G.R. No. 33614 - People of the Philippine Islands vs. Benedicto Cortes, et al.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 33614 November 4, 1930
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS,plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
BENEDICTO CORTES, ET AL.,defendants-appellants.
Jose Zurbito for appellants.
Attorney-General Jaranilla for appellee.
STREET,J.:
This case has been brought to the Supreme Court upon appeal, for thepurpose of reversing a judgment of the Court of First Instance of theProvince of Masbate, finding the appellants, Benedicto Cortes, SantiagoCortes, and Honestorio Bellocillo, guilty of the offense of homicide,the first in the character of principal , and the other two in thecharacter of accomplices , and sentencing the pricipal, in view of theaggravating circumstance that advantage was taken of superior strenght,to undergo imprisonment for seventeen years, four months and one day,reclusion temporal, with the accessories prescribed by law, andsentencing the accomplices, in view of the same aggravatingcircumstance, to undergo imprisonment for ten years and one dayprision mayor, with the accessories prescribed by law, and requiringall the accused to indemnify, jointly and severally the heirs of thedeceased in the amount of P1,000, without subsidiary imprisonment incase of insolvency and requiring each to pay one-third part of thecost.
It appears that on the afternoon of February 16,1930, there occured inthe cockpit of Punta Buri, barrio of Guiom, municipality of Milagros,Province of Masbate, a contest between two cocks, one of which belongedto Raymundo Cortes, a brother of the appellant Benedicto Cortes and uncleof the appellant Santiago Cortes. The causes of the two featheredchampions were respectively sustained by individuals of the barrio ofGuiom, on one part, and of the neighboring barrio of Cawayan, on theother. Both of the birds were wounded in the first onset, and adiscussion ensued between the partisans of the respective birds as towhich of the two had gained the victory, a contention of chiefinterest to those who had laid their wagers on the one or the other. Asno judge was functioning with authority to decide the matter, CandidoMalapitan, the owner of the cockpit, declared the fight a draw. Apparently this decision was not satisfactory to all of the personsinterested, and after a futile attempt to stage an addtional fightbetween two other cocks, the sport was abandoned.
The two factions chiefly concerned in this matter consisted ofBenedicto Cortes and others, of the barrio of Guiom and a number ofindividuals, including one Simeon Kilantang, pertaining to the barrioof Cawayan. After the sport had been concluded and the ring in thecockpit was being cleared, one Anacleto Aballe stepped into theinclosure and asked Candido Malapitan, who had been serving asstakeholder, to return P1 which Anacleto, as one of the Cawayan crowd,had wagered upon one of the birds. Malapitan handed Anacleto the money,and the latter started out. As he turned towards the door, he met theappellant Santiago Cortes to whom he addressed the question why thecockfight had not been proceeded with. Santiago answered, "Whatbusiness is that of yours?" (¿Que tieneusted que ver?) Anacleto didnot respond but continued on his way out. However, before reaching thethreshold, Santiago came up behind him and wounded him in the back witha dagger. Upon being thus attacked Anacleto started to run but waspresently confronted by Alejo Cortes, an uncle of Santiago, who struckAnacleto in the breast with a stick. This blow caused Anacleto to fall,but he sustained himself for a moment on his hands and knees. Whilein this position Benedicto Cortes, the father of Santiago, in turnstruck Anacleto on the back with the stem of a coconut branch.
At this juncture Cipriano Aballe, uncle of Anacleto, came hurrying fromthe seashore, where he had been standing, to the spot where trouble hadarisen, in the hope of aiding his nephew. But as Cipriano Aballeapproached, Benedicto Cortes, now armed with a piece of wood calledtogñod,struck Cipriano on the left forearm. The blow thus deliveredwas of sufficient force to fracture Cipriano's arm. At this momentSimeon Kilantang, one of the Cawayan crowd came within reach of thesame weapon wielded by Benedicto Cortes, and the latter, confrontingSimeon, struck him in the forehead, smashing the frontal bone. Simeonfell to his knees and hands, and while he was in this position,Santiago Cortes struck him on the back of the neck with a round pieceof bamboo. Immediately thereafter Honestorio Bellocillo also struckSimeon on the right hip with a club. The three assailants — the presentappellants — then ran away, whereupon two daughters and a brother ofSimeon took him up and carried him to the beach where they chafed himwith water and brought him back momentarily to his senses, Whenconsciousness was restored, Simeon said that he did not know why he hadbeen attacked, as he had done nothing. the same affectionate hands thentook up the wounded man to carry him home, but he died in a few momentson the way.
Such is the story of the homicide as constructed from the testimony offive of the witnesses for the prosecution, and a study of the recordleaves no doubt in our mind that this narrative is in the main true.
This version of the affair is, however, contradicted by a number ofwitnesses for the defense, whose testimony tends to show that the fatalblow upon the forehead of Simeon Kilantang was delivered by the handsof Santiago Cortes, and not by the father Benedicto Cortes; while,according to the same witnesses, the only blow struck by BenedictoCortes was the one that landed on the back of the neck of Simeon afterhe had fallen to his hands and knees, It will thus be seen that the twosets of witnesses, for the prosecution and defense respectively, imputethe two blows on the forehead and back of the neck of the deceased toprecisely different agents. At the same time the testimony of thedefendant's witnesses tends to show that in the outbreak of the quarrelbetween Anacleto Aballe and Santiago Cortes, the former was theaggressor. The defense therefore, is directed along the line of showingthat Santiago Cortes acted in self-defense and that Benedicto Cortesmerely intervened to assist his son.
The artificial nature of this line of proof is conspicuous in thetestimony of Santiago Cortes who pretends that, when the altercationoccurred between him and Anacleto in the ring of the cockpit, Anacletodrew a knife, whereupon a struggle ensued between the two for thepossession of this weapon , and while they were thus contending, Anacleto Aballe cut himself in the back with his own knife. It isevident, however, that the knife referred to was in the hands ofSantiago Cortes in the beginning and that the instrument was wielded bySantiago when Anacleto received a wound from it in the back. In thisconnection we note that the wound referred to was located about one andone-half inches from the backbone, at the level of the eleventh dorsalvertebra, and was one and one-half inches deep. Our conclusion fromreading the proof is that the trial court committed no error in holdingthat the blow which resulted in the death of Simeon Kilantang came fromthe hands of the appellant Benedicto Cortes.
The offense committed was undoubtedly homicide, and we concur in theestimate made of the offense by the trial court to the effect thatBenedicto Cortes is guilty in the character of principal and SantiagoCortes and Honestorio Bellocillo in the character of accomplices only.In this connection two decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain arepertinent, which are summed up respectively as follows:
Two individuals attacked a third person inflicting two lesions, onefatal, the other curable in twenty days. The Supreme Court declaredthat the author of the latter injury is responsible for the crime ofhomicide, in the character of accomplice, and not of the crime ofinflicting physical injuries, on the ground that, although the injuryinflicted by the other codefendant was the one that caused death to theperson slain, it is nevertheless undeniable that, by the infliction ofthe other wound at the same time, the author of the latter cooperatedin the tragic result, and that consequently, in accordance witharticle 15 of the Code, he should be considered as an accomplice in thehomicide, since, without having taken part, in its execution in eitherof the three ways indicated in article 13, he cooperated in theoffense by means of a simultaneous act. (Sentence of December 1,1873;l — Hidalgo,Codigo Penal, 303.)lawphil.net
When two persons attack another with clubs and strike him to theground and then a third person gets upon him, trampling upon his faceand breast, will such third person be properly characterized as anaccomplice in the homicide if the assaulted person dies as a result ofthe blows from the clubs? The Supreme Court has resolved the pointaffirmatively, basing its resolution upon the proposition that eventhough such third person did not take part in the infliction of thefatal injury with the club, for which reason he cannot be brought underarticle 13 (as pricipal) , he nevertheless cooperated simultaneously inthe tragic result by kicking the person slain, who was on the groundwounded; and this simultaneously of acts contributing to the homicidemakes him an accomplice in the same. (Sentence, December 29,1884,Gazette of August 22, 1885; 2 Viada,Codigo Penal, 5th ed., 431.)
But while we concur with the trial court in the qualification of thepricipal feature of the case, we are of the opinion that his Honorerred in estimating as present in the case the aggravating circumstancethat advantage was taken of superior strength (art.10, subs. 9, PenalCode.) The estimation of this circumstance is essentially inconsistentwith the finding that only one of the three accused is guilty in thecharacter of pricipal, while the other two participated in thecharacter of accomplices only. Where the abuse of superior strength isto be estimated as an aggravating circumstance from the mere fact thatmore than one person participated in the offense, it must appear thatthe accused cooperated together in some way designed to weaken thedefense; and if, in the case before us, the two accomplices reallyparticipated in the sense necessary to enable the court to estimateagainst them the aggravating circumstance mentioned, this would makethem guilty in the character of principals. But the court having foundthat only one of the three was a principal and that the other two didnot cooperate in the way necessary to make them principals, it isevident that the single principal cannot be said to have takenadvantage of superior strength; nor can said aggravating circumstancebe estimated against the accomplices. It is difficult to see how thedistinctive aggravating circumstance now under consideration couldever be present in a contest between two individuals of approximatelyequal powers. In the case before us the blows delivered by the threeaccused upon the body of the deceased, though simultaneous in thesense necessary to determine complicity on the part of Santiago Cortesand Honestorio Bellocillo, such acts having been part of the same fatalassault, nevertheless those blows were not delivered in unison. It isevident also that the element of prior conspiracy among the threeaccused was wanting. It results that the respective penalties imposedupon all of the accused must be reduced to the medium degree.
To correct the error above indicated, as well as to adjust theprovision regarding indemnity to the requirement of articles 124 and125 of the Penal Code, the dispositive part of the appealed decision ishereby amended in the sense that the appellant Benedicto Cortes, asprincipal is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for fourteen years,eight months and one day,reclusion temporal, with the accessoriesprescribed by law, and to pay indemnity to the heirs of the deceased inthe amount of P500, without subsidiary imprisonment in case ofinsolvency; and that the appellants, Santiago Cortes and HonestorioBellocillo, as accomplices, are each sentenced to undergo imprisonmentfor eight years and one day,prision mayor, with the accessoriesprescribed by law, and to pay, jointly and severally, to the heirs ofthe deceased the sum of P500 as indemnity, without subsidiaryimprisonment in case of insolvency. And it is further ordered that, incase of insolvency of Santiago Cortes and Honestorio Bellocillo,Benedicto Cortes, shall be subsidiary liable for their share of theindemnity; and in case of the insolvency of Benedicto Cortes, aspricipal, the accomplices Santiago Cortes and Honestorio Bellocilloshall be subsidiarily liable, jointly and severally, for the indemnitydue from said pricipal. As thus modified, the judgment is affirmed,with proportional costs against each of the appellants. So ordered.
Johnson, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ.,concur.
Separate Opinions
JOHNS,J.,dissenting:
As we analyze the evidence, the judgment of the lower court is rightand should be affirmed, and to that extent we dissent.