PP vs. Ortiz
PP vs. Ortiz
PP vs. Ortiz
Vs.
IMPERIAL, J.:
Blas Ortiz and Modesta Zausa are charged with the crime of homicide in an
information, the relevant portion of which reads:
The defendants pleaded not guilty in the Court of First Instance of Capiz, were tried,
and appealed from the judgment finding them guilty of said crime, for which they were
each sentenced to fourteen years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal, to
indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P1,000, to suffer the accessories of
the law, and each to pay one-half of the costs.
Counsel for the appellants assigns in his brief the following alleged errors:
1. The trial court erred in giving credit to the testimony of the witnesses for the
prosecution, and not to the witnesses for the defense, and in concluding that the
deceased felt no resentment whatever.
2. The court also erred in finding that after Sotero Bancoyo's death, the male
defendant placed the shotgun beside the corpse in order to pretend that it
belonged to the deceased.
3. The court likewise erred in not finding that it was Blas Ortiz who wounded,
assaulted, and killed Sotero Bancoyo, and that he did so in self-defense; and
4. The trial court also erred in not acquitting the defendants because they acted in
self-defense.
With the exception of the last assignment of error, all the others raise questions of fact. It
has therefore been necessary in order to decide them, to make a careful examination of
all the parol and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing. From an analysis of
said evidence we find the following facts to be clearly proved:
Sotero Bancoyo, the deceased, and the appellants had known one another for many
years at the time the crime was committed, for his wife and that of the male appellant
were sisters. The latter-named appellant, for reasons which do not appear of record,
confiscated and retained several of the dead man's cedula certificates, which the latter
resented. About noon on September 8, 1930, the deceased, accompanied by three
laborers, companions of his, was returning from a plantation belonging to Pio Brionson
carrying some corn which he had gathered; on reaching the house preceding that of the
defendants, as he felt thirsty he attempted to ask the occupants for water, but as they
happened to be absent, he went to the defendant's house, situate in the barrio of
Malapoy, municipality of Pilar, Province of Capiz, and while in front of the house,
called out to the male appellant for a drink of water. The latter answered from within
that they had no water, and could not serve him, to which the deceased replied: "May
we not drink your water?" The appellant rejoined, "But we have no water. How can you
compel us to give you some water?" And immediately afterwards, he descended from
the house carrying his shotgun, which he pointed at the deceased. When the latter saw
the appellant's aggressive attitude, he flung himself upon him, caught hold of the
weapon, and they both struggled for it. At this juncture Modesta Zausa, the female
appellant, companion of Blas Ortiz, took a spear from within the house, rushed down
and with it attacked the deceased, stabbing him on the left side of the abdomen, so that
the intestines protruded. (Dying declaration.) The deceased fell to the ground
unconscious, was assisted, and that night died of peritonitis.
The defense contends that the trial court should have given more credence to the
witnesses for the defense, and held that the shotgun belonged to the deceased; that a
struggle took place between the deceased and the male appellant in the course of which
the latter succeeded in overpowering his opponent and in obtaining the firearm; that in
defending himself the male appellant wounded the deceased with the spear, and that
the shotgun found after the fight beside the dead man's right arm was not place there
by the appellant. As to the female appellant, the theory of the defense is that she took no
part, directly or indirectly, in the attack.
The defense's account of the occurrence finds no support in the evidence. It clearly
appears that the shotgun belonged to the appellant, who had it for a long time before
the crime; several of the witnesses for the prosecution saw him with the gun. The
appellant began the attack, because of the deceased's reproach in exclaiming there was
not even water to drink in the appellants' house. These main facts have been established
by the testimony of the following witnesses for the prosecution: Guillermo Baldia,
Ambrosio Tungala, and Brigido Bernales; as well as by the deceased himself in his ante
mortem declaration made before the justice of the peace who took charge of the
preliminary investigation, and went at once to the place of the crime. The fact that the
appellants testified to a different facts, and that their two witnesses apparently
corroborated them, does not mean that the evidence of the prosecution has lost its value
or that the real facts are not those established thereby.
It is argued that the ante mortem statement does not contain all the requisites for its
validity, because it appears that the deceased's statement that he was very seriously
wounded, and that he believed he would not survive, was made after and not before or
at the beginning of the declaration. We hold that the latter is not invalid for this reason.
At any rate, it appears that the deceased made the declaration referred to with the full
conviction that he was very seriously ill, and with the consciousness that he was about
to die. (Underhill on Criminal Evidence [2d ed.], sec. 103; U. S vs. Castellon, 12 Phil.,
160; U. S. vs. Mallari, 29 Phil., 14; U. S. vs. Jakan Tucko, 20 Phil., 23; U. S. vs. Virrey, 37
Phil., 618; and U. S. vs. Ramos, 23 Phil., 300.)
After carefully examining all the evidence presented, we have no hesitancy in finding
that the attack was begun, as already stated, by the appellant Blas Ortiz, who levelled
his shotgun at the deceased; that a struggle ensued between the two for the possession
of the weapon; and that at this juncture Modesta Zausa came down from the house with
a bamboo spear, approached the deceased and stabbed him on the left side of the
abdomen, producing a wound so serious that it resulted in peritonitis, which caused his
death that same night.
Finally, the defense contends that if the facts are really as stated, the appellant Ortiz
should be acquitted because he did not take part in the attack made by Modesto Zausa,
and because, according to the facts, there was no previous agreement between them to
commit the crime. In this we believe the defense is right. It has been indisputably shown
by the ante mortem statement (Exhibit D) that while the deceased and the male appellant
were struggling for the shotgun, Modesta Zausa caught up the spear, hurried
downstairs, approached the deceased, and suddenly stabbed him with it. From this it
appears that there was no plan or agreement between the appellants to carry out the
attack which ended in the death of the victim, and that from the time Modesta Zausa
though of wounding the deceased to the time she actually did so, barely a few seconds
elapsed, and this interval is palpably insufficient to give rise to the criminal agreement
alleged in the information.
In the United States vs. Reyes and Javier (14 Phil., 27), one of the defendants, named
Reyes, suddenly and unexpectedly inflicted certain mortal wounds with his club upon
one Legaspi, while the latter was being held by the other defendant. It was held:
That Javier was neither principal nor accomplice in the commission of the crime
of homicide of which Reyes was convicted, it appearing that there was no
concerted action between him and his codefendant, that he had no reason to
believe that a homicidal attack was about to be made, and that, in holding
Legaspi, he was not voluntarily cooperating therein.
In United States vs. Juares (21 Phil., 440), the judgment of conviction for homicide was
reversed with reference to one of the appellants on the ground that although in the
course of a quarrel in a barrio he joined with some others who were threatening the
deceased, he did not follow them in pursuing said deceased, there being nothing in the
record to show that the accused had any reason for believing that his companions
would take the victim's life should they catch him up.
In United States vs. Monteroso and Monteroso (33 Phil., 325), it was held that . . . while
the record discloses that the defendant Eugenio Monteroso joined with his father and
his brothers in the quarrel which arose as a result of the misbehaviour of the deceased,
it does not conclusively appear that he was a party to the deadly assault of which his
father was guilty, or that he had any means of knowing that his father was about to
make such an assault . . ., said accused should be acquitted.
As no evidence appears in the record showing that the three accused had agreed
to kill the deceased, but on the contrary, as it appears from the evidence of the
prosecution, that the accused Leon Martinez, in intervening in the fight between
his father and brother and the deceased, acted independently without any
previous agreement with his coaccused, it is not proper to consider said accused,
Juan Martinez and Francisco Martinez, to be responsible for the consequences of
the wound inflicted upon the deceased by his coaccused Leon Martinez.
Applying the same doctrine laid down in the cases cited to the case of appellant Ortiz,
we hold that he cannot be convicted of homicide committed on the deceased Sotero
Bancoyo, either as principal or as accessory before the fact, for it has been shown that
there was neither plan nor agreement between him and his companion, the appellant
Modesta Zausa, to commit the crime, and that he took no part in the latter's attack with
the spear; and this notwithstanding the fact that the said appellant began by pointing
his shotgun at the deceased, but without any consequences.
From all the foregoing it may be inferred that the first three assignments of error are
unfounded, but that the fourth and last is well taken; wherefore, we have reached the
conclusion that Blas Ortiz did not incur any criminal liability for the act committed by
his coappellant.
The penalty imposed upon Modesta Zausa is the minimum of the medium degree of
that fixed by article 404 of the Penal Code, which is in accordance with law, there being
no modifying circumstance present.
Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed so far as it finds the appellant
Modesta Zausa guilty of homicide and sentences her to fourteen years, eight months,
and one day of reclusion temporal, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount
of P1,000, to suffer the accessories of article 59 of the Penal Code, and to pay one-half of
the costs of both instances, and reversed with reference to the appellant Blas Ortiz, who
is hereby acquitted, with the other half of the costs de oficio. So ordered.
ACCESSORIES
PEOPLE v ORTIZ AND ZAUSA (55 PHIL 993), August 27, 1986, G.R. No. L-3507
Ortiz and Zausa were charged with conspiracy to kill the victim but Ortiz contends that
he should be acquitted because he did not take part in the attack. The Court ruled that
Ortiz cannot be convicted either as principal or as accessory, for it has been shown that
there was neither plan nor agreement between him and Zausa to commit the crime, and
that he took no part in the latter's attack with the spear.