[ G.R. No. 46775. June 28, 1940 ] 70 Phil. 334
[ G.R. No. 46775. June 28, 1940 ]
THE PEOPLE OP THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. JULIAN SORIANO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
MORAN, J.:
An appeal from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Laguna convicting the accused-appellant, Julian Soriano, of the crime of murder, and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, with the accessory penalties of the law, and to an indemnity of P2,000. Since their marriage on January 12, 1911, the accused and her wife Juliana Velecina had been living together until 1937 when they separated by reason of the illicit relations which the wife sustained with the deceased, Pedro Punzalan. In October, 1938, the accused,at the request of his son, David, 13 years of age, returned home to reunite himself with his wife. This reconciliation notwithstanding, the illicit relations between his wife and the deceased appeared to have continued. On January 16,1939, at about 9 o’clock p. m., the accused, upon his return from Pila, Laguna, found the deceased in the store of their house talking with his wife. Thereupon, he went behind the stairs of the house, took the shotgun which he had previously placed thereunder, and when the deceased mounted the stairs, he fired at him, killing him instantly. Thereafter, he delivered himself up to the constabulary and signed a confession (Exhibit C) explaining the details of the killing, substantially as above stated. Later, he was brought by the authorities to the scene of the crime and there reconstructed the same which substantially corroborates his confession. His wife and their son David executed similar affidavits before the justice of the peace of Calauang, Laguna. Velecina stated in her affidavit that on the night in question, the deceased told her to close the store as the boy David was being bitten by the mosquitos; that she did as was told, but before she could close all the windows of the store she heard a gunshot; that she thereupon jumped down in front of the stairs of their house and saw an object which she perceived to be that of a person; and that she immediately went to the municipal building to report the matter. Their son David made, in his affidavit, substantially the same statement as that given by her mother. At the trial of the case, the accused rendered an entirely different version of the commission of the crime stating that in the evening in question, as he went up to his house, he called out to his wife asking her to open the door; that he himself, however, opened the door and found his wife lying down with the deceased on the same bed; that the deceased thereupon rose, ran towards the kitchen and proceeded downstairs; that he pursued the deceased from the rear yard towards the street; that the deceased, instead of proceeding to the street, mounted the cement platform of the stairs of the house; and that he, upon seeing this, went below the stairs, took his shotgun which was hanging on the wall and fired at the deceased, killing him instantly. We can give no credit to this last version of the crime by the defendant. It is inconsistent with his confession which we believe faithfully represents the truth. The confession was made by him immediately after the perpetration of the crime when he had as yet no opportunity to contrive or misrepresent. His testimony at the trial, on the other hand, must have been the result of afterthought or made upon advice, and is in itself incredible. If he really called out to his wife before entering the house, Pedro Punzalan would, then, have had sufficient time to slip away, and could not accordingly have been found with his wife lying together on the same bed. And if the accused had really pursued the deceased from the rear yard of the house towards the street, it is hardly conceivable that said deceased would seek refuge in the house again instead of seeking safety in flight, which he could very well do under cover of darkness. Under these circumstances, we are convinced, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused is guilty of the crime charged. The crime committed is murder, qualified by treachery, with the mitigating circumstances of passion and obfuscation, and voluntary surrender, and without any aggravating circumstance, evident premeditation not being clear. Under article 64, No. 5, of the Revised Penal Code, the next lower penalty should be imposed upon the appellant, that is, prision mayor in its maximum period, to redusion temporal in its medium period, or from ten (10) years and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months. With the modification that the appellant, Julian Soriano, be sentenced to four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correctional, to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, judgment is affirmed, with costs. Avanceña, C.J., Imperial, Diaz, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.