G.R. No. 49212 - JULY 1947 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. 49212July 31, 1947 Eriberto de las Alas vs. El Pueblo de Filipinas G.R. No. L-1536July 31, 1947 Ricardo Parulan vs. Sotero Rodas, et al. G.R. No. L-1419July 31, 1947 Rosario Oching, et al. vs. Sotero Rodas, et al. G.R. No. L-1420July 31, 1947 M.C. de Salvacion, et al. vs. Sotero Rodas, et al. G.R. No. L-1421July 31, 1947 Dionisia Abueg, et al. vs. Sotero Rodas, et al. G.R. No. L-1321July 31, 1947 Roberto Lupisan vs. Francisco Alfonso, et al. G.R. No. L-1319July 31, 1947 Juana Canafe, et al. vs. Hermogenes Calauag, et al. G.R. No. L-1302July 31, 1947 Miguel J. Ysrael vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-1156July 31, 1947 Ricardo Espiritu vs. M.L. de la Rosa G.R. No. L-1095July 31, 1947 El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Salvador Galleto, et al. G.R. No. L-1082July 31, 1947 Flora Aylon vs. Fernando Jugo, et al. G.R. No. L-1031July 31, 1947 Ireneo Castillo, et al. vs. Anacleto B. Ramos, et al. G.R. No. L-49160July 30, 1947 Mariano A. de Castro vs. Casimiro Tamparong G.R. Nos. L-1400, L-1406 and L-1407July 30, 1947 Francisco Cunaan, et al. vs. Sotero Rodas, et al. G.R. No. L-1335July 30, 1947 Cecilio Buenaventura vs. Emilio Peña, et al. G.R. No. L-1320July 30, 1947 Santiago Degala vs. Patricio C. Ceniza, et al. G.R. No. L-1287July 30, 1947 Ong Sit vs. Edmundo S. Piccio, et al. G.R. No. L-1255July 30, 1947 Carlos Toledano vs. Felix Severino G.R. No. L-894July 30, 1947 Luis F. General vs. Jose R. de Venecia, et al. G.R. No. L-430July 30, 1947 People of the Philippines vs. Francisco M. Abad G.R. No. L-226July 30, 1947 Virginia Sta. Maria-Garcia, et al. vs. Gustavo Sancho G.R. No. L-1235July 29, 1947 Amado Buenaventura vs. Eulalio Garcia, et al. G.R. No. L-1121July 29, 1947 Conchita vda. de Saludes vs. Gregorio Pajarillo, et al. G.R. No. L-1354July 28, 1947 Feliza Capistrano, et al. vs. Emilio Peña, et al. G.R. No. L-1267July 28, 1947 Leonor Arcega, et al. vs. Potenciano Pecson, et al. G.R. No. L-962July 28, 1947 Felix Azotes vs. Manuel Blanco, et al. G.R. No. L-407July 28, 1947 People of the Philippines vs. Daniel Alarcon G.R. No. L-322July 28, 1947 People of the Philippines vs. Pedro Manayao, et al. G.R. No. L-568July 16, 1947 People of the Philippines vs. Juan Francisco G.R. No. L-524July 2, 1947 People of the Philippines vs. Angel Beato The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Eriberto de las Alas vs. El Pueblo de Filipinas Ricardo Parulan vs. Sotero Rodas, et al. Rosario Oching, et al. vs. Sotero Rodas, et al. M.C. de Salvacion, et al. vs. Sotero Rodas, et al. Dionisia Abueg, et al. vs. Sotero Rodas, et al. Roberto Lupisan vs. Francisco Alfonso, et al. Juana Canafe, et al. vs. Hermogenes Calauag, et al. Miguel J. Ysrael vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Ricardo Espiritu vs. M.L. de la Rosa El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Salvador Galleto, et al. Flora Aylon vs. Fernando Jugo, et al. Ireneo Castillo, et al. vs. Anacleto B. Ramos, et al. Mariano A. de Castro vs. Casimiro Tamparong Francisco Cunaan, et al. vs. Sotero Rodas, et al. Cecilio Buenaventura vs. Emilio Peña, et al. Santiago Degala vs. Patricio C. Ceniza, et al. Ong Sit vs. Edmundo S. Piccio, et al. Carlos Toledano vs. Felix Severino Luis F. General vs. Jose R. de Venecia, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Francisco M. Abad Virginia Sta. Maria-Garcia, et al. vs. Gustavo Sancho Amado Buenaventura vs. Eulalio Garcia, et al. Conchita vda. de Saludes vs. Gregorio Pajarillo, et al. Feliza Capistrano, et al. vs. Emilio Peña, et al. Leonor Arcega, et al. vs. Potenciano Pecson, et al. Felix Azotes vs. Manuel Blanco, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Daniel Alarcon People of the Philippines vs. Pedro Manayao, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Juan Francisco People of the Philippines vs. Angel Beato The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 49212 July 31, 1947
ERIBERTO DE LAS ALAS,recurrente-apelante,
vs.
EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS,recurrido-apelado.
Sres. Pelaez y Teehankee en representacion del apelante.
El Procurador General Auxiliar Sr. Carmelino G. Alvendia y Procurador Sr. Manuel P. Barcelona en representacion del Gobierno.
PABLO,J.:
En la causa No. 5 del Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Batangas, Melchor de las Alas y Eriberto de las Alas, padre e hijo fueron acusados del delito de homicidio. El Juzgado absolvio a Melchor. Eriberto alego que matoa Jovencio Atienza por defensa propia y por defender asu padre. El Juzgado acepto la defensa incompleta y condeno a Eriberto de las Alas a la pena indeterminada que no baje de 6 meses y un dia y que no exceda de 4 años y 2 meses deprision correccionalcon las accesorias, a indemnizar a los herederos del occiso en la suma de P2,000 con prision subsidiaria y mitad de las costas.
El Tribunal de Apelacion confirmo esta sentencia el 31 de mayo de 1943. La mocion de reconsideracion hasido denegada.
El recurrente acude ante este Tribunal en apelacion porcertiorariseñalando tres errores cometidos, a saber:
1. The Court of Appeals erred in incorporating in its decision alleged findings or conclusions of fact which are in no way supported by the evidence of record, and in making the same unsupported findings or conclusions the basis of a judgment of conviction.
2. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that the petitioner had been guilty of provocation sufficient to prevent the complete allowance of his plea of self-defense.
3. The Court of Appeals erred in rendering judgment of conviction and in denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
El apelante alega que las conclusiones de hecho del Tribunal de Apelacion no estan claramente apoyadas porningun prueba; que son claramente contrarias a las pruebas que obran en el expediente. Es facil alegar ese argumento especialmente hoy que el expediente ha sido ya destruido por la guerra; pero no es justo hacerlo. Es improcedente.
En apoyo de su contencion el recurrente copia parte de la mocion de reconsideracion presentada ante el Tribunal de Apelacion. Esta mocion ha sido denegada por otra division. Creemos que esta otra division, compuestade otros magistrados, ha tenido en cuenta todas las pruebas que se han tomado durante la vista. El acusado he tenidola rara oportunidad de ser juzgado por dos distintas divisiones del Tribunal de Apelacion.
Al discutir el segundo y tercer errores, el recurrente reproduce parte de la mocion de reconsideracion presentada ante el Tribunal de Apelacion, y arguye que aunque elacusado haya pronunciado palabras de amenaza a Jovencio Atienza dichas palabras no pueden considerarse suficiente provocacion porque no habia propocion entre la amenaza y la agresion. El Tribunal de Apelacion que ha tenidola oportunidad de leer todas las pruebas dijo en su decision: "In this appeal, Eriberto's attorney submitted a carefully prepared brief, analyzing the facts and the law applicable to the case, maintaining that when defendants persisted in making the ditch notwithstanding the request of Jovencio and his wife, they committed no vexatious act inasmuch as they merely exercised their lawful right to work upon premises belonging to them. We are unconvinced. The provocation consisted not only in the act of building a ditch that caused Jovencio's dike and soil to slip into the excavation, but also the retort that they will not only keep on opening the canal but they will also open Jovencio's stomach. That insulting remark was sufficient provocation. (See U.S.vs.Ampar, 37 Phil., 201.) But even disregarding such irritating answer, defendants' insistence in so excavating on their lot as to imperil Jovencio's wall, constituted enough provocation, because defendants' ownership over the land gave them no privilege to use it in such manner as to threaten their neighbor's property. More, they were actually encroaching upon Jovencio's natural right to support for his land from neighboring land." Si hubo suficiente provocacion o no es cuestion de hecho; es cuestion de apreciacion de las pruebasen que este Tribunal no debe inmiscuirse.
El Tribunal Supremo no tiene facultad en su jurisdiccion apelada para revisar las pruebas y decidir si las conclusiones de hecho del Tribunal de Apelacion son erroneas o no, si estan justificadas o no. La jurisdiccionde este Tribunal en asuntos elevados ante el procedentes del Tribunal de Apelacion que da limitada a revisar y examinarlos errores de derecho en que este ultimo hayapodido incurrir. (Sec. 138, Cod. Adm. Rev., tal comoha sido enmendado por seccion 2, Ley del Com. No. 3; MateocontraAdministrador Insular de Aduanas y Tribunal de Apelaciones, 63 Jur Fil., 500.) Este Tribunal no tiene autoridad para cambiar, alterar o modificar las conclusiones de hecho del Tribunal de Apelacion. (Regla 46, sec. 2; GuicocontraMayuga, 63 Jur. Fil., 352; Mamuyacvs.Abena, 67 Phil., 289; Menesesvs.Commonwealth of the Philippines, 69 Phil., 647 Onglengcovs.Ozaeta and Hernandez, 70 Phil., 43; Hernandezvs.Manila Electric Co., 71 Phil., 88; Geriovs.Gerio, 71 Phil., 106; Garcia de Ramosvs.Yatco, 71 Phil., 178; Zubirivs .Quijano, 74 Phil., 47; Peoplevs.Benitez, 73 Phil., 671.)
Se deniega el recurso con costas.
Moran, Pres., Paras, Feria, Hontiveros, Padilla, and Tuason, MM.,estan conformes.
Separate Opinions
PERFECTO,J.,dissenting.
Appellant's case appears to have been decided by the Court of Appeals on May 31, 1943, during the Japanese occupation, and therefore, by a tribunal established by the invaders and not one under the authority either of the laws or the Constitution of the Philippines. For the reasons stated in our opinions inCo Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon(75 Phil., 113), the judgment against appellant is one of those judicial processes that we consider null and void.
It appearing that the evidence in the case has been destroyed, we are of opinion that the reconstitution of the evidence should be ordered so that this Court may proceed to revise it and render what it might deem a just decision. In case the evidence cannot be reconstituted, a new trial should be ordered.
This is how we decide this case.