Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1903 > August 1903 Decisions > G.R. No. 1255 August 17, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. FELIPE ABAIGAR

002 Phil 417:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 1255. August 17, 1903. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Complainant-Appellee, v. FELIPE ABAIGAR, Defendant-Appellant.

Fermin Mariano for Appellant.

Solicitor-General Araneta for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; MURDER; ALEVOSIA. — When it appears that the deceased was killed while bound, and therefore unable to defend himself, the crime is murder because of the concurrence of the qualifying circumstance of alevosia.

2. ID.; AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES; PREMEDITATION. — Where the determination to kill is followed immediately by the execution of the crime it is error to apply the circumstance of deliberate premeditation in aggravation of the penalty.

3. ID., ID.; IGNOMINY. — The fact that the deceased was killed in the presence of his wife does not constitute the circumstance of ignominy which consists in adding disgrace and ignominy to the material injury caused by the crime.

4. ID., ID., AID OF ARMED MEN. — The casual presence of armed men near the place where the crime was committed does not constitute an aggravating circumstance when it appears that the accused did not avail himself of their aid or rely upon it.


D E C I S I O N


MAPA, J. :


The testimony of the witnesses and the confession of the accused himself show unquestionably that the latter stabbed Constantino Nabaonag to death while he was bound, and therefore unable to defend himself against the aggression. This circumstance constitutes alevosia, and the offense is therefore properly classified as murder, defined and punished by article 403 of the Penal Code. It follows, therefore, that the judgment of the court below now before us in consultation is correct, in so far as it finds the defendant guilty of the crime of murder.

This judgment condemns the accused to the penalty of death, the court considering that the crime was committed with the aggravating circumstances of deliberate premeditation, the employment of means tending to add ignominy to the necessary effects of the act, and the commission of the crime with the assistance of armed men.

The opinion of the court in this regard does not meet with our approval. There was no premeditation, because an examination of the record shows that the purpose of killing Constantino arose suddenly in the mind of the defendant, and was instantaneously carried into effect, upon information that the deceased had spoken ill of the defendant.

The accused says: "As soon as I heard of this I became furiously enraged; I seized my dagger and killed him at once." This part of the defendant’s testimony was not disproven in the course of the trial. The determination to kill was, then, followed immediately by the execution of the crime; and consequently between the determination to commit the act and its actual commission there was no opportunity for the cold, meditative, and persistent reflection which constitutes premeditation, which is essentially different from a simple determination of the will, which is always presumed in the commission of every offense.

The circumstance of ignominy was not present because no means were employed nor did any circumstances surround the act tending to make the effects of the crime more humiliating. Ignominy is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order, which adds disagree and obloquy to the material injury caused by the crime. The fact that the deceased was killed in the presence of his wife certainly could not have such a signification, and this is the circumstance which the court below had in view when declaring that this circumstance had concurred.

Furthermore, the evidence shows that the crime was not committed with the assistance of armed men. The testimony of the accused, corroborated by that of the witness for the prosecution, Francisco Abadiano, is that the crime was committed by the defendant alone, without assistance from any one. It is true that in the house near the place where the crime was committed there were ten men armed with daggers, according to the statements of the witness referred to, and five without arms, according to the accused, but as these men took no part, directly or indirectly, in the commission of the crime, and it does not appear that they heard the conversation which caused the sudden determination on the part of the accused to will the deceased, and still less that they had in any way participated in this determination, we can not, within the law, find that this circumstance concurred in the commission of the crime prosecuted for the purpose of augmenting the criminal responsibility of the accused. The mere casual presence of armed men, more or less numerous, near the place of the occurrence does not constitute an aggravating circumstance when it appears that the defendant did not avail himself in any way of their aid, and did not knowingly count upon their assistance in the commission of the crime.

In the present case, there being no circumstance tending to modify the guilt of the defendant, the penalty is that prescribed by article 403 of the Penal Code in its medium grade, to wit, the penalty of life imprisonment, and not the penalty of death imposed by the court.

For the reasons stated we reverse the judgment in so far as it condemns the defendant to death, and impose upon the latter the penalty of life imprisonment, and condemn him to the payment of an indemnification of 1,000 Mexican pesos to the heirs of the deceased, together with the costs of this instance.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Cooper, Willard and McDonough, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






August-1903 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 1278 August 1, 1903 - EUGENIO BONAPLATA v. BYRON S. AMBLER

    002 Phil 392

  • G.R. No. 1149 August 3, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO MABILANGAN

    002 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. 1174 August 3, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. LEON ANGELES, ET AL.

    002 Phil 400

  • G.R. No. 1068 August 5, 1903 - LUIS ASIS v. JORGE PARDO

    002 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 1118 August 6, 1903 - VICENTE GONZALEZ v. TELESFORO CRISANTO

    002 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 1208 August 6, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE QUEVENGCO

    002 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. 1430 August 12, 1903 - PLACIDO BANAYO v. MUNICIPAL PRESIDENT OF SAN PABLO

    002 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. 1255 August 17, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. FELIPE ABAIGAR

    002 Phil 417

  • G.R. No. 1179 August 18, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. ARTHUR FITZGERALD

    002 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. 1103 August 19, 1903 - UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. EUSTAQUIO RABADILLAS

    002 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. 1229 August 19, 1903 - FRANCISCO GALI v. FAUSTINO SAHAGUN, ET AL.

    002 Phil 425

  • G.R. No. 1280 August 19, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. ISIDORO MADLANGBAYAN, ET AL.

    002 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. 1198 August 21, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. INOCENCIO MENDOZA, ET AL.

    002 Phil 429

  • G.R. No. 1225 August 21, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. SATURNINO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    002 Phil 431

  • G.R. No. 1302 August 21, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. NARCISO CALIGAGAN

    002 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. 1307 August 21, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE RAMOS, ET AL.

    002 Phil 434

  • G.R. No. 1448 August 22, 1903 - SIMEON VILLA v. HENRY T. ALLEN

    002 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 1125 August 24, 1903 - LUCIANO P. CORDOBA v. ANGEL M. CONDE

    002 Phil 445

  • G.R. No. 1331 August 25, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. MELECIO MACALINTAL, ET AL.

    002 Phil 448

  • G.R. No. 1173 August 27, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. BONIFACIO FULGENCIO

    002 Phil 452

  • G.R. No. 1175 August 27, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. TOMAS HINTO SANTOS, ET AL.

    002 Phil 453

  • G.R. No. 1231 August 29, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. ISIDORO PASCUAL, ET AL.

    002 Phil 457

  • G.R. No. 1316 August 29, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. LI-DAO

    002 Phil 458

  • G.R. No. 994 August 31, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. R.W. DOUGLAS

    002 Phil 461

  • G.R. No. 1285 August 31, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO LARION

    002 Phil 476