People vs Berang

Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the case cited. Xie xie!

People vs Berang
G.R. Nos. L-46526 and L-46527
October 31, 1939

Facts:

The appellant was charged in three different cases with parricide. He was acquitted in one of them and found guilty in the other two.

In the morning of November 4, 1938, Beling, the wife of the accused, and his children, four-year-old X and six-month-old Y, were boloed to death in the appellant's house. The first Government agents who arrived at the house were Constabulary Sergeant Ignacio Bersamina and the health inspector of Tugboc, Agustin Candia. The accused told the sergeant that he killed his wife and children because he was made with rage. In the afternoon of the same day the accused, who showed some wounds, was taken to the Davao Public Hospital, and on the following day, November 5th, answering the questions of the fiscal in the presence of Lieutenant Villares, deputy clerk of court Mr. Frias, and Sergeant Bersamina, he admitted killed his wife and children and having wounded himself on the neck and head.

Issue:

Whether accused-appellant is deemed guilty of both parricide and homicide?

Held:

Yes. Finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of killing his daughter X and wife Beling, with whom he lived maritally, in the absence of clear evidence of the marriage, the court considered the crime committed by Berang in killing Mora Beling as homicide only, and acquitted the accused in one of the three cases, sentencing him in the other, for the crime of homicide, to an indeterminate penalty ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day of prision mayor to twelve (12) years and (1) day of reclusion temporal, to indemnify the heirs of Beling in the amount of P2,000, and in the third case, for the crime of parricide for the death of his daughter X, it sentenced the accused to reclusion perpetua, and to pay the costs in both cases, without pronouncement as to the indemnity for the death of said X, considering that the accused, as the father, is the presumptive heir of the deceased.
In the present appeal the accused contends that his guilt has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt; that the testimony of Bayna, his mother, is contradictory; that he could not read well his declaration before the Fiscal when it was read to him, and that he had not spoken to Sergeant Bersamina. He testified that on November 4, 1938, while he was sleeping, he was wounded by Beling, and when he woke up he saw his daughter X dead by his side, and upon noting that Beling was holding a bolo, he grabbed it from her and gave her bolo blows, because according to him he took pity on his children. Wherefore, the court affirms the appealed judgment, with the costs to the appellant. So ordered.