G.R. No. L-1798 - DECEMBER 1948 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-1798December 29, 1948 People of the Philippines vs. Domingo Acusar, et al. G.R. No. L-2055December 24, 1948 People of the Philippines vs. Eduardo Canastre G.R. No. L-1710 and L-1711December 23, 1948 EL Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Epifanio Manabat, et al. G.R. No. L-1963December 22, 1948 People of the Philippines vs. Magno Quinto, et al. G.R. No. L-1961December 22, 1948 People of the Philippines vs. Antonio delos Reyes G.R. No. L-1701December 22, 1948 People of the Philippines vs. Pablo Esquivel, et al. G.R. No. L-1175December 22, 1948 People of the Philippines vs. Mimbal Kali, et al. G.R. No. L-1845December 21, 1948 People of the Philippines vs. Tomas Caraos, et al. G.R. No. L-1703December 21, 1948 People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto Castillo, et al. G.R. No. L-1702December 21, 1948 People of the Philippines vs. Rufo Ronda, et al. G.R. No. L-1652December 21, 1948 People of the Philippines vs. Fermin Suarez, et al. G.R. No. L-2211December 20, 1948 Natividad I. vda. de Roxas vs. Potenciano Pecson, et al. G.R. No. L-604December 17, 1948 El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Aniceto Aribas, et al. G.R. No. L-1908December 17, 1948 People of the Philippines vs. Vivencio Celespara G.R. No. L-2118December 16, 1948 El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Florencio Barrera G.R. No. L-2204December 15, 1948 El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Jose A. De La Cruz G.R. No. 49155December 14, 1948 Juan Castro vs. Acro Taxicab Co. Inc. G.R. No. L-2061December 14, 1948 Domingo B. Maddumba, et al. vs. Roman Ozaeta, et al. G.R. No. L-1894December 14, 1948 El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Eugenio Jose, et al. G.R. No. L-1813December 14, 1948 People of the Philippines vs. Delfin Gallego, et al. G.R. No. L-1774December 14, 1948 People of the Philippines vs. Claudio Ordonio, et al. G.R. No. L-1727December 14, 1948 People of the Philippines vs. Maximo Hofileña G.R. No. L-1333December 14, 1948 People of the Philippines vs. Valentin Hernana, et al. G.R. No. L-1959December 13, 1948 El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Fernando S. Gonzales G.R. No. L-2503December 10, 1948 Crecensio Ruben Tolentino vs. Cesario Catoy G.R. No. L-2658December 9, 1948 Epifanio Baradi vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. L-2147 and L-2148December 9, 1948 Ignacio M. Coingco vs. Roberta Flores G.R. No. L-1764December 9, 1948 People of the Philippines vs. Angelo Magsilang G.R. No. 082027December 3, 1948 In Re: Angel J. Parazo Alleged leakage of questions in some subjects in the 1948 Bar Examinations G.R. No. L-2581December 2, 1948 Fidel C. Querubin vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-1804December 2, 1948 People of the Philippines vs. Maximo Vergara G.R. No. L-1687December 2, 1948 People of the Philippines vs. Ludovico Dedal, et al. G.R. No. L-1622December 2, 1948 People of the Philippines vs. Juan Lansanas, et al. G.R. No. L-1516December 2, 1948 People of the Philippines vs. Ricardo de Los Reyes The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. People of the Philippines vs. Domingo Acusar, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Eduardo Canastre EL Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Epifanio Manabat, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Magno Quinto, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Antonio delos Reyes People of the Philippines vs. Pablo Esquivel, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Mimbal Kali, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Tomas Caraos, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto Castillo, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Rufo Ronda, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Fermin Suarez, et al. Natividad I. vda. de Roxas vs. Potenciano Pecson, et al. El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Aniceto Aribas, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Vivencio Celespara El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Florencio Barrera El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Jose A. De La Cruz Juan Castro vs. Acro Taxicab Co. Inc. Domingo B. Maddumba, et al. vs. Roman Ozaeta, et al. El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Eugenio Jose, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Delfin Gallego, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Claudio Ordonio, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Maximo Hofileña People of the Philippines vs. Valentin Hernana, et al. El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Fernando S. Gonzales Crecensio Ruben Tolentino vs. Cesario Catoy Epifanio Baradi vs. People of the Philippines Ignacio M. Coingco vs. Roberta Flores People of the Philippines vs. Angelo Magsilang In Re: Angel J. Parazo Alleged leakage of questions in some subjects in the 1948 Bar Examinations Fidel C. Querubin vs. Court of Appeals People of the Philippines vs. Maximo Vergara People of the Philippines vs. Ludovico Dedal, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Juan Lansanas, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Ricardo de Los Reyes The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-1798         December 29, 1948

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
DOMINGO ACUSAR, MARCELINO ACUSAR, IGMIDIO ACUSAR, ANSELMO ACUSAR, and OTHERS UNKNOWN,defendants.
DOMINGO ACUSAR and IGMIDIO ACUSAR,appellants.

Reyes and Agcaoili for appellants.
Assistant Solicitor General Guillermo E. Torres and Solicitor Manuel Tomacruz for appellee.

PERFECTO,J.:

At about eleven o'clock in the morning of August 21, 1946, the brothers Domingo and Marcelino ACUSAR went to the U.S. Army Ammunition Depot at barrio Balte, Batangas, to which formerly they used to go together some firewood. Domingo boarded a truck, used by the depot for carrying trash, when it was about to move out. After the truck had traveled some distance, about fifty meters, Domingo threw out from the truck three spades. Upon seeing it, Romero Velasquez, the foreman of the depot, ordered the laborers to take the spades, Laborer Francisco Orense went running to pick them up, Marcelino coming behind him, evidently in a race to reach for the spades. Orense placed the spades among the implements used in the depot.

At about twelve o'clock that same day accompanied by Anselmo Acusar, another brother, Domingo returned to the depot and asked the laborers, who were then taking their noontime, rest, who took the three spades. Orense answered that he was the one on orders of the foreman. At this juncture Romero approached the group and was asked by Domingo who ordered the taking of the spades. Romero answered that he was the one because, as foreman, he was responsible for them. Domingo demanded that the spades be given to him because he had promised them to somebody else. Romero rejected the demand. alleging that the spades were placed under his care and responsibility, he had signed receipts for them and he would be accountable for their loss. Domingo insisted in his demand and Romero in his refusal.

The discussion became heated, and Domingo went to one side where he picked a bolo and with it he hacked twice Romero at the back. Romero fell down. Although he was able to stand up once, he fell down again under the continued attacks of Domingo, who was helped by his brothers Anselmo and Marcelino, both using knives to wound Romero. One of the assailants said that Romero should be left alone because he was dying, and Romero was left alone lying wounded on the ground.

At the time he was being attacked, an old man, Gregorio Velasquez, father of Romero and who was in the depot as one of the laborers, had been shouting to the assailants to leave alone his son because he was not offering any resistance. Upon noticing it, Igmidio Acusar, father of Domingo, came down from his house, accompanied towards Gregorio and started pounding him with the butt of a rifle, while his two companions beat the old man withbakawansticks.

After leaving Romero alone and upon seeing what was happening where Gregorio Velasquez was, Domingo, Anselmo and Marcelino, each armed with a crowbar that they picked lying among the empty boxes, joined their father in beating to fall, Domingo hacked him once on the back with a bolo. Gregorio fell unconscious and the assailants fled.

As a result of the affray, Gregorio Velasquez did a few minutes after his arrival in the Station Hospital of the American Army in Batangas, due to multiple and severe fractures of the skull, which appeared like an egg that had been pounded and battered to pieces by blows. The deceased had received an incised wound on the shoulder.

The right thumb of Romero Velasquez was severed and he suffered several wounds. He had to stay for many days in the hospital, less than a month, and had an additional two-week medical treatment at the dispensary after he left the hospital.

The facts of the case, as above narrated, have been conclusively proved. Direct participation of Domingo and Igmidio Acusar in causing death of Gregorio Velasquez of Domingo in almost killing Romero Velasquez, has been established by the testimonies of Francisco Orense and Crisanto Atienza.

Igmidio tried to establish as alibi. alleging that in the morning of August 21, 1946 he went to the town of Cuenca to look over a bull he was intending to purchase from Fausto Dipasupil. He was accompanied by his son, Marcelino, and both started from Cuenca to their home at about 1 o'clock in the afternoon and, therefore, he could have not taken part in the assault that caused the death of Gregorio Velasquez. Marcelino Acusar and Fausto Dipasupil testified to corroborated him but the lower court has correctly rejected the defense. The testimonies of the three witnesses for the prosecution appear to be more reliable. No improper motive was shown why laborers Francisco Orense and Crisanto Atienza would have falsely imputed to Igmidio active participation in , and the commencement of, the assault against Gregorio Velasquez.

The defense does not deny, but admits that Orenses and Atienza were in the scene of the incident and were eyewitness to the wounding of Romero and the killing of Gregorio. It is unquestioned that the whole incident took place in the presence of other persons, aside from those who testified at the trial, and if the accusation against Igmidio were false, there would have been one or more who, not enduring to se an innocent falsely accused of a crime he has not committed, would have come in the open to testify in court and champion his cause. The more or less widespread cynicism notwithstanding human experience has conclusively shown that the essential feeling of righteousness in the average human being is a reality that cannot be ignored.

Domingo tried to show by his own testimony, unsupported by any other witness, that in wounding Romero he acted in self-defense, but not one of the many actors and witnesses of the whole incident corroborated him. He said that between Romero and himself there was exchange of words and counter-charges as thieves for the pilferage of goods in the depot and that Romero, provoked by the counter-accusation against him, drew out an open knife and tried to stab Domingo who evaded the blow and ran away. But Romero chased him until Domingo was able to hold a bolo which was on top of some boxes. There was a scuffle. While Romero suffered many wounds and lost his right thumb, Domingo, due to his dexterity in fencing, was able to come out unscathed.

The inverisimilitude of Domingo's version is apparent. It is unbelievable that in such a long struggle narrated by Domingo, the latter should come out without a single scratch on the skin, while Romero should suffer so many wounds. Not even extreme ability in fencing can explain such an extraordinary result, considering that Romero was not a weakling. On the contrary, his survival from the many wounds he received is an evidence that he was endowed with unusual vitality. According to Dr. Schrank, two back wounds of Romero and one on his thigh were caused by a sharp instrument like a knife, not a bolo. The three wounds belie completely the story of Domingo.lawphil.net

The lower court found the two appellants guilty of murder for the death of Gregorio Velasquez and found Domingo guilty of serious physical injuries caused to Romero Velasquez. The Solicitor General is of opinion that the crime committed for the killing of Gregorio should not be considered murder but homicide. The abuse of superior strength to make the crime murder, not having been alleged in the information, should only be considered as aggravating circumstances for the crime of homicide. As regards the attack on Romero, the Solicitor General maintains that, from the evidence, Domingo's intention to kill was manifest, he and his co-assailants having used deadly weapons such as bolos and knives. As a matter of fact, they left Romero for dead. But as Dr. Schrank, witness for the prosecution, has expressed the doubt that the wounds suffered by Romero would, without medical assistance, have caused his death, the Solicitor General is of opinion that the crime committed by Domingo is only attempted homicide. The position of the Solicitor General is well taken. Igmidio is responsible as principal of homicide for the slaying of Gregorio. Both prosecution and defense, correctly agreed that Domingo should only be found guilty as accomplice in the homicide, there being no conspiracy and his contribution being a mere lacerated wound on the shoulder of the deceased which was described by Dr. Schrank as moderate and not fatal.

Accordingly, Igmidio Acusar is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from six years and one dayprision mayorto seventeen years, four months and one day ofreclusion temporal, and Domingo Acusar, as accomplice in the crime of homicide, to suffer an indeterminate penalty of from two years, four months and one day ofprision correccionalto eight years and one day of prision mayor, and as principal of the crime of attempted homicide, to suffer from one month and one day of arresto mayor to two years, four months and one day ofprision correctional.

For the loss of the right thumb of Romero Velasquez the latter shall be indemnified by Domingo Acusar in the sum of P500, and both Igmidio and Domingo Acusar shall indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of the deceased Gregorio Velasquez, as recommended by the prosecution and in accordance with the doctrine laid down inPeople vs. Amansec(L-927, 45 Off. Gaz. [Supp. to No. 9], 51)¹in the sum of P6,000, and to pay the costs.

Moran, C.J., Paras, Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Briones, Tuason and Montemayor, JJ., concur.

Footnotes