People v. Bacong
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On the night of September 30, 1918, a game of monte was being played in the house of Candido Bacong. After some players left, the game continued with Dionisio Pepito as the banker and Candido Bacong as a player. Bacong, losing money, objected when Pepito refused to continue the game due to lack of funds from the bettors. A quarrel ensued, during which Diego Capalac struck Pepito. Bacong then attacked Pepito with an instrument called a "maret," inflicting a mortal wound on the left temple, causing Pepito to fall and bleed profusely. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Cebu rendered judgment condemning Candido Bacong as the author of homicide to fourteen years, eighteen months, and one day of reclusion temporal, and ordering him to indemnify the heirs of Dionisio Pepito. Diego Capalac was condemned as an accessory to two years, four months, and one day of prision correcional. Both appealed. The Petition: The accused appealed the judgment of the Court of First Instance.
Issue(s)
Whether the facts presented constitute the crime of homicide. Whether Diego Capalac is liable as an accessory to the crime.
Ruling
The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with modifications regarding accessory penalties. Candido Bacong is condemned to the accessory penalties mentioned in article 59 of the Penal Code and to indemnify the widow and heirs of the deceased Dionisio Pepito in the sum of one thousand pesos (P1,000). Diego Capalac is condemned to the accessory penalties mentioned in article 61 of the Code and, in case of Bacong's insolvency, is to subsidiarily bear the obligation of paying the indemnity. Both are to pay the costs of the instance share and share alike.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the facts presented constitute the crime of homicide: The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's finding that the facts constituted the crime of homicide. The Court detailed that the accused Candido Bacong, after an altercation with the deceased Dionisio Pepito stemming from a dispute during a game of monte played in Bacong's house, attacked Pepito with an instrument used for cutting stones. This attack inflicted a mortal wound in the left temple of the deceased's head, leading to his immediate fall and death. The Court explicitly stated that the commission of the crime was not attended by any qualifying circumstance that would elevate it to murder, nor by any mitigating or aggravating circumstances, thus warranting the penalty for homicide in its medium degree as provided by law. The Court emphasized that ordinary homicide is classified as such unless specific circumstances mentioned in articles 402 or 403 of the Penal Code are present, which would classify the crime as murder or parricide and impose a more serious penalty. On Whether Diego Capalac is liable as an accessory to the crime: The Supreme Court held Diego Capalac liable as an accessory. The Court found that Capalac cooperated, upon the request of the principal author of the crime, in hiding and disposing of the body of the victim. This action was undertaken for the purpose of preventing the discovery of the crime and the corresponding punishment of its author. Consequently, Capalac incurred the penalty prescribed for an accessory, which is two degrees lower than that for the consummated crime, as provided by article 68 of the Penal Code. The Court noted that there were no circumstances modifying Capalac's responsibility as an accessory.
Main Doctrine
The crime of homicide was committed by Candido Bacong after an altercation arising from a gambling dispute, wherein he inflicted a mortal wound on the deceased with a bladed instrument. Diego Capalac was held as an accessory for cooperating in the concealment of the body.