maintain a civil action for damages was expressly reserved for Mr. Wright.