People Of The Philippine Islands v. Angeles

JOHNS, J.:

Numerous questions have been presented on this appeal, but under our view of the case, many of them are immaterial. Suffice it to say that the evidence is not sufficient to prove the existence of alevosia. Assuming that the evidence for the prosecution is true, it tends to show that the defendant stabbed the deceased in a sudden heat of passion, which was caused by a slurring remark which the deceased made to the defendant after reading the letter which the defendant delivered to Pedro Babor.

It is very apparent that the anger of the defendant was aroused by the remark of the deceased, and that the defendant stabbed the deceased in a sudden heat of passion. Hence, the crime is homicide and not murder. The questions then of the failure of the court to order a new investigation and the plea of former jeopardy are not immaterial.

The evidence shows that there was more or less of a bitter feeling between the defendant and the deceased growing out of a membership in some secret society. That the defendant anticipated trouble and thought that he was more or less in danger, and it was for such purpose that he applied for and obtained the letter in question to obtain official protection for himself If the testimony for the defense is true, it would result in a acquittal. But as we analyze the record, the defendant's theory is not reasonable or plausible.

Under our view of the case, the defendant is guilty of the crime of homicide without any extenuating or mitigating circumstance, and in minimum of the medium degree.

The judgment of the lower court is modified, and the defendant is found guilty of the crime of homicide and sentenced to fourteen years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal , to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P1,000, and to pay the costs. Johnson, Avanceña, Villamor, and Ostrand, JJ., concur. Street, J., reserves his vote.

Separate Opinions ROMUALDEZ,J., concurring and dissenting: I concur in that the crime proven is homicide only. I believe, however, that there must be taken into consideration the provocation on the part of the deceased, as a mitigating circumstance, and that the penalty must be only twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal. I believe, moreover, that the trial court erred in denying the accused the preliminary investigation expressly applied for upon the second complaint, which is for murder, although after this court has classified the crime as homicide, such an error ceased to be prejudicial to the accused, since an investigation was made upon the first complaint which was for homicide only.

Malcolm, J., concurs.