People vs Hipolito Agbuya, et.al.

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

People vs Hipolito Agbuya, et.al.
G.R. Nos. 36366-36368
September 23, 1932

Facts:

This appeal has been brought to reverse a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Pangasinan, finding the appellants, Hipolito Agbuya and Agustin Agbuya, guilty of two separate crimes of homicide, and finding the appellant, Agustin Agbuya, further guilty of the offense of illegal discharge of firearms; and sentencing each of the two appellants, for the two crimes of homicide, to undergo imprisonment for fourteen years, eight months and one day, reclusion temporal, and requiring them to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of five hundred pesos, and to pay the costs, and imposing on Agustin Agbuya, for the offense of illegal discharge of firearms, the penalty of imprisonment for one year, eight months, and twenty-one days, prision correccional, and requiring him to pay the costs.

Issue:

W/O accused-appellants be liable for the crimes of homicide and illegal discharge of firearms?

Held:

Upon the foregoing facts it is manifest that both the appellants are guilty as principals in the two homicides which are the subject of prosecution in the first two of the cases, and the trial court committed no error in so finding. The attorney for the appellants insists that Hipolito at least should be acquitted as not having participated in those acts in the character of principal. But his acts and attitude before, during and after the commission of the crimes show that the two accused were acting with a common design in taking the lives of Martin and Feliciano Palisoc. The preparatory act of cleaning the shotgun was done by Hipolito and his inquiry of Domingo Padua as to whether the latter had seen Martin Palisoc that morning is suggestive. At the time the two accused went out into the middle of the malecon to confront Martin Palisoc and his two companions, Hipolito, who had up to that time been carrying the gun, handed it to Agustin, when he must have known that the intention of Agustin was to use it in killing Martin Palisoc. Then, the occurrence later in the afternoon when the three Agbuyas went up to the dying Martin, and Hipolito seized one of his arms, while Agustin emptied the shotgun again into Martin's body, and the similar incident repeated over the body of Feliciano, all show conclusively a design on the part of Hipolito to contribute effectually to the destruction of the two Palisocs.

With respect to the qualification of illegal discharge of firearms on the part of Agustin Agbuya when he discharged his shotgun from a distance at Pioquinto Palisoc, the trial court did not err in qualifying the offense. The distance from where Agustin Agbuya stood to where Pioquinto was bending over the body of Martin Palisoc was so great, that it is difficult to impute an intention on the part of Agustin to kill Pioquinto. Nor does it appear that Agustin really aimed his gun directly at Pioquinto. It is not improbable that the gun was discharged chiefly with a view to frightening Pioquinto away.

It being understood, therefore, that the penalties imposed in the three cases shall be extinguished in succession, with the accessory penalties prescribed by law in each case, the judgment appealed from will be affirmed. So ordered, with costs in the first two cases against the two appellants.