SECOND
DIVISION
THE
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.
R.
No. 26361
January
20, 1927
-versus-
CRISPINO
MANCAO
AND CIRIACO AGUILAR,
Defendants-Appellants.
D
E C I S I
O N
VILLAREAL,
J :
This is an appeal taken
by Crispino Mancao and Ciriaco Aguilar from a judgment of the Court of
First Instance of Cebu convicting them, in accordance with the
complaint,
of the crime of homicide, and sentencing each of them to fourteen
years,
eight months and one day of reclusion temporal, with the
accessories
of the law, to indemnify, jointly and severally, the heirs of the
deceased
Roberto Villela in the sum of P1,000, and each to pay one-half of the
costs.
In support of their
appeal, the appellants assign the following alleged errors as committed
by the trial court in its judgment, to wit: [1] The lower court
erred in giving too much weight to the testimony of Baldomero Villela
and
Eusebio Villela, aged 15 and 14 years, respectively, and in basing its
judgment upon said testimony; [2] the lower court also erred in not
holding
that the evidence for the defense preponderates and is more worthy of
credit
than that for the prosecution; [3] the lower court likewise erred in
not
finding that, in view of the evidence presented by both parties, the
accused
are at least entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt; [4] the lower
court erred in not holding that the accused Ciriaco Aguilar is mentally
deficient and is, therefore, not criminally liable, and, [5] the lower
court erred in sentencing the accused instead of acquitting them as it
should have done in view of the absence of incriminating evidence.
The prosecution and
the defense are agreed that Hilaria Dejan, upon her death, left
personal
property, cattle and real property, the latter consisting of corn
fields,
some of which were in the possession of Roberto Villela who had leased
them. The probate of the will of said deceased Hilaria Dejan, wherein
she
bequeathed one-half of her property to her nephew Roberto Villela and
her
niece Josefa Billones, having been denied and proceedings for the
administration
of the property left by her having been instituted, Crispino Mancao was
appointed administrator thereof on June 26, 1916. Roberto Villela
refused
to deliver the lands in his possession to the administrator, alleging
that
the products of the same were to go to the deceased's creditors. On
January
31, 1918, Crispino Mancao, as administrator of the property of the
intestate
estate of Hiliria Dejan, was cited to appear before the Court of First
Instance to explain why almost all the deceased's property did not
appear
in the inventory.
As to the disputed
facts, the prosecution tried to prove the following: In the afternoon
of
August 10, 1925, Crispino Mancao, accompanied by three men and several
women, approached Graciana Sedimo, Roberto Villela's tenant, and
inquired
if there was still corn to be harvested and divided between her and
Roberto
Villela by virtue of the lease. The unharvested and undivided portion
of
the corn field having been pointed out to them, the accused Crispino
Mancao
ordered the persons with him to begin harvesting said corn. In view of
Crispino Mancao's actions, Graciana Sedimo ordered her nephew Baldomero
Villela to notify Roberto Villela of the matter. Upon arriving at the
corn
field Roberto Villela asked the harvesters who ordered them to harvest
the corn. Crispino Mancao, who was in the corn field, replied that he
was
the one who ordered them to do so and started towards Roberto Villela.
The latter then asked the former if he had an order from the court to
harvest
the products. Crispino Mancao struck him wit a bamboo stick and said:
"This
is the order." Roberto Villela dodged the blow and snatched the cane.
Having
been deprived of his bamboo stick, Crispino Mancao took hold of his
bolo
and attempted to strike Roberto Villela which the latter warded or with
the stick he had in his hand. Crispino Mancao continued to strike
Roberto
Villela inflicting but slight wounds. Upon being attacked, Roberto
Villela
rushed at Crispino Mancao and a hand to hand fight ensued, in the
course
of which they fell down and the former succeeded in disarming the
latter.
After getting up, they continued to fight, Crispino Mancao receiving a
wound on his right hand and another on the right calf, and seeing that
he was getting the worst of it, shouted for help. A man dressed in
khaki
immediately appeared upon the scene and struck Roberto Villela a blow
on
the thigh as a result of which he fell to his knees. While in this
position
another man, wearing an undershirt, approached and, after striking him
twice on the thigh, ran away. Crispino Mancao then took hold of Roberto
Villela by the hands and while thus held, the accused Ciriaco Aguilar
struck
him with his sickle in the back as a result of which Roberto Villela
fell
to the ground unconscious. Upon Graciana Sedimo and the boy Baldomero
Villela
shouting for help, Crispino Mancao left the place and at about 6.30 in
the evening presented himself to the councilman of the barrio, Victor
Bienvenido,
carrying a bolo in his belt, and informed the latter what had happened.
The justice of the peace of Alonguisan, Cebu, accompanied by the chief
of police, upon investigation at the scene of the combat, found the
stick
Exhibit A, and Roberto Villela's belt which had been slit with a sharp
instrument. Upon examination of Roberto Villela's body which had been
taken
to Graciana Sedimo's house, he found a wound caused by a sharp
instrument
on the right side of the forehead; a small wound on the right side of
the
throat must below the Adam's apple; a large wound above the left knee;
two wounds below the left knee, one over the other; a deep wound on the
spine which almost completely severed the lumbar region; five deep
wounds
in about the same place and a wound in the palm of the left hand.
Conscious
of the seriousness of his condition and the hopelessness of living,
Roberto
Villela made a declaration which is contained in Exhibit C. The wounded
man died on August 26, 1925 as a result of said wounds.
The defense tried to
prove that while the accused and his companions were harvesting the
corn
on Hilaria Dejan's land on the afternoon of August 10, 1925, Roberto
Villela
approached and inquired: "Who ordered the harvesting of the corn?" that
the accused Crispino Mancao replied: "I did it by order of the court
and
not of my on accord," and at the same time Roberto Villela drew his
bolo
and attempted to strike Crispino Mancao a blow on the neck which the
latter
succeeded in warding off, only striking the brim of his hat; that
Roberto
Villela continued to strike him and he defended himself by means of the
stick which he had, but in spite of it he received a wound on the left
hand, the stick falling from his hand; that once unarmed Crispino
Mancao
rushed at Roberto Villela and grasped him in order to take the bolo
from
him; that in doing so Crispino Mancao took hold of the blade of Roberto
Villela's bolo, wounding the first and second fingers of his right
hand;
that in the course of the fight both fell to the ground, and as Roberto
Villela was the taller and stronger of the two, he succeeded in pinning
Crispino Mancao to the ground, who shouted for help; that the other
accused
Ciriaco Aguilar approached and said: "What have you done to him, he has
done you no wrong ;" that as Roberto Villela did not pay any attention
to him the accused Ciriaco Aguilar struck him on the back with a sickle
which he carried; that as Roberto Villela still did not mind him
notwithstanding
the wounds he had received on his back, the accused put the sickle
around
the former's left thigh and pulled it, forcing him to incline and free
Crispino Mancao; that while Roberto Villela was on top of Crispino
Mancao
he continued kicking Ciriaco Aguilar who wounded him on the right thigh
with his sickle; that one of the bolo blows of Ciriaco Aguilar aimed at
Roberto Villela hit Crispino Mancao wounding him below the right knee;
that Crispino Mancao had no bolo at the time; that the accused Ciriaco
Aguilar is an epileptic and as such is susceptible to fits which
deprive
him of his reason and to attempt to commit suicide or homicide without
being aware of it; that, at times, due to his affliction the accused
Ciriaco
Aguilar speaks at random, particularly when talking for any length of
time.
Of the five assignments
of error, four relate to findings of fact made by the trial court, and
the fifth to the conclusion of law based upon said findings of fact.
A careful and detailed
examination of the oral and documentary evidence presented by both
parties,
and the consideration given the antecedents of the case and the
circumstances
surrounding the commission of the criminal act, convince Us that the
accused
Crispino Mancao was the instigator and aggressor, Roberto Villela
having
done nothing but to defend himself, first disarming the former of his
stick
with which he was assaulted, and later of his bolo which he used after
having been deprived of his stick Roberto Villela might have had the
advantage
in the fight had not one of Crispino Mancao's laborers, dressed in
khaki,
come to his rescue, upon his cry for help, and struck Roberto Villela
on
the thigh; then, another man wearing an undershirt who struck Roberto
Villela
several times on the left knee; and, lastly, the accused Ciriaco
Aguilar
who struck Roberto Villela several blows on the back with his sickle,
one
of which nearly severed his spine in the lumbar region which later
caused
his death.
The allegation of
self-defense
made by the accused, Crispino Mancao, is groundless. The evidence
sufficiently
proves that he carried a stick and a bolo while Roberto Villela was
unarmed.
The latter refused to surrender the lands belonging to the intestate
estate
of the deceased Hilaria Dejan which were in his possession. And in view
of this and of the fact that it did not appear in the inventory
presented
by Crispino Mancao, as administrator, that he was in possession of said
lands, the court cited him to appear and explain his side of the
matter,
and ordered him to take the necessary steps to obtain possession of
said
lands. Crispino Mancao ordered the harvesting of the corn on said lands
without any judicial order to that effect, knowing full well that
Roberto
Villela would object to his doing so. Crispino Mancao's behaviour
showed
that he was ready to face the consequences of his act. In this state of
mind he undoubtedly became annoyed upon being asked by Roberto Villela,
on the afternoon in question, if he had an order from the court to
harvest
the corn, and he replied by striking said Roberto Villela with a stick,
saying that was the order of the Court.
While it is true that
the wounds which caused Roberto Villela's death were not inflicted by
Crispino
Mancao but by his co-accused Ciriaco Aguilar, yet said Crispino Mancao
having been the instigator and aggressor, and having called his
harvesters
to his aid, among them the said Ciriaco Aguilar, he wanted them to
carry
out, as in fact they did, the criminal act started by him and,
therefore,
he is liable not only for his own acts, but also for the acts of those
who aided him.
Neither can the defense
of lack of free will of the accused Ciriaco Aguilar, who is an
epileptic,
be sustained. While Ciriaco Aguilar, as an epileptic, was susceptible
to
nervous attacks that may momentarily deprive him of his mental
faculties
and lead him to unconsciously attempt to take his own life and the
lives
of others, nevertheless, it has not been shown that he was under the
influence
of an epileptic fit before, during, and immediately after the
aggression.
For the foregoing,
We arrive at the conclusion that the said accused are guilty beyond a
reasonable
doubt of the crime imputed to them, each being criminally liable as
principal
for having taken direct part in the commission of the crime.
Wherefore, and no error
being found in the judgment appealed from, the same is hereby affirmed
in all its parts, with the costs against the appellants. So ordered.
Johnson, Street,
Malcolm,
Villamor, Ostrand and Romualdez, JJ., concur.
|