FIRST
DIVISION
THE
UNITED STATES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.
R.
No. L-13177
March
12, 1918
-versus-
FELINO
CUNANAN,
FERMIN
BUCUD,
PIO [POLICARPIO]
BALATBAT,
MARIANO BALATBAT
AND HILARIA SISON,
Defendants-Appellants.
D
E C I S I
O N
MALCOLM,
J :
We have to determine whether
or not Felino Cunanan, Fermin Bucud, Pio [Policarpio] Balatbat, and
Mariano
Balatbat, defendants in case No. 1991 of the Court of Fist Instance of
Pampanga, and Hilaria Sison, defendant in case No. 1989 of the same
Court
of First Instance, all of whom were tried together, are guilty of
having
murdered one Numeriano Regalado. The trial judge so found and condemned
Felino Cunanan, Fermin Bucud, and Policarpio Balatbat to the death
penalty,
and Mariano Balatbat and Hilaria Sison to life imprisonment, all to
indemnify
jointly and severally the heirs of the deceased, Numeriano Regalado in
the amount of P1,000, and each to pay one fifth part of the costs. The
attorney for Fermin Bucud and the attorney for the other defendants, on
appeal, make numerous assignments of error, all of which, however, can
be resolved as relating either to the proof or to the penalty, and
contend
with much force that their clients are innocent. Counsel have also
presented
two motions for a new trial in this court.
On a careful review
of the evidence, in connection with the decision of the trial court, we
have come to the conclusion, as to the defendant Hilaria Sison, that
she
must be held to be not guilty. The theory of the trial court as to this
defendant was that she had enticed the deceased to a lonely place to
his
death. The theory of the Attorney-General as to this defendant is that
she and the deceased had illicit relations and that they were together
on this occasion to accomplish such a purpose, when her husband and his
three comrades set upon Regalado and killed him. No direct evidence
connecting
her with the crime is found in the record. It therefore results, as
held
by the Chief Justice in the case of The United States vs. Guevara
[(1903)
2 Phil., 528], that the mere presence of the defendant at the time and
place of the commission of the crime is not of itself sufficient to
show
such an act of simultaneous cooperation as to make such a defendant an
accessory to the crime.
As to the other four
defendants, We hold that they have been proved guilty beyond a
reasonable
doubt of the crime of homicide because of having killed Numeriano
Regalado.
Briefly stated, these four defendants, on one of the early days of
June,
1916, appear to have waited in a lonely place, armed with clubs, for
the
arrival of Numeriano Regalado and Hilaria Sison, and then to have
killed
Regalado and thrown his body into the river. This prominent fact is
demonstrated
by one eyewitness, by the evidence of other witnesses who identified
these
defendants as having been in the locality at this time, and by medical
testimony. The defense was limited to an attempt to establish an alibi.
Counsel on appeal also endeavor further to substantiate their alibi and
to impeach the testimony of the principal witness for the prosecution,
intimating that the reason why he testified against the defendants was
in order to be able to live with Benita Sison, wife of one of the
defendants.
We do not think that a new trial would change the result.
The lower court took
into consideration the circumstances of premeditation and alevosia. It
is undeniable that the accused seem to have known that the deceased and
Hilaria Sison would pass by a particular place, but this sole
circumstance
does not warrant the deduction of known premeditation. Says the Supreme
Court of Spain:
"The finding by the
jury that the accused had concocted the act beforehand well knowing
that
the offended parties were going to pass that afternoon at the point
where
the act was committed, does not constitute a sufficient foundation for
the existence of the aggravating circumstance of known premeditation.
In
order that this circumstance may properly be considered it is necessary
to determine when the intent to commit the crime was engendered in the
mind of the accused, the motive which gave rise to it, the means which
they had beforehand selected to carry out the criminal intention
(independently
of the fact of having waited in ambush for their victim and attacked
him
without danger to their person, which constitutes the circumstance of
alevosia,
already considered), in fine, all those facts and antecedents which
combined
show that the crime was knowingly premeditated, as required by law, or,
that the accused acted not only with a preexisting design, which is a
condition
ordinarily found in all crime, but with that cold and deep meditation
and
tenacious persistence in the accomplishment of his criminal purpose,
which
is the distinctive characteristic of this aggravating circumstance,
whether
as qualifying or generically considered." [Decision, November 9, 1895].
As
to the circumstance
of Alevosia there is also doubt as to its existence, but somewhat
connected
therewith is another circumstance, which has been proved, of advantage
being taken of superior strength. Another aggravating circumstance
which
must be considered is that the crime was committed in an uninhabited
place
and by a band of more than three armed men. The Attorney-General
suggests
as a mitigating circumstance, working in behalf of Pio [Policarpio]
Balatbat
and Mariano Balatbat, the fact that the act was committed in the
immediate
vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the felony. If the
theory of the Attorney-General is correct, this of course is possible,
for Mariano Balatbat was the husband of Hilaria Sison and Pio
[Policarpio]
Balatbat was her father-in-law, and these two may have conspired to
commit
the homicide because of the illicit relations existing between Hilaria
Sison and the deceased. We find no proof of this mitigating
circumstance.
In view of the
foregoing,
We acquit Hilaria Sison, with one-fifth of the costs of both instances
de officio. We further find the other four defendants, Fermin Bucud,
Felino
Cunanan, Mariano Balatbat, and Pio [Policarpio] Balatbat, guilty of the
crime of homicide and sentence each of them to seventeen years, four
months,
and one day of reclusion temporal, with the accessory penalties
provided by law, to pay jointly and severally to the heirs of Numeriano
Regalado the amount of P1,000, with one-fourth of the costs of both
instances
against each appellant. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J.,
Torres, Carson, Araullo, Street, Avanceña, and Fisher, JJ.,
concur.
JOHNSON, J.,
dissents. |