SECOND
DIVISION
THE
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.
R.
No. 22791
February
28, 1925
-versus-
LEONARDO
CRUZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
D
E C I S I
O N
JOHNS,
J :
The defendant was charged
with the crime of homicide in the Court of First Instance of Nueva
Viscaya
for the killing of Mariano Tugab, upon which he was tried, convicted
and
sentenced to imprisonment for twelve years and one day, to indemnify
the
heirs of the deceased in the sum of P500, and pay the costs.
On his appeal, he makes
the following assignments of error:
"I. The court below
erred in finding the Maria Cerizo, wife of the deceased, had illicit
relation
with the accused during the time the latter was boarding with and in
the
house of the deceased.
"II. The court erred
in finding that, when the deceased assaulted the accused with an iron
knuckle,
indicated that his wife was in the act improper, for a married woman.
"III. The court erred
in finding that the accused, Leonardo Cruz, gave provocation to the
deceased
by attempting to offend the honor of the wife of the latter, and by
abusing
upon the confidence reposed on him by the deceased in permitting him to
live in their house.
"IV. The lower court
erred in not finding that the accused acted in pure self-defense with
all
the circumstances that exempts him from responsibility as provided for
in circumstances 4, section 8 of the Penal Code and in not acquitting
him
from the crime charged."
The testimony is conclusive
that the defendant killed Mariano Tugab. In fact the defendant
testified
that he fired the four shots which wounded the deceased, and the
attending
physician testified that the wounds were fatal. The defendant claims
that
he acted in self-defense.
The evidence for the
prosecution tends to show that for more than a year, the defendant was
boarding in the home of the deceased and his wife in the Municipality
of
Bayombong, Province of Nueva Viscaya, where he was working in the
office
of the Bureau of Lands as a computer. That later, after the office was
removed to the town of Solano, he continued as a partial boarder going
back and forth on his bicycle for the weekend. It also appears that at
different times on week days, the defendant went to the home of the
deceased
when the latter was away, and to say the least that there was more than
ordinary affection between the defendant and Maria Cerizo, the wife of
the deceased. Their actions and conduct aroused the suspicious of the
deceased,
and on the night of September 4, 1923, about 8 p.m., he went to the
house
of Panganiban and his wife where he had supper. On leaving there, he
said
to them that he would go secretly under his own house and listen. Soon
thereafter, both Panganiban and his wife heard the deceased exclaim in
a loud voice: "Now, I have caught you in the foolish acts that you are
doing," which was followed immediately by the voice of the wife of the
deceased, who said: "Of the foolish acts that we are doing, as you say,
you may file a complaint." Four or five revolver shots were immediately
fired which were distinctly heard, and when the officers came, they
found
the dead body of the deceased lying in the hall of his own home. On the
bed which was used by the defendant was found the baby's milk bottle
with
the nipples on it. The defendant, in explaining the presence of the
bottle
there, claimed that he placed it on his bed while attending to the baby
of Maria Cerizo. But in testifying before the Court, he denied having
put
the baby on his bed at any time during that day. It appeared to the
officers
that Maria Cerizo was very calm and serene, and that there was no
evidence
of any weeping or sorrow.
Andres Cerizo, a
brother
of Maria, upon hearing the shots, left his house at once, which was at
a short distance away, and ran to his sister's home, Maria Cerizo, the
wife of the deceased, and found her embracing the defendant and holding
his hand in which he had the revolver, and that he had trouble in
taking
the revolver away from the defendant.
The defendant claims
that on September 3rd, he was feeling sick and that he left his office
in Solano and returned to the home of the deceased in Bayombong, where
he laid in bed most of the day of September 4th. At about 8 p.m. and
while
asleep, he was attacked by the deceased, who struck him several blows
on
the face and held him by the neck, and that in self-defense and because
of the unexpected attack, he took his revolver from under his pillow
and
fired the fatal shots into the body of the deceased who fell dead
almost
immediately at the foot of the bed where the defendant was lying. It
also
appears from his own evidence that the defendant did not see any weapon
or instrument at the time of the alleged attack, but that on the same
evening,
the authorities found a pair of brass-knuckles near the body of the
deceased.
There is no merit in
the plea of self-defense.
The deceased was killed
in his own home as a result of four shots which the defendant fired
into
his body. There is no evidence of any serious struggle or that any
injury
or bodily harm was inflicted on the defendant.
It is very apparent
that, through his opportunities as a boarder, the defendant had stolen
the affection of the wife of the deceased husband, and to say the
least,
that the deceased had reasonable grounds for his suspicions. It may be
that the feelings of the husband were outraged, and that his anger was
aroused and that through unarmed, he might have or would have attacked
the defendant. Be that as it may, he was in his own home and under no
conditions
were the four shots fired in self-defense. The defendant admits that
after
he was attacked, he took his revolver from under the pillow and fired
the
shots.
Assuming that an attack
was made, it must not have been very vigorous or forcible. Otherwise,
the
defendant could not have so easily obtained his revolver. Again, it
appears
from the defendant's own testimony that he did not see the weapon or
instrument,
if any, which the deceased had.
There is no evidence
tending to show that the defendant was in any serious danger. Neither
is
there any merit in the grudge which the deceased is alleged to have
held
against the defendant. It is very apparent that the alleged claim was
manufactured
as a defense.
The sentence of the
lower court is twelve years and one day of imprisonment. It not
appearing
that there was either an aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the
penalty
should be in the medium degree, which is from fourteen years, eight
months
and one day to seventeen years and four months. The amount of the
indemnity
was only P500.
For such reasons, the
judgment of the lower court will be modified, and one will be entered
here,
sentencing the defendant to imprisonment for fourteen years, eight
months
and one day, reclusion temporal, and to indemnify the heirs of the
deceased
in the sum of P1,000, and in all other respects, the judgment of the
lower
court is affirmed, with costs. So ordered.
Malcolm, Villamor,
Ostrand, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.
Johnson, J.,
dissents. |