[ G. R. No. L-3410. March 07, 1951 ] 88 Phil. 319
[ G. R. No. L-3410. March 07, 1951 ]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. SIMEON DE VILLA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
REYES, J.:
Accused of murder together with his son but tried separately and found guilty only of grave threats by the Court of First Instance of Mindoro, Simeon de Villa has nevertheless appealed to the Court of Appeals.[1] But that court has certified the case to us on the ground that in its opinion appellant is guilty of murder. From the evidence adduced at the separate trial, the lower court found the facts to be as follows:
“* * * that on March 18, 1948, Feliciano de Villa, son of Simeon de Villa, was boxed by Celestino Rivero, son of the deceased Pascual Rivero; that Feliciano de Villa reported the incident to his father the herein accused Simeon de Villa; that at about 4 o’clock in the afternoon of May 18, 1948, Simeon de Villa came to the house of Pascual Rivero, the deceased, the former saying: ‘Come down I will kill all of you with my bolo;’ that since Pascual Rivero was not at home at that time Simeon de Villa left and hid under the house of a neighbor; that at about four o’clock in the afternoon of the same day May 18, 1948, Simeon de Villa bolo in hand met Pascual Rivero who retreated and took hold of a piece of wood 1 1/2 meters long of those ordinarily used as fence poles; that Simeon de Villa directed a thrust with his bolo (Exhibit D) to Pascual Rivero but the latter was able to parry the thrust and when both contending parties were maneuvering for the next clash or encounter, Feliciano de Villa, the son of the accused Simeon de Villa, suddenly appeared at the scene of the crime and coming from behind Pascual Rivero stabbed the latter at the right side with a G. I. hunting knife; that after receiving the stab wound Pascual Rivero ran away leaving Simeon de Villa and his son Feliciano de Villa on the scene of the incident, that Pascual Rivero was taken to the Provincial Hospital at Calapan, Mindoro, but 8 hours and 30 minutes after surgical intervention the patient died as a consequence of the stab-wound (Medical Certificate Exhibit A, Certificate of Death Exh. E).”
The trial court then concluded:
“In the fight between the accused Simeon de Villa and the deceased Pascual Rivero none of the contestants had suffered any injury. In view of the fact that there is no evidence showing conspiracy between Simeon de Villa and Feliciano de Villa to kill Pascual Rivero, the former cannot be responsible for the death of said Pascual Rivero caused by the stab-wound inflicted by his son Feliciano de Villa.”
The court, however found appellant guilty of grave threats because, according to the testimony of the widow of the deceased, appellant had threatened to kill the latter with a bolo. As contended by the defense and agreed to by the Solicitor General, appellant’s conviction for the crime of grave threats cannot stand, because that crime is neither charged in the information nor necessarily included in the crime of murder. The Solicitor General recommends, however, that appellant be convicted of murder, contending that “while it cannot be denied that there is no direct evidence showing the existence of conspiracy—still, their going together to the house of the deceased armed for aggression; their challenge to fight; their waiting for the return of the deceased and the attack upon him—the common motive for aggression—all reveal the existence of conspiracy.” But we find that not all of the circumstances just mentioned have been clearly proved. The widow declared that the son was with his father when the latter challenged or threatened to kill the deceased. But her testimony on that point is denied and is without corroboration. She also testified that the son was with the father when the latter attacked the deceased. But here again her testimony is not corroborated. On the contrary, it is contradicted by the Government’s own witness, Dionisio Catoy, who saw the fight from the beginning and was only about 5 meters from the combatants. In contrast, the widow was about a hundred meters away. It is evident from Dionisio Catoy’s testimony, which coincides with that of the defense witness Norberto Belsa, that at first the fight was only between the appellant and the deceased. What made appellant’s son join the affray may be only conjectured but not exactly known.. Apparently he merely acted on the impulse of the moment. Now, if it be true, as contended, that father and son had conspired to kill the deceased and had for that purpose waited for him under the house of a neighbor, then why is it that the son took no part in the early stages of the combat? And why did not he and his father finish off their victim on the spot instead of letting him go away after receiving one stab wound? With the evidence as it is, we cannot hold that the alleged conspiracy has been proved beyond reasonable doubt to justify the conviction of the father for the murder committed by his son. Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is revoked and the appellant acquitted, with costs de oficio. Moran, C. J., Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla and Jugo, JJ., concur.