People v. Ortiz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Blas Ortiz and Modesta Zausa were charged with homicide for the killing of Sotero Bancoyo. The information alleged that the defendants, conspiring and helping each other, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously killed Sotero Bancoyo by attacking him with a bamboo lance, wounding him on the left side of the abdomen, causing his bowels to protrude, and from which wound he died that night due to peritonitis. The deceased and the appellants were related by affinity, as the deceased's wife and the male appellant's wife were sisters. A dispute arose when the male appellant confiscated the deceased's cedula certificates. On September 8, 1930, the deceased, while returning from a plantation, stopped by the appellants' house to ask for water. The male appellant, Blas Ortiz, responded negatively and then descended with a shotgun, pointing it at the deceased. The deceased lunged at Ortiz, and they struggled for the shotgun. At this point, Modesta Zausa emerged from the house with a bamboo spear and stabbed the deceased on the left side of the abdomen, causing his intestines to protrude. The deceased made an ante mortem declaration before the justice of the peace. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Capiz found both defendants guilty of homicide and sentenced them to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal, with civil indemnity and costs. They appealed the decision. The Petition: The appellants assigned several errors, primarily questioning the trial court's appreciation of evidence, its finding of guilt, and its rejection of the self-defense claim. They also argued that the male appellant should not be held liable for the act of the female appellant due to the absence of conspiracy.
Issue(s)
Whether the dying declaration (ante mortem statement) of Sotero Bancoyo was valid despite the sequence of its recording. Whether Blas Ortiz can be held criminally liable for the killing of Sotero Bancoyo committed by Modesta Zausa in the absence of a proven conspiracy.
Ruling
The judgment of the Court of First Instance is affirmed with respect to Modesta Zausa, who is found guilty of homicide and sentenced accordingly. The judgment is reversed with respect to Blas Ortiz, who is acquitted of the crime of homicide.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the ante mortem statement was valid. Although the deceased's statement regarding his belief in his impending death was recorded at the end of the declaration rather than the beginning, this does not invalidate the document. The Court found that the deceased made the declaration with the full conviction that he was very seriously ill and with the consciousness that he was about to die, satisfying the legal requirements for a dying declaration under Philippine jurisprudence. Citing U.S. v. Castellon and U.S. v. Mallari, the Court emphasized that the sense of impending death is the essential element, regardless of the order of the written recording. Consequently, the declaration was admissible as evidence of the circumstances surrounding the attack. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that Blas Ortiz cannot be held liable for the homicide because there was no conspiracy. Under the doctrine established in United States v. Magcomot, in the absence of a previous plan or agreement, criminal responsibility is individual. The evidence, including the dying declaration, showed that Zausa acted suddenly and independently while Ortiz was preoccupied with the struggle for the shotgun. The interval between Zausa deciding to pick up the spear and the actual stabbing was only a few seconds, which is insufficient time for a criminal agreement to arise. Furthermore, citing United States v. Reyes and Javier, the Court noted that merely being present or involved in a struggle does not make one a principal if the fatal blow is delivered by another acting independently. Since Ortiz did not participate in the stabbing and there was no concerted action, he must be acquitted of the homicide committed by Zausa.
Main Doctrine
In the absence of a previous plan or agreement to commit a crime, the criminal responsibility arising from different acts directed against one and the same person is individual and not collective, and each of the participants is liable only for the acts committed by himself.