EN BANC
[G.R. No. 41746. March 27, 1935. ]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOAQUIN SIOJO, Defendant-Appellant.
Camus & Delgado for Appellant.
Solicitor-General Hilado for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. CRIMINAL LAW; HOMICIDE; DYING DECLARATION. — It appears from the dying declaration itself that the wounded man realized that he was about to die. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the document in question was admissible as the dying declaration of G. E.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; OFFICIAL TRANSLATION OF A DOCUMENT SUBMITTED AS EVIDENCE. — More than once this court, as shown by its published decisions, has taken into consideration documents written in a Philippine dialect, which had been admitted into evidence without being accompanied by translation. In the case of Ahag v. Cabiling (18 Phil., 415), it was said that when there is presented in evidence an exhibit written in any language other than Spanish, if there is an appeal, that exhibit should be translated into Spanish by the official interpreter of the court, or a translation should be agreed upon by the parties, and both original and translation sent to this court. In the present case we ordered the Solicitor-General to submit a translation of the document in question. This order was complied with, and no exception to the translation made by the Solicitor-General was taken by the attorneys for the Appellant.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID. — Undoubtedly the trial judge should have required the fiscal to submit with Exhibit B an English or Spanish translation of it, but in view of the failure of defendant’s attorneys to object to the admission of Exhibit B on that specific ground, and because of the particular facts of this case, namely, that the document in question is written in the language of the province where the crime was committed, and this language was known by the accused and his attorneys, there was no error, certainly no reversible error, in the admission of the document in question.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ADMISSIBILITY OF DYING DECLARATION. — We cannot accept appellant’s contention that no weight should be given to Exhibit B because J. P., who prepared it, was a near relative of the deceased, and for the further reason that the accused had filed administrative charges against P as a justice of the peace. There is nothing in the record to justify the insinuation that P took advantage of the situation to pervert the words of the dying man to the prejudice of the accused.
5. ID.; ID.; ILL FEELING OF ACCUSED. — The existence of ill feeling between the accused and the deceased is fully established, and the fact that the accused under those circumstances seated himself between the deceased and the driver, where there was scarcely room enough for him, although there were vacant seats in the motor bus, clearly tends to show that the accused was bent on making trouble.
6. ID.; ID.; CONTEMPT OF AND INSULT TO PUBLIC AUTHORITY. — As to the finding of the lower court that the crime was committed in contempt of and with insult to the authorities, we think this finding is not justified by the facts of the case. In the first place, the deceased was not a public authority, but an agent of the authorities. In the second place, the provision of law in question is not applicable when the person in authority is the offended party (U. S. v. Rodriquez, 19 Phil., 150, where it was held that this aggravating circumstance can exist only when the public authority is engaged in the existence of his functions, and is not the person against whom the crime is committed in which that circumstance appears; decision of the Supreme Court of Spain, January 24, 1881; 1 Viada, 310).
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; OFFICIAL TRANSLATION OF A DOCUMENT SUBMITTED AS EVIDENCE. — More than once this court, as shown by its published decisions, has taken into consideration documents written in a Philippine dialect, which had been admitted into evidence without being accompanied by translation. In the case of Ahag v. Cabiling (18 Phil., 415), it was said that when there is presented in evidence an exhibit written in any language other than Spanish, if there is an appeal, that exhibit should be translated into Spanish by the official interpreter of the court, or a translation should be agreed upon by the parties, and both original and translation sent to this court. In the present case we ordered the Solicitor-General to submit a translation of the document in question. This order was complied with, and no exception to the translation made by the Solicitor-General was taken by the attorneys for the Appellant.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID. — Undoubtedly the trial judge should have required the fiscal to submit with Exhibit B an English or Spanish translation of it, but in view of the failure of defendant’s attorneys to object to the admission of Exhibit B on that specific ground, and because of the particular facts of this case, namely, that the document in question is written in the language of the province where the crime was committed, and this language was known by the accused and his attorneys, there was no error, certainly no reversible error, in the admission of the document in question.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ADMISSIBILITY OF DYING DECLARATION. — We cannot accept appellant’s contention that no weight should be given to Exhibit B because J. P., who prepared it, was a near relative of the deceased, and for the further reason that the accused had filed administrative charges against P as a justice of the peace. There is nothing in the record to justify the insinuation that P took advantage of the situation to pervert the words of the dying man to the prejudice of the accused.
5. ID.; ID.; ILL FEELING OF ACCUSED. — The existence of ill feeling between the accused and the deceased is fully established, and the fact that the accused under those circumstances seated himself between the deceased and the driver, where there was scarcely room enough for him, although there were vacant seats in the motor bus, clearly tends to show that the accused was bent on making trouble.
6. ID.; ID.; CONTEMPT OF AND INSULT TO PUBLIC AUTHORITY. — As to the finding of the lower court that the crime was committed in contempt of and with insult to the authorities, we think this finding is not justified by the facts of the case. In the first place, the deceased was not a public authority, but an agent of the authorities. In the second place, the provision of law in question is not applicable when the person in authority is the offended party (U. S. v. Rodriquez, 19 Phil., 150, where it was held that this aggravating circumstance can exist only when the public authority is engaged in the existence of his functions, and is not the person against whom the crime is committed in which that circumstance appears; decision of the Supreme Court of Spain, January 24, 1881; 1 Viada, 310).
D E C I S I O N
VICKERS, J.:
The appellant was tried in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan on a plea of not guilty to an information for the crime of homicide, wherein it was alleged:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Que en o hacia el 17 de agosto de 1933, en el Municipio de San Miguel, Provincia de Bulacan, Islas Filipinas, y dentro de la jurisdiccion de este Honorable Juzgado, el acusado arriba referido voluntaria, maliciosa, ilegal y criminalmente, agredio, acometio y dio tiros con su revolver, calibre 45, a Gregorio Esguerra, causando a este dos heridas mortales que causaron su muerte. Hecho cometido con infraccion de la ley, con la agravante de que el acusado cometio el delito en desprecio y con ofensa a la autoridad publica, pues, el occiso era entonces el Jefe de Policio de San Miguel, Bulacan, e iba uniformado entonces."cralaw virtua1aw library
The lower court found the defendant guilty of the crime charged, and that the homicide was committed in contempt of and with insult to public authority, but that this aggravating circumstance was offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender or the equivalent thereof, and sentenced the defendant to suffer an indeterminate sentence of not less than eight years and one day of prision mayor and not more than fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal, to indemnify the family of the deceased in the sum of P1,000, and to pay the costs.
Appellant’s attorneys allege that the trial court erred:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"1. In finding that the fight between the deceased and the accused was preconcerted.
"2. In finding that the accused was the challenger and the one who provoked the fight which resulted in the death of the deceased.
"3. In finding that the deceased was, on the day of the crime, not bearing any weapon other than the caborrata, Exhibit 2.
"4. In not finding that the accused, in killing the deceased, acted in the lawful defense of his person and hence, exempt from criminal liability.
"5. In not finding in favor of the accused the mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense, granting without admitting that not all the circumstances for complete self-defense were attendant.
"6. In finding against the accused the aggravating circumstance of having committed the crime in contempt of and with insult to authority, and in off-setting the same with the mitigating circumstance in favor of the accused of having voluntarily surrendered himself to the agents of authority.
"7. In not finding for the accused the following mitigating circumstances:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"(a) That the accused had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed;
"(b) That sufficient provocation on the part of the deceased immediately preceded the act;
"(c) That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a great offense to the accused;
"(d) That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion and obfuscation.
"8. In admitting and giving weight to the supposed, dying declaration, Exhibit B.
"9. In believing the witnesses for the prosecution and in no giving credit to the testimonies of the accused and his witnesses.
"10. In finding the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime charged and in sentencing him to an imprisonment of from eight years and one day of prision mayor to fourteen years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal."cralaw virtua1aw library
After finding that the deceased Gregorio Esguerra was the chief of police of the municipality of San Miguel, in the Province of Bulacan, and at the time of the assault was wearing his uniform and discharging his official duties, and that the defendant was a secret agent of the Constabulary, and that there existed ill feeling between them, the trial judge made the following findings of fact as to the incident in question:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"El occiso que se hallaba en la tarde de la citada fecha 17 de agosto de 1933, en el Barrio de San Jose, Municipio de San Miguel, de esta Provincia, al pasar un truck de pasajeros procedente de Manila y que se dirigia a la poblacion de San Miguel, se embarco en el colocandose en el asiento delantero al lado del chauffeur. Dicho truck se compania de 5 hileras de banco para asientos y podia llevar ordinariamente unos treinta pasajeros, pero en aquella ocasion no estaban montadas mas que unas 8 personas. Despues de 2 kilometros poco mas o menos de viaje, al llegar al Barrio de Camias del mismo municipio, frente a una estacion de gasolina, el acusado, que se hallaba alli, lo hizo parar para embarcarse el a su vez. El acusado, en ves de pasar a otros asientos vacios, se habia colocado en el asiento delantero del truck entre el occiso y el chauffeur. Este asiento delantero estaba aparente y completamente ocupado. Bajo la influencia de las relaciones existentes entre ellos, el acusado al colocarse alli, se quejo de que estaban apinados, a lo que el occiso replico que si era asi que se trasladara el acusado, a otro asiento, de otro modo, que tuviera paciencia. El acusado quejose de nuevo que aquel queria oprimirle. Despues de este primer cambio de palabras, continuaron disputando con cierto tono de enfado. El acusado le dijo al occiso que si estaba enfadado, que bajaria, y, en efecto, ordena al chauffeur que parara el truck; a lo que replico el occiso que no le hacia bajar sino que saliera, si queria, puesto que el truck no era de ellos. Asi que se hubo parado el truck y se hubo apeado el acusado, este le invito al occiso a que bajara con el objeto de continuar hablando los dos en tierra. El occiso trato en efecto de apearse tambien, pero al ver que el acusado demostraba una actitud hostil y al observarle que tenia su mano derecha en el bolsillo trasero donde llevaba su revolver, retrocedio hacia los altos del truck, y mientras se hallaba en el estribo del mismo, el acusado le pego con su puno en la espalda y en la nalga profiriendo, que aunque el occiso era mayor de cuerpo que el, pero que era un cobarde. Irritado de este modo el occiso, bajo a tierra y se puso en frente del acusado. En represalia al maltrato referido, el occiso uso inmediatamente de su caborrata de hierro envuelto con cuero y le habia golpeado al acusado; este, por esquivar los golpes, sufrio ciertas contusiones en el antebrazo y brazo izquierdo, en la region parietal y occipital de la cabeza. Casi inmediata y simultaneamente con estos golpes, el acusado arranco su revolver automatico y disparo con el al occiso dos tiros que le hicieron blanco, el uno, en el abdomen habiendo interesado los intestinos, y el otro, en la parte inferior de la oreja izquierda; a consecuencia de estos disparos, el occiso cayo hacia delante bocabajo y en medio de sus convulsiones, pudo ponerse boca arriba y sentarse. Entonces el acusado se habia apoderado del caborrata del occiso, conminandole ademas que si era valiente, que embistiera. El occiso no llevaba en esta ocacion otra arma alguna; fue llevado a la Presidencia de San Miguel, de aqui al Hospital de Emergencia del pueblo y despues al Hospital Provincial de Malolos, y a consecuencia de las heridas asi recibidas, fallecio a los dos dias. Mientras estaba en el Hospital de San Miguel, el occiso pudo prestar una declaracion ante mortem, Exhibit B, en la que consta los hechos que acaban de ser reiatados en sintesis, los cuales estan corroborados por el testimonio de otros testigos de la acusacion."cralaw virtua1aw library
The defendant admitted at the trial that he shot the deceased, but claimed that he acted in self-defense.
Under the eighth assignment of error, which we shall consider first, it is contended that the lower court erred in admitting the dying declaration, Exhibit B, because the prosecution failed (a) to prove that it was made under the consciousness of impending death, and (b) to submit with this document, which is written in Tagalog, an English or Spanish translation of it.
The evidence shows that Javier Pabalan, the justice of the peace of San Miguel, was called to the Emergency Hospital in that municipality to take the statement of Gregorio Esguerra, who had been shot in the abdomen and through the face, and was about to die; that the injured man told the justice of the peace that he was in a critical condition and was going to die (Me manifesto de que el estaba en una critica situacion, de que iba a perder la vida). It further appears that the justice of the peace asked the doctor as to the condition of the injured man and the doctor said that he was going to die; that the justice of the peace then asked the injured man if he heard what the doctor said, and he replied that he had (El medico me dijo de que se iba a morir; yo le dije entonces al occiso:"
"Que en o hacia el 17 de agosto de 1933, en el Municipio de San Miguel, Provincia de Bulacan, Islas Filipinas, y dentro de la jurisdiccion de este Honorable Juzgado, el acusado arriba referido voluntaria, maliciosa, ilegal y criminalmente, agredio, acometio y dio tiros con su revolver, calibre 45, a Gregorio Esguerra, causando a este dos heridas mortales que causaron su muerte. Hecho cometido con infraccion de la ley, con la agravante de que el acusado cometio el delito en desprecio y con ofensa a la autoridad publica, pues, el occiso era entonces el Jefe de Policio de San Miguel, Bulacan, e iba uniformado entonces."cralaw virtua1aw library
The lower court found the defendant guilty of the crime charged, and that the homicide was committed in contempt of and with insult to public authority, but that this aggravating circumstance was offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender or the equivalent thereof, and sentenced the defendant to suffer an indeterminate sentence of not less than eight years and one day of prision mayor and not more than fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal, to indemnify the family of the deceased in the sum of P1,000, and to pay the costs.
Appellant’s attorneys allege that the trial court erred:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"1. In finding that the fight between the deceased and the accused was preconcerted.
"2. In finding that the accused was the challenger and the one who provoked the fight which resulted in the death of the deceased.
"3. In finding that the deceased was, on the day of the crime, not bearing any weapon other than the caborrata, Exhibit 2.
"4. In not finding that the accused, in killing the deceased, acted in the lawful defense of his person and hence, exempt from criminal liability.
"5. In not finding in favor of the accused the mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense, granting without admitting that not all the circumstances for complete self-defense were attendant.
"6. In finding against the accused the aggravating circumstance of having committed the crime in contempt of and with insult to authority, and in off-setting the same with the mitigating circumstance in favor of the accused of having voluntarily surrendered himself to the agents of authority.
"7. In not finding for the accused the following mitigating circumstances:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"(a) That the accused had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed;
"(b) That sufficient provocation on the part of the deceased immediately preceded the act;
"(c) That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a great offense to the accused;
"(d) That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion and obfuscation.
"8. In admitting and giving weight to the supposed, dying declaration, Exhibit B.
"9. In believing the witnesses for the prosecution and in no giving credit to the testimonies of the accused and his witnesses.
"10. In finding the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime charged and in sentencing him to an imprisonment of from eight years and one day of prision mayor to fourteen years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal."cralaw virtua1aw library
After finding that the deceased Gregorio Esguerra was the chief of police of the municipality of San Miguel, in the Province of Bulacan, and at the time of the assault was wearing his uniform and discharging his official duties, and that the defendant was a secret agent of the Constabulary, and that there existed ill feeling between them, the trial judge made the following findings of fact as to the incident in question:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"El occiso que se hallaba en la tarde de la citada fecha 17 de agosto de 1933, en el Barrio de San Jose, Municipio de San Miguel, de esta Provincia, al pasar un truck de pasajeros procedente de Manila y que se dirigia a la poblacion de San Miguel, se embarco en el colocandose en el asiento delantero al lado del chauffeur. Dicho truck se compania de 5 hileras de banco para asientos y podia llevar ordinariamente unos treinta pasajeros, pero en aquella ocasion no estaban montadas mas que unas 8 personas. Despues de 2 kilometros poco mas o menos de viaje, al llegar al Barrio de Camias del mismo municipio, frente a una estacion de gasolina, el acusado, que se hallaba alli, lo hizo parar para embarcarse el a su vez. El acusado, en ves de pasar a otros asientos vacios, se habia colocado en el asiento delantero del truck entre el occiso y el chauffeur. Este asiento delantero estaba aparente y completamente ocupado. Bajo la influencia de las relaciones existentes entre ellos, el acusado al colocarse alli, se quejo de que estaban apinados, a lo que el occiso replico que si era asi que se trasladara el acusado, a otro asiento, de otro modo, que tuviera paciencia. El acusado quejose de nuevo que aquel queria oprimirle. Despues de este primer cambio de palabras, continuaron disputando con cierto tono de enfado. El acusado le dijo al occiso que si estaba enfadado, que bajaria, y, en efecto, ordena al chauffeur que parara el truck; a lo que replico el occiso que no le hacia bajar sino que saliera, si queria, puesto que el truck no era de ellos. Asi que se hubo parado el truck y se hubo apeado el acusado, este le invito al occiso a que bajara con el objeto de continuar hablando los dos en tierra. El occiso trato en efecto de apearse tambien, pero al ver que el acusado demostraba una actitud hostil y al observarle que tenia su mano derecha en el bolsillo trasero donde llevaba su revolver, retrocedio hacia los altos del truck, y mientras se hallaba en el estribo del mismo, el acusado le pego con su puno en la espalda y en la nalga profiriendo, que aunque el occiso era mayor de cuerpo que el, pero que era un cobarde. Irritado de este modo el occiso, bajo a tierra y se puso en frente del acusado. En represalia al maltrato referido, el occiso uso inmediatamente de su caborrata de hierro envuelto con cuero y le habia golpeado al acusado; este, por esquivar los golpes, sufrio ciertas contusiones en el antebrazo y brazo izquierdo, en la region parietal y occipital de la cabeza. Casi inmediata y simultaneamente con estos golpes, el acusado arranco su revolver automatico y disparo con el al occiso dos tiros que le hicieron blanco, el uno, en el abdomen habiendo interesado los intestinos, y el otro, en la parte inferior de la oreja izquierda; a consecuencia de estos disparos, el occiso cayo hacia delante bocabajo y en medio de sus convulsiones, pudo ponerse boca arriba y sentarse. Entonces el acusado se habia apoderado del caborrata del occiso, conminandole ademas que si era valiente, que embistiera. El occiso no llevaba en esta ocacion otra arma alguna; fue llevado a la Presidencia de San Miguel, de aqui al Hospital de Emergencia del pueblo y despues al Hospital Provincial de Malolos, y a consecuencia de las heridas asi recibidas, fallecio a los dos dias. Mientras estaba en el Hospital de San Miguel, el occiso pudo prestar una declaracion ante mortem, Exhibit B, en la que consta los hechos que acaban de ser reiatados en sintesis, los cuales estan corroborados por el testimonio de otros testigos de la acusacion."cralaw virtua1aw library
The defendant admitted at the trial that he shot the deceased, but claimed that he acted in self-defense.
Under the eighth assignment of error, which we shall consider first, it is contended that the lower court erred in admitting the dying declaration, Exhibit B, because the prosecution failed (a) to prove that it was made under the consciousness of impending death, and (b) to submit with this document, which is written in Tagalog, an English or Spanish translation of it.
The evidence shows that Javier Pabalan, the justice of the peace of San Miguel, was called to the Emergency Hospital in that municipality to take the statement of Gregorio Esguerra, who had been shot in the abdomen and through the face, and was about to die; that the injured man told the justice of the peace that he was in a critical condition and was going to die (Me manifesto de que el estaba en una critica situacion, de que iba a perder la vida). It further appears that the justice of the peace asked the doctor as to the condition of the injured man and the doctor said that he was going to die; that the justice of the peace then asked the injured man if he heard what the doctor said, and he replied that he had (El medico me dijo de que se iba a morir; yo le dije entonces al occiso:"
