EN
BANC
THE
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.
R.
No. 30125
January
21, 1929
-versus-
JUAN
ALANGUILANG,
Defendant-Appellant.
D
E C I S I
O N
ROMUALDEZ,
J :
According
to the Information,
the accused Juan Alanguilang was charged with the crime of parricide,
having
killed his lawful wife, Aurelia Brion, and the Court of First Instance
of Laguna which tried the case on its legal merits, sentenced him to
life
imprisonment, with the accessories of the law, to indemnify the heirs
of
the deceased in the sum of P500 and to pay the costs.
The appellant appealed
from said judgment on the ground that the Court abused its authority in
denying the repeated motions for a postponement of the hearing of the
case
presented by the defense; that the conviction of the accused is based
on
contradictory or incredible testimony; and even supposing that he was
responsible
for the death of his wife, he never intended to kill her, and that if
he
did ever chastise her, his mind at that time was obfuscated and under
the
influence of jealousy.
Upon examining the
record we find nothing to indicate that the court abused its authority
or discretion in not granting the postponement of the hearing
requested,
not by the attorney de oficio but by another attorney who was not then
present. When said petition was denied the trial had not yet commenced
and the court had only then ordered the reading of the information, and
proceeded with the hearing without said attorney then presenting any
petition
for a period in which to prepare for the trial.
The last two
assignments
of error refer to the weight of the evidence. And it is found that it
sufficiently
shows that the accused, prompted by jealousy and armed with a piece of
firewood, abused his wife, striking her with said piece of wood on the
arm and on the abdomen until he finally caused her death. We consider
the
testimony of Clemente Alanguilang and Petronilo Balam, who partially
witnessed
the attack, worthy of credit. It is corroborated by the contusions
found
on the deceased's body at the autopsy; also the statements of the
little
boy Buenaventura, the accused's own son, made to the chief of police
[Exhibit
X] and the affidavit of said boy made before the justice of the peace
[Exhibit
Y]; also the affidavit made by Victoria Magnaye before the same justice
of the peace [Exhibit Z]. It is true that these witnesses, the boy
Buenaventura
and Victoria Magnaye, in testifying during the hearing of the case,
tried
to exculpate the accused and stated having signed said Exhibits X, Y
and
Z without knowing their contents; nevertheless, in our opinion, the
statements
and affidavits made by these witnesses before the chief of police and
the
justice of the peace deserve more credit, wherefore we do not believe
either
the exculpatory statements with which they defended the accused or the
explanation they gave as to why they signed said documents.
The record does not
show any modifying circumstance. The obfuscation alleged by the defense
cannot be taken into consideration. In order that the circumstance of
obfuscation
can be considered, it is necessary to establish the existence of an act
both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a condition of mind; and
that
said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the
commission
of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the
perpetrator
might recover his normal equanimity. [U. S. vs. Pilares, 18 Phil., 87;
U. S. vs. Taylor, 6 Phil., 162; U. S. vs. Sarikala, 37 Phil.,
486].
These requisites were not proven in the record.
Not finding any error
of law or fact, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed in all
its
parts, with the costs against the appellant. So ordered.
Johnson, Street,
Malcolm,
Villamor, Ostrand, Johns and Villa-Real, JJ., concur. |