ManilaFIRST
DIVISION
THE
UNITED STATES,
Complainant-Appellee,
G.
R.
No. 98
October
14, 1901
-versus-
INOCENCIO
ANCHETA,
Defendant-Appellant.
D
E C I S I
O N
TORRES,
J :
It
appears in the present
cause that on a certain day in the month of December, 1899, Agapito
Ramos,
upon being taken unawares by his brother-in-law, Inocencio Ancheta, in
the act of appropriating a shed roof belonging to the latter, assaulted
the said Ancheta, the defendant herein, with his bolo. The latter,
warding
off the blow, succeeded in securing the weapon, and spurred on by the
additional
motive of resentment against Ramos because the latter had illicit
relations
with his wife and left her enceinte, the defendant in turn
attacked
Ramos, inflicting twenty-one wounds upon his head, face, chest, and
other
parts of his body. From the effects of these wounds, which, according
to
the testimony of an herb doctor, were necessarily mortal, Ramos died
within
a short time. The father and wife of the deceased, however, and a minor
daughter 14 years of age found him while still alive and heard him
state
that his assailant was the defendant, Inocencio Ancheta.
This action having
been instituted upon an information filed by the prosecuting attorney,
the defendant was arraigned and pleaded not guilty of the crime with
which
he was charged. As a witness under oath the defendant testified that
the
deceased sustained illicit relations with his wife on the occasion of
his
absence for two years in this city, and that he had pardoned them upon
receiving a promise that they would not continue their relations; that,
nevertheless, his brother-in-law, Agapito Ramos, continued to take
advantage
of him; that he surprised the latter in his house on the 30th of
December;
that furthermore the said Ramos carried away a brush shed roof which
was
the property of defendant, and that upon being required to return it
gave
the defendant a blow with the bolo which he was carrying; that
defendant
succeeded in evading the blow and having taken away the bolo, he in his
turn attacked Ramos, inflicting upon him the wounds in question; that
he
immediately gave an account of the occurrence to the local president of
the town of Santa Lucia before two witnesses who heard and attested his
statements.
The act which gave
rise to this proceeding, and which is fully proved in the proceedings
held
for the purpose of its determination, constitutes the crime of
homicide,
prohibited and penalized in article 404 of the Code, since there was
present
at its commission no specific or qualifying circumstance which would
give
it a graver classification or heavier penalty.
Inocencio Ancheta is
the convicted and confessed author of the said crime, inasmuch as,
notwithstanding
his plea of not guilty, the accused has confessed voluntarily that he
caused
the violent death of his brother-in-law, Agapito Ramos, for which
reason
his direct participation in the crime which is prosecuted is
indubitable.
In confessing the
commission
of the crime the defendant alleges in his favor the claim of exemption
from responsibility on the ground that he was acting in the legitimate
defense of his person, which had been unlawfully attacked, basing his
contention
on No. 4 of Article 8 of the Penal Code. Inasmuch as there was no
witness
who was present at the occurrence and as the statements of the deceased
made just before his death do not contradict or detract from those of
the
accused in his confession, and considering the merits of the case for
and
against the prisoner according to the rules of a sound discretion, we
are
obliged to admit the operation in his favor of the partial exemption to
which Article 86 of the Penal Code refers. There was an unlawful
aggression
on the part of Agaton Ramos, according to the statement of the
defendant,
and the latter did not provoke the affray. It appears, on the contrary,
that the prisoner, Ancheta, was the one who had grounds for grievance
and
complaint against the deceased. Nevertheless, it is likewise an
indisputable
fact that the defendant did not limit his action to the requirements of
his defense, because from the moment in which he succeeded in obtaining
possession of the bolo there was no reasonable necessity for inflicting
twenty-one wounds upon his aggressor, Agaton Ramos. Therefore the
proper
penalty is that next lower in grade to the one designated in Article
404
of the Code.
In applying this
penalty
there should be also taken into consideration the circumstances
referred
to in No. 7 of Article 9 and in No. 1 of Article 10 of the Penal Code,
for the reason that it is a fact duly proved in this cause that the
defendant
committed the deed when blinded and impelled by the passion of jealousy
produced by the illicit relations which the deceased sustained with his
wife; and in spite of the fact that the deceased, Agaton Ramos, was the
brother-in-law of his slayer, this relationship should be considered in
the present case as a mitigating circumstance in view of the conduct
pursued
by said Ramos in contracting adulterous relations with the wife of the
defendant. On these grounds there should be imposed upon the defendant
the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum degree.
In view, therefore,
of the foregoing considerations, it follows that the sentence reviewed
should be affirmed in all its parts with the costs of this instance
against
the defendant. It is so ordered.
Arellano, C.J.,
Cooper, Willard, Mapa and Ladd, JJ., concur. |