Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. Nos. L-42128 and L-42129 December 19, 1935
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
VICENTE CO ARQUIZA, defendant-appellant.
Del Rosario and Del Rosario and Pineda, Abinales and Ozarraga for appellant.
Acting Solicitor-General Melencio for appellee.
ABAD SANTOS, J.:
This appeal concerns two criminal cases tried and decided by the Court of First Instance of Occidental Misamis and numbered 817 and 818, respectively, in the docket of that court. In case No. 817 appellant was convicted of the crime of homicide, with the mitigating circumstance of obfuscation and voluntary surrender, and sentenced to suffer from eight years and one day to ten years of prision mayor, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Irineo Clarete in the sum of P1,500, and to pay the costs; and in case No. 818, wherein he was charged with the crime of discharge of firearm with serious physical injuries, appellant was likewise found guilty , and sentenced to one year and eight months of prision correccional, to indemnify the injured party, Lorenzo Enerio, in the sum of P500, and to pay the costs.
In support of this appeal, counsel for the appellant have assigned six errors against the judgment below. All the alleged errors relate to the question of the weight of evidence. No new or important question of law is involved.1awphil.net
In view of the mass of conflicting evidence presented in the two cases under consideration, it is by no means an easy task to arrive at a definite conclusion as to the truth of the opposing claims advanced by the prosecution, on one side, and by the defense, on the other. Considering, however, the appellant's admission that he fired the shot which caused the death of Irineo Clarete and inflicted wounds on Lorenzo Enerio, the inquiry is reduced to the question of whether the appellant acted in self-defense. The trial court, after an extended discussion of the evidence, rejected the claim that the appellant fired the fatal shot because he was assaulted by Clarete and his men. The following quotation from the decision of the trial court is, in our opinion, substantially in accordance with the weight of evidence:
SPANISH PP. 613-614.
We are inclined to disagree with the trial court as to the existence of the mitigating circumstance of obfuscation. It seems more fitting to appreciate in favor of the appellant the mitigating circumstance of provocation, which, in addition to that of voluntary surrender, requires the imposition of the penalty next lower to that prescribed for the crime of homicide, under article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, In other words, in criminal case No. 817, the applicable penalty is that of prision mayor. (Revised Penal Code, article 64 [5].) Pursuant to the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the appellant is hereby sentenced to suffer not less than two years of prision correccional and not more than eight years and one day of prision mayor.
In criminal case No. 818, the Solicitor-General suggests that the penalty prescribed for the crime of discharge of firearm under article 254 of the Revised Penal Code should be applied in its maximum period, in accordance with article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. From the testimony of Dr. Jose M. Contreras, the wounds of Lorenzo Enerio required medical attendance for a period of from ten to fifteen days. The offense thus committed by the appellant against Lorenzo Enerio comes within the purview of article 265 of the Revised Penal Code, and constitutes the crime of less serious physical injuries. The provisions of article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Act No. 4000, relate to two or more grave or less grave felonies resulting from the same act, and is therefore applicable here. Appreciating in favor of the appellant the two mitigating circumstance already mentioned, without any aggravating circumstances, the penalty next lower to that prescribed for the crime of discharge of firearm with less serious physical injuries, should be imposed on the appellant, that is to say, from one year, eight months and twenty-one days to two years, eleven months and ten days of prision correccional. Pursuant to the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the appellant is further sentenced to suffer not less than six months and one day and not more than one year, eight months and twenty-one days of prision correccional.
Modified as above indicated, the judgment appealed from is affirmed with costs against the appellant.
So ordered.
Hull, Vickers, Diaz, and Recto, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
