EN
BANC
THE
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.
R.
No. 35523
February
13, 1932
-versus-
VEDASTO
PANCHO,
Defendant-Appellant.
D
E C I S I
O N
STREET,
J :
This
appeal has been brought
to reverse a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the Province of
Occidental Misamis, finding the appellant, Vedasto Pancho, guilty of
the
offense of homicide and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for
fourteen
years, eight months, and one day, reclusion temporal, and
requiring
him to indemnify the heirs of the deceased, Catalino Aurigue, in the
amount
of P1,000, and to pay the costs of prosecution.
At about 5 o'clock
in the afternoon of February 10, 1930, four individuals, namely,
Vedasto
Pancho, the accused, Catalino Aurigue, the deceased, Romualdo Solis,
and
Ambrosio Pacatang, were together in the kitchen at the home of Romualdo
Solis, resident of Jimenez, in Occidental Misamis. The four appear to
have
been engaged in drinking tuba. In the course of the talk that ensued
upon
this occasion, Catalino Aurigue told Pancho that he had adjusted the
blade
loosely on a fighting cock belonging to Catalino. Vedasto replied that
if he had put the blade on loosely, Catalino's rooster would not have
won.
Catalino continued to express his dissatisfaction, asserting that
Vedasto's
method of adjusting the blade was objectionable. Vedasto thereupon told
Catalino to shut up. Upon this Catalino flew into a rage and reached
under
the stove for his bolo. With this he struck at Pancho, inflicting, it
is
claimed, a wound on the calf of Pancho's left leg. In the struggle that
resulted Pancho succeeded in snatching the bolo from Catalino's hands.
At the same time Pancho drew back. Catalino, however, pressed the
attack,
attempting to get the bolo back, whereupon Pancho, fearing that
Catalino
might recover the weapon, struck a blow upon Catalino's left arm; and
as
Catalino again threw himself upon Pancho, the latter dodged and
delivered
another blow with the bolo upon Catalino's forehead inflicting a slight
wound. Catalino then seized Pancho's right hand, but with great effort
Pancho disengaged his hand and gave another cut with the bolo, wounding
Catalino on the face and forehead. This wound involved, but not deeply,
Catalino's left eye. Catalino then fell to the floor and the contest
ended,
while Pancho handed the bolo to Romualdo Solis. It appears that
Catalino
was the larger and stronger of the two contestants, and also that the
two
were related by marriage. The only wound that could be considered at
all
dangerous was the one which involved the left eye. This wound was about
4 inches in length and 1 1/2 decimeters deep. The left eyeball was
injured
and the cut extended into the left side of the nose. Death resulted
four
days later from infection and hemorrhage.
The sole witness for
the prosecution in this case is Romualdo Solis, a half-brother of the
deceased,
and also a brother-in-law of the appellant, Vedasto Pancho. The witness
Ambrosio Pacatang is an uncle of Pancho.
Although, as already
stated, the four individuals abovementioned had been present together
in
the room before the quarrel broke out, nevertheless, Solis went
downstairs
on an errand immediately before the two came to blows, and he did not
return
until he heard the noise caused by the struggle. On the other hand,
Ambrosio
Pacatang was present when the fight began, but he got so frightened
that
the ran away, leaving the room before or about the same time that
Romualdo
Solis returned. There was therefore one eyewitness present in the room
during the whole affair, in addition to the principals, Pacatang seeing
the first half and Solis the second half of the struggle. The testimony
of Pacatang concerning the manner in which the altercation began,
corroborates
in every respect the account given by Pancho, and the witness Solis
likewise
corroborates Pancho on every material point with respect to what
happened
in the last half of the altercation.
Upon these facts, We
are of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to an acquittal. In
the
first place, it would have been proper no doubt to concede to him the
benefit
of the mitigating circumstance that he had been, like his companions,
drinking
tuba, and was, therefore, to some extent, intoxicated. But
it is
unnecessary to discuss the propriety of this mitigating circumstance,
for
the reason that, in Our opinion, the appellant acted in justifiable
self-defense.
The quarrel was begun by Catalino, and an unjustifiable assault was
made
by him upon the appellant with a dangerous weapon. When, contrary to
what
might have been expected, the appellant succeeded in getting possession
of the bolo, the deceased resolutely pressed the attack, attempting to
recover the weapon. Under these circumstances, it is but natural that
the
appellant should have used the same weapon to defend himself, and more
properly so because his antagonist was larger and stronger than
himself.
In dealing with situations of this kind some allowance must be made for
the excitement naturally incident to the physical contest; and it
cannot
fairly be said that in using the bolo as he did, the appellant passed
beyond
what was reasonably necessary for his own defense. It might very well
have
happened that the deceased would have recovered the bolo, and, enraged
as he then was, the most probable thing is that he himself would have
struck
the appellant with the weapon, inflicting perhaps a fatal injury, or
injuries,
upon him. In the light of these considerations, We are of the opinion
that
the appellant should be acquitted.
The judgment is,
therefore,
reversed and the defendant absolved from the complaint, with costs of
both
instances de oficio. So ordered.
Avanceña, C.J.,
Malcolm, Villamor, Romualdez, Villa-Real and Imperial, JJ.,
concur.
Ostrand, J.,
dissents. |