[ G.R. No. 568. April 30, 1902 ] 1 Phil. 265
[ G.R. No. 568. April 30, 1902 ]
THE UNITED STATES, COMPLAINANT AND APPELLEE, VS. FRANCISCO CABE ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS. D E C I S I O N
ARELLANO, C.J.:
Late on a night in January, 1901, some ten or twelve men, armed with bolos and firearms, went to the vicinity of the house of Celedonia Bienes, situated in the barrio of Sail Antonio, town of San Nicolas, Pangasinan. Some of them entered the house and seized the brothers Francisco and Daniel Gascon, two of its inmates, and in the house next door captured Sotero Alquero, and, binding the three, took them toward the river Agno. While on the road, before reaching the river, they freed Alquero. Upon reaching the river one of the malefactors, who subsequently proved to be Roman Cabe, acting under orders of Francisco Cabe, shot Francisco Gascon, who was standing with his back toward the aggressor. Immediately after, Roman struck Francisco Gascon a blow with a bolo, separating bis head from his body, and then threw the body into the river. Upon this Julian Serios, another of the malefactors, struck Daniel Gascon several blows with a bolo, inflicting upon him five wounds. In consequence of the aggression Daniel fell into the river, where, believing him to be dead, the five men left him. Of the five Daniel was able to recognize only the three defendants Francisco and Roman Cabe and Julian Serios, whom he had known previously. After several hours he succeeded in reaching the bank of the river, got out of the water, and returned to his home. His wounds were several months in healing.
Although the three accused pleaded not guilty to the crime of murder, it is unquestionable that they were, with certain other persons unknown, the sole authors, by direct participation, of the violent death of Francisco Gascon. The evidence in the record shows unquestionably that Roman Cabe, obeying the orders of Francisco Cabe, attacked and killed Francisco Gascon in the presence of Julian Serios and his other companions unknown, who, although they took no material part in the execution of the crime, nevertheless gave their moral support, it not appearing that they attempted to prevent its consummation. Furthermore, Julian Serios directly attacked Daniel Gascon, the brother of the victim, who did not die, his wounds proving to be not of a mortal character.
The fact that only one witness testified is not an obstacle to our becoming fully convinced as to the certainty of the occurrence and of the guilt of the defendants, because, in addition to the testimony of this witness, we find grave and conclusive circumstantial evidence, based upon proven facts, such as the sequestration of the deceased and of the witnesses Daniel Gascon and Sotero Alquero by the three accused and seven or nine other individuals unknown; the wounds inflicted upon Daniel J the disappearance of Francisco Gascon, his brother; and the self-contradictory statements of the defendants themselves.
It is unquestionable that the killing of Francisco Gascon was committed with treachery (alevosia). It was executed while he was bound, in the middle of the river and in the hands of the three defendants, assisted by others. It is evident, therefore, that the crime was consummated without any risk to the aggressors arising from an attempt at defense on the part of the victim. Francisco Gascon and Daniel Gascon were policemen under the Americans. One of them had served the Americans as a guide. The two formed part of a gathering of several persons which was assembled that night at the house of Celedonia Bienes. For the purpose of meeting together at that barrio at a given hour and capturing the two brothers, and Sotero Alquero, who was in a neighboring house, and talcing them to the river Agno, 3 miles away, and for the purpose of killing one of them, or rather two—although the murder of Daniel was not consummated—it must be supposed that there wras a plan and a concerted action, which shows known premeditation on the part of the principals in this crime. To this generic aggravating circumstance must be added the other arising from the commission of the crime by an armed band in an uninhabited place and in the nighttime. This, although offset by the mitigating circumstance of article 11 of the Penal Code, still leaves the two circumstances first considered, to wit, the qualifying circumstance of known premeditation. These two circumstances being present, no penalty less than the maximum degree of that assigned for the crime of murder can be imposed.
Consequently the judgment of the court below is affirmed, the indemnification imposed in the judgment to be changed to 1,000 pesos.
Cooper, Willard, and Ladd, JJ., concur.