People v. Albar
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On August 5, 1943, at approximately 9 o'clock in the evening, about ten men, some armed, including appellant Lazaro Albar and Lieutenant Rosendo Romero, arrived at the yard of Juan Valenzuela. They called out to the inmates, and upon recognizing the appellant and his armed companions, fear gripped Cipriano Valenzuela, Juan's son. Despite Juan being inside, his daughter Alfreda stated he was not home due to fear. Lieutenant Romero insisted Juan come down, and when no action was taken, he and appellant Albar attempted to force entry into the house. When prevented, Albar was heard to order, "If he does not come out, shoot him inside the house." Lieutenant Romero then fired twice through a siding of the house, fatally wounding Juan Valenzuela in the back. After the shooting, Romero threatened the family to stop crying and then left with his companions. Procedural History: Lazaro Albar was convicted of homicide with the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity by the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur and sentenced accordingly. He appealed to the Court of Appeals, which found the crime to be murder qualified by treachery with the aggravating circumstance of night time. Lacking jurisdiction due to the imposable penalty, the Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The appellant interposed the defense of alibi, claiming he was working at a sugar mill about fifteen kilometers away and was forced to accompany guerrillas to the deceased's house, which he refused. The Supreme Court reviewed the facts and legal issues presented.
Issue(s)
Whether the appellant is guilty as principal for the death of Juan Valenzuela. Whether the killing was qualified by treachery. Whether the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and dwelling should be considered. Whether the penalty imposed should be modified.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant, modifying the penalty and indemnity. The Court found the appellant guilty as principal, either by conspiracy or by induction, for the death of Juan Valenzuela. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was established, and the aggravating circumstance of dwelling was considered. The penalty for murder was commuted from death to reclusion perpetua due to lack of votes, and the indemnity to the heirs was increased.
Ratio Decidendi
On the appellant's guilt as principal: The Court found overwhelming evidence of the appellant's presence and participation. Witnesses Alfreda and Cipriano Valenzuela positively identified him at the scene. Furthermore, his voice was recognized when he gave the order to shoot the deceased. Ciriaco Praxedes also identified the appellant as part of the group that went to the deceased's house and heard the order to shoot. The Court concluded that the appellant was clearly guilty as a principal, either by conspiring with Lieutenant Romero or by inducing the actual killer through his order. On the qualifying circumstance of treachery: The Court held that treachery attended the killing because the deceased was leaning against his door to prevent entry and evidently did not expect to be shot from behind. This mode of attack, which lacks any risk to the aggressor and is done without provocation from the victim, fits the definition of treachery. The Court cited U.S. vs. Baluyot and People vs. Bautista as similar cases where attacks under similar circumstances were deemed treacherous. On the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and dwelling: The Court disagreed with the lower courts regarding nocturnity, stating that it is generally absorbed by treachery. However, the Court found the aggravating circumstance of dwelling to be applicable, even though the attack was made from below the house, because the act was directed against an inhabitant of the dwelling. The Court cited People vs. Bautista in support of this. On the penalty and indemnity: The penalty for murder is reclusion temporal to death. With the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, the penalty could be imposed in its maximum degree, which is death. However, due to the lack of the necessary votes to impose the death penalty, it was commuted to reclusion perpetua. The indemnity to the heirs of the deceased was increased from P2,000 to P6,000.
Main Doctrine
The aggravating circumstance of nocturnity is generally absorbed by treachery. However, the aggravating circumstance of dwelling may be considered even if the attack is from below the house. The penalty for murder, with the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, may be imposed in its maximum degree, but commuted to reclusion perpetua for lack of votes.