ChanRobles Virtual law Library
|
GO TO FULL LIST OF LATEST DECISIONS and RESOLUTIONS
THE
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
G. R. No. L-3 January 29, 1946 -versus-JOSE ANSOYON, Defendant-Appellant. OZAETA, J :
Jose Ansoyon appeals from
the Decision of the Court of First Instance of Mindoro which found him
guilty of homicide and sentenced him to suffer an indeterminate penalty
of not less than eight years and one day of prison mayor and
not
more than fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion
temporal,
with the accessories of the law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased
Jesus Marasigan in the sum of P2,000, and to pay the cost.
"II. The lower court erred in not finding that the accused and herein appellant acted in legitimate self-defense. "III. The lower court erred in not acquitting the accused and herein appellant on the ground of reasonable doubt." It is not disputed that
on the morning of February 3, 1945, in the Barrio of Salong, Calapan,
Mindoro,
Jose Ansoyon inflicted six stab wounds on Jesus Marasigan, one of which
was mortal, namely, that in the left side of the chest which cut the
lower
part of the heart. The only question to decide is whether he did so in
self-defense, as he claims.
[1] Prosecution.
- At or about 8 o'clock in the morning of February 3, 1945, a quarrel
ensued
between Romana Agnas and Cecilia Marasigan as the two met in front of
the
former's house in Salong, Municipality of Calapan, Province of Mindoro.
Seeing this incident, Gregoria Escares, a sister-in-law of Cecilia, who
lived next to the house of Romana Agnas, intervened with her husband,
Jesus
Marasigan, trying to separate the combatants [pp. 1, 2, 6, 7, t.s.n.].
As Gregoria Escares was holding Cecilia Marasigan, Jose Ansoyon arrived
and, armed with a balisong, immediately attacked Jesus
Marasigan
from behind. Jesus attempted to run away but was pursued by Jose
Ansoyon
whereupon he was forced to face his assailant and offer resistance.
There
was a scuffle between the two men until finally, Ansoyon subdued Jesus
Marasigan who fell down face upward near a barbed-wire fence. At this
stage
of the fight, Ansoyon plunged his knife on the left breast of Jesus
Marasigan
[pp. 2, 3, 7, 8, t.s.n.]." [pages 1-2, appellee's brief].
"The appellant then faced the deceased with the intention to retaliate but the latter pulled out his revolver ['paltik'] Exhibit 3 and aimed it at the appellant. The latter, believing himself in danger, pulled out his 'balisong' from his hip pocket, opened it and stabbed the deceased, fatally wounding him in the left chest. The two then grappled together, each trying to wrest from each other their respective weapons, and during the struggle, each was pushing the other until they reached the other side of the street where there was a barbed-wire fence. It was here that both contestants fell down, the appellant being on top of the deceased. It was here that the appellant was able to get hold of the revolver [Exhibit 3]. He then immediately rushed to his house while the deceased died on the spot, where the autopsy was performed by the Public Health Officer, Dr. Mariano Ylagan." [Pages 1-3, appellant's brief]. Thus, it will be seen that according to appellant's version, the revolver Exhibit 3, which he himself presented in evidence at the trial, belonged to the deceased; that the deceased pulled out said revolver and aimed it at the appellant, and the latter, "believing himself in danger, pulled out his balisong from his hip pocket, opened it and stabbed the deceased, fatally wounding him in the left chest"; that the other minor stab wounds in the back, left hand, and left forearm of the deceased were inflicted by appellant subsequent to the fatal wound in the left side of the chest and during the struggle between the two combatants, "trying to wrest from each other their respective weapons." But according to the prosecution's version, which was sustained by the trial court, the deceased was unarmed; the revolver belonged to the appellant; the first wound inflicted by the latter was the superficial stab wound in the back just below the left shoulder; and the last wound was the mortal one in the left side of the chest, which cut the mortal one in the left side of the chest, which cut the lower part of the heart and which was inflicted after his adversary had fallen down face up. The wounds received by the deceased are described in the certificate Exhibit B issued by Dr. Mariano L. Ylagan as follows:
"2. On the left forearm about 2 inches above the left wrist joint is another stab wound which was about 1 inch long, 1/4 inch wide and 1/2 inch deep. "3. There is a stab-wound on the left side of the chest, perpendicular in position to the long axis of the body, and whose external end is about 1-1/2 inches below the left nipple. This wound is about 3 inches long, 1 inch wide and about 3 inches deep. The lower part of the heard was cut in this region. "4. There is a small superficial stab-wound on the back just below the left shoulder. "The cause of death was internal hemorrhage from the wound on the chest and the above-mentioned lesions were caused by a sharp pointed instrument." We find appellant's version
incredible. We cannot bring ourselves to believe that, after receiving
the mortal wound in the left side of the chest which cut the lower part
of the heart, the deceased could still struggle with his assailant not
only to retain the possession of his own weapon but also to seize that
of this adversary. Neither can We believe that the deceased had a
revolver
at that time; that he pulled it out and aimed it at the appellant but
never
fired it nor made any other use of it to defend himself against the
determined
attack of his adversary, who was armed with a fan knife and who claims
that he was forced to pull it from his hip pocket and to open it and
plunge
it into the left side of the breast of the deceased after the latter
had
aimed his revolver. It certainly would have taken the deceased much
shorter
time to pull the trigger of the revolver than for the appellant to pull
out his fan knife from his hip pocket and open it. Even if We assume
that
the deceased was merely bluffing when he allegedly pulled out his
revolver,
We cannot believe that he would not at least use its barrel or handle
to
parry the blows of his adversary.
|
|