People vs Nicanor Sespeñe, et.al.

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

People vs Nicanor Sespeñe, et.al.
G.R. No. L-9346
October 30, 1957

Facts:

As a result of the investigation conducted by the authorities, a complaint for murder was filed on July 3, 1953, with the Justice of the Peace Court of Ibajay, Capiz, against Nicanor Sespeñe, Apolinario Leonardo, Pedro Calizo, Bienvenido Sajera, Domingo Sajona and Jesus Mangilog, which was provisionally dismissed for the reason that the principal witnesses for the prosecution, namely: Gloria Enerio, widow of the deceased Leonardo Enerio was absent, and Priscila Enerio Andrade could not be located. However, on July 29, 1954, the case was again revived with the filing of a new complaint against the same accused. Having the accused waived their right to a preliminary investigation, except Jesus Mangilog who bad not been arrested, the case was elevated to the Court of First Instance of Capiz where an information for murder was filed against all of them except Jesus Mangilog who continued at large.

After due bearing, all the defendants were found guilty of murder, qualified by treachery, and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, with the accessory penalties prescribed by law, to indemnify the heirs of the offended party in the sum of P6,000, and to pay the costs. The court further ordered that: "The amount of P3,500 that was paid to the widow as partial compensation for the death of Leonardo Enerio should be deducted from the indemnity of P6,000.”

From this decision all the defendants appealed to us and in this instance counsel for Pedro Calizo, Bienvenido Sajera, Domingo Sajona and Apolinario Leonardo, as well as counsel for appellant Nicanor Sespeñe charge the trial Judge with the commission of several errors relative to the sufficiency of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses for the prosecution.

Issue:

W/O accused-appellants committed murder with corresponding penalty of reclusion perpetua or if not death?

Held:

The Solicitor General maintains that the crime at bar was attended by the aggravating circumstances of superior strength, aid of armed men and dwelling, and in view of the penalty attached by the Code to the crime—reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death (Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code)— he recommends that the decision of the lower Court should be accordingly modified by raising the penalty to death. We do not agree with this recommendation. The aggravating circumstances of superior strength and aid of armed men, as well as night time which also concurred in the commission of the offense, are included in the qualifying circumstance of treachery and cannot be appreciated separately from the latter circumstance. As to the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, entertain some doubts as to its applicability to the case at bar because the deceased was only about to step on the first rung of the ladder of the house when he was assaulted by appellants, and We prefer to maintain the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial Judge. Anyway the required number of votes for the imposition of the death penalty has not been obtained.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against appellants. It is so ordered.