[ G.R. No. 482. February 25, 1947 ] 77 Phil. 1018
EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 482. February 25, 1947 ]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. BIENVENIDO NOCUM, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
BENGZON, J.:
For having discharged a gun and accidentally killed Eugenio Francisco, the defendant Bienvenido Nocum, alias Bembe, was tried in the Court of First Instance of Manila, before the Honorable Alfonso Felix, judge. Found guilty of homicide through reckless negligence, he appealed in due course.
According to the evidence, about 9 o’clock in the evening of November 21, 1945, there was a fistic fight between Federico Bautista and Vicente Aurencio at the corner of Mayhaligue and Magdalena Streets, City of Manila. Desiring to stop the encounter, defendant shouted at the combatants. As these paid him no attention, he drew a .45 caliber pistol and shot twice in the air. The bout continued, however; so he fired another shot at the ground, but unfortunately the bullet ricocheted and hit Eugenio Francisco, an innocent by-stander, resident of the place. The wounded man was promptly carried to the St. Luke’s Hospital where he expired soon after.
The above paragraph is a composite and abridged statement of the declarations of several witnesses (Jesus Santos, Vicente and Juan Aurencio and Ramon Gagui) in connection with defendant’s confession Exhibit F.[1] But his attorney, assailing the validity of said confession on the ground of involuntariness, contends in this Court that inasmuch as the corpus delicti had not been demonstrated by evidence dehors that document, his client should be absolved, pursuant to several pertinent decisions. (United States vs. De la Cruz, 2 Phil., 148; and People vs. Bantagan, 54 Phil., 834.) Particular attention has been given to these points. Yet there is competent proof establishing the fact that, during the affray, pistol detonations were heard, and that one of the bullets produced the tragic death of Eugenio Francisco, whose photograph is Exhibit B. That is proof of the corpus delicti, i. e., proof of violent death, whether or not feloniously caused. (See Moran, Law of Evidence, Revised Edition, pp. 108, 109; People vs. Mones, 58 Phil., 46.) The confession Exhibit F served to identify the person who fired those shots and committed the offense.
We feel no inclination to reject such confession, because the uncorroborated and implausible testimony of the accused, alleging he had been manhandled before signing this document, about which he knew nothing, could not definitely overcome the positive assertions of Pablo Montilla of the Manila Police Department (before whom Exhibit F had been executed) that no force or intimidation had been employed on Nocum, who willingly signed it “after propounding to him all the questions and explaining to him the contents” thereof. The impartiality of that officer of the law has not been shaken by the lone testimony of herein appellant, which, as explained in the People’s brief, deserves no credence. Nocum said in court that he signed Exhibit F when Montilla told him “it was simply a proof that they arrested me” (p. 27, t. s. n.). This is inconsistent with the alleged third-degree methods. If he was forced, deceit was unnecessary. And yet, he could not be deceived thusly, because he was no illiterate, being seventh grader.
Anyway, the trial judge had the chance to see the opposing witnesses, and to observe their demeanor on the stand; and in the conflict of their statements we will not interfere with his judgment, unless the record discloses some important circumstance which was overlooked, (United States vs. Remigio, 37 Phil., 599; United States vs. Maralit, 36 Phil., 155), it being the peculiar province of trial courts to resolve questions relating to the credibility of witness. (United States vs. Pico, 15 Phil., 549.).
The mishap should be classed as homicide through reckless imprudence, the slaying having been unintentional (cf. People vs. Sara, 55 Phil., 939; and United States vs. Reodique, 32 Phil., 458). It is apparent the defendant wilfully discharged his gun—for which he exhibited no license, by the way—without taking the precautions demanded by the circumstance that the district was populated, and the likelihood that his bullet would glance over the hard pavement of the Manila thoroughfare.
A landowner surprised a youngster in the act of stealing some fruit in his orchard. To scare the intruder he fired a shotgun aiming at the foliage of a cherry tree. The shot scattered and a pellet injured the boy, who was standing under the tree. That was reckless negligence, the Spanish Supreme Court decided. (Sent., June 20, 1900, Viada, 5th ed., Vol. 7, p. 14.)
The penalty imposed on the appellant is 2 months and 1 day to 1 year and 1 day, indemnity of P2,000 with subsidiary imprisonment, and costs. It is within the limits authorized by law. (Article 365, Rev. Penal Code, and Act No. 4103.) (Act No. 284.)
Wherefore, the appealed judgment is affirmed, with costs against appellant.
Moran, C.J., Feria, Pablo, Hilado, Briones, Hontiveros, Padilla, and Tuason, JJ., concur.