Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-47822 March 13, 1941
EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS, querellante-apelado,
vs.
FRANCISCO BIHAG, acusado-apelante.
D. Jorge Jazmines en prepresentacion del apelante.
El Procurador General Sr. Ozaeta y el Procurador Sr. Noel en representacion del Govierno.
HORRILLENO, J.:
Esta es una causa por parricidio en que el acusado Francisco Bihag fue hallado culpable y condenado por el Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Zamboanga a doce años y un dia de reclusion temporal, con las accesorias de la ley, y a pagar las costas. Contra este fallo interpuso apelacion para ante este Tribunal.
La defensa señala en su alegado cuatro errores en que, segun ella, incurrio el Tribunal a quo al fallar la causa, a saber:
1. The trial court erred in declaring that the accused, Francisco Bihag, had killed his wife;
2. The trial court erred in not declaring that Dolores Gerolaga had committed suicide;
3. The trial court erred upon making a finding that the handwriting in the letters Exhibits 1 and 2 are not authentically of the deceased, Dolores Gerolaga;
4. The trial court erred in finding the accused guilty of the crime as charged, based upon the extrajudicial confession Exhibit C alone.
Como se ve, los errores 1, 2 y 4 envuelven cuestiones puramente de hecho.
Esta probado, sin ninguna discussion entre la acusacion y la defensa, que Dolores Gerolaga era esposa legitima del acusado Francisco Bihag; que el 20 de agosto de 1939, por la mañana, Dolores fue hallada colgada y ya cadaver de bajo de la casa de su madre, en la Ciudad de Zamboanga.
La teoria de la defensa consiste en que Dolores se suicido. La acusacion, por su parte, alega que la mato su marido. ¿Como la mato?
El acusado, aquella misma mañana, casi inmediatamente despues del hallazgo del cadaver de Dolores, fue conducido al cuartel de la policia por un miembro del servicio secreto de la Ciudad de Zamboanga, alli, examinado sobre la muerte de su uesposa, presto voluntaria, libre y espontaneamente la declaracion Exhibit "C," la cual, despues de tomada, fue jurada y ratificada por el mismo ante el juez municipal de la mencionada ciudad. La parte de la declaracion, pertinente al caso es como sigue:
Q. Why did you kill her? —
A. Because I caught her with another man last night.
Q. Please relate to us in detail how you killed your wife Dolores Gerolaga. —
A. Yesterday morning, Saturday, August 19, 1939, my wife and I quarreled because she wants to go to the market alone and I insisted to with her. During our quarrel she threw her shoes to me hitting me on my head. So what I did was to slap her. Then we wrestled and grappled with each other, as a consequence of which I have scratches on my body, face and hands. Then early in the evening of the same day, my in-laws called us in the house and demanded from us an explanation as to why we quarreled in the morning. During the questioning of my in-laws my wife turned into a fit of rage, called me names and suddenly fled from the house. My sister-in-law, Filomena, and my brother-in-law Julio, followed my wife and they overtook her in the wharf about to jump into the water. Fortunately enough she was stopped and they returned back to Plaza Pershing. While there, my brother-in-law, Julio, returned to the house leaving my wife and my sister-in-law at Plaza Pershing. As soon as Julio arrived at the house he informed me of everything. I then immediately left the house with Julio to look for my wife. We went straight to the wharf but did not find my wife there. We returned passing by Plaza Pershing. As soon as we reached Plaza Pershing, I saw my wife sitting on a cement bench, side by side with another man. as I approached them they saw me and they intended to flee, the man holding my wife by her hand. I ran after them and when I overtook them I boxed the man on his face. The man did not tell me anything and instead he turned and went away. I then took my wife home. As soon as we reached home I asked my wife why she did that to me and we quarreled as a result. While we were quarreling my in-laws asked me why and I told them that I caught Dolores with another man in the Plaza Pershing. My in-laws were surprised to know that especially when my wife said, "What do you care if I have querido?" Because it was already getting late, my in-laws pacified us and told us to discuss the matter over the next day. So we retired for the night. Early this morning as soon as my wife awoke, she got all our dirty clothes and brought to our other house. From the other house she got the clothes that she washed yesterday and brought them back to hang them on the wire hanger near the house of my in-laws. While she was doing this, I approached her and invited her for breakfast, but she instead faced and attacked me with fist blows. I forgot myself, and to protect myself from further physical injuries, as what happened to me yesterday, I muffled her nose and mouth with my right hand, without the least intention of causing her death. But when she bit the right finger of my right hand, I took hold of her neck with my left hand so she would release my finger from her bite. Accidentally, I might have pressed her neck too tight, choking her, thus, causing her death. Finding her lifeless, fear gripped me and the impulse of making it appear a suicide came to me. So I dragged her under the house, tied her neck with a piece of rope and hung her on a floor joist. After that I went to our other house and pretended to look for my wife so that we can eat our breakfast. A few moments later I returned to the house of my in-laws and informed them that I cannot find Dolores. A search for my wife was then started until my mother-in-law found my wife Dolores under their house in the same way as I left her, dead.
El acusado, declarando ante el Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Zamboanga sobre el Exhibit c, admitio ser suya la declaracion en el contenida, asi como la firma que la autoriza; pero, explicando la parte del documento que se refiere a como mato a su esposa, dijo que hizo tales manifestaciones porque estaba mareado por el sentimiento que le habia producido la muerte de aquella. La cuestion, por tanto, a nuestro juicio, se reduce a si es valida o no esta explicacion. Consta en el proceso que el Exhibit C fue escrito en la oficina del cuerpo de la policia de la Ciudad de Zamboanga. Despues de escrito dicho exhibito, el acusado fue llevado ante el juez municipal y alli ratifico y juro su declaracion. Tambien aparece en autos que Dolores Gerolaga no estaba en buenos terminos con el acusado; era un matrimonio mal avenido; reñian con frecuenesposo, y solia hablar mal de el. Esto lo declaro el mismo hermano de la difunta, Julio Gerolaga, uno de los testigos de la defensa.
La teoria del suicidio no halla ningun apoyoen los autos. Ningun testigo declaro haber visto a Dolores colgarse ella misma. Las unicas circunstancias en que se funda la defensa para sostener su pretension son los continuous disgustos entre marido y mujer y que esta estuvo una vez a punto de echarse al mar para suicidarse. La busqueda que la familia de la difunta hizo de ella en la mañana de autos juntamente con el acusado, lejos de desvirtuar lo declarado por este en el Exhibit C, lo corrobroa y afirma. El acusado, en su declaracion Exhibit C, dice, entre otras cosas, que mato a su esposa; y, para hacer aparecer que ella se habia suicidado, la cologo con una cuerda en los bajos de la casa de su suegra; y, hecho lo cual, se marcho del lugar y aparetno buscar a su mujer, preguntando a sus cuñados y a su suergra.
En vista de estos hechos y circunstancias, entendemos que la culpabilidad del acusado esta probado fuera de toda duda racional.
El Procurador General en su alegto recomienda que no se aprecie mas que una circunstancia atenuante, a saber: la de no haber tenido el acusado intencion de causar un mal de tanta gravedad; pues, la de haberse presentado volutariamente a las autoridades no esta apoyada en los hechos. Concurrimos con el Gobierno en que, en la causa, solo es de apreciar una atenuante, cual es la mencionada de no haber tenido intencion el acusado de producir un mal tan grave.
Por tanto, modificando la sentencia objeto de apelacion, condenamos al reo a sufrir la pena de reclusion perpetua, con las costas de ambas instancias a cargo del acusado. Asi se ordena.
Avanceña, Pres., Imperial, Diaz, y Laurel, MM., estan conformes.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
