Today is Wednesday, November 08, 2017

Custom Search

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-15635 March 16, 1920

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
FULGENCIO TANDOC, ET AL., defendants.
FULGENCIO TANDOC, JOSE CORPUS and BERNARDINO RUIZ, appellants.

Rafael Monserrat for appellants.

Attorney-General Paredes for appellee.

AVANCEA, J.:

On or about the 7th of January, 1917, Melecio de Vera, the man in charge of Victorino Navarro's land in the barrio of
San Jose, municipality of Urdaneta, Pangasinan, was gathering tobacco on said land assisted by his laborers,
Lorenzo de Vera, Luis Moyalde, Celestino Para-an and Fernando Ferrer. While engaged in this work, they heard the
sound of a horn, which was repeated a few moments afterwards, and then towards the eastern side of the land they
discerned many men, more than thirteen in number, coming towards them, and when these persons came the latter
surrounded and attacked them. During the fight Louis Moyalde and Fernando Ferrer were wounded; and when the
aggressors saw them fallen on the ground covered with blood, Jose Corpus, one of the aggressors, sounded the
horn and his companions withdrew.

The land where the incident took place was claimed as his property by Jose Bengzon, who in October, 1916,
obtained from the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan a preliminary injunction against Melecio de Vera enjoining
the latter, his agents and other persons working under him from disturbing Jose Bengzon or his tenants in the
harvest of the palay growing on said land. Later, however, Melecio de Vera, having given an obligation with sureties
to answer for the damages which Jose Bengzon might suffer, that injunction was dissolved. But, although this
injunction was dissolved and Jose Bengzon and his tenants were notified thereof, the latter did not allow Melecio de
Vera and his workmen to enter upon said land. Melecio de Vera accused Jose Bengzon and his tenants of
contempt, and the court issued an order requiring Jose Bengzon, Fulgencio Tandoc, Jose Corpus and Alberto
Campanero to appear in court on April 17, 1917, and show cause why they should not be punished for contempt.
Things stood thus when, as has already been said, on the 7th of January, 1917, Melecio de Vera and his workmen
were attacked on the same land. The aggressors were Jose Bengzon's men, among whom were identified the
fourteen accused in this cause, led by Fulgencio Tandoc. Luis de Vera, Jose Corpus and Bernardino Ruiz were
identified as among those who wounded Luis Moyalde. Fulgencio Tandoc struck Luis Moyalde's head with a
bamboo stick, the latter falling to the ground; and while in this position, Luis de Vera, Jose Corpus and Bernardino
Ruiz also gave him blows with clubs and canes. On the evening of the same day Luis Moyalde died as a result of
the blows received by him, the most serious of which was the one dealt on his head by Fulgencio Tandoc. The
information filed in this cause has to do only with the death of Luis Moyalde.

The fourteen men above-mentioned were charged in the information. The accused Domingo Galvez having died
before the trial, the prosecution was dismissed as to him. After hearing the evidence, the court found Fulgencio
Tandoc, Luis de Vera and Bernardino Ruiz guilty and sentenced them to be imprisoned for four years, to suffer the
accessory penalties provided for by law, to indemnify, jointly and severally, Luis Moyalde's heirs in the sum of
P1,000, and to pay each one-fourteenth part of the costs. The rest of the accused were acquitted, with the
remaining part of the costs de officio. From this judgment Fulgencio Tandoc, Luis de Vera, Jose Corpus and
Bernardino Ruiz appealed.

The lower court classified the facts proven in this case as constituting the crime of homicide caused in a tumultuous
affray. We are of the opinion that this classification is erroneous. A tumultuous affray takes place when a quarrel
occurs between several persons and they engage in a confused and tumultuous affray, in the course of which some
person is killed or wounded and the author thereof cannot be ascertained. (Arts. 405 and 420 of the Penal Code.)
Such were not the facts in this case. The quarrel here was between two well-known groups of men. The party
formed by the deceased and his companions was the one attacked and that formed by the appellants was the
aggressor. There was no confusion in the aggression as well as in the defense. The appellants and their
companions were united in their common purpose to attack, as is shown by the circumstance that they have rallied
together under the signal of two sounds of the horn, in order to commence said aggression and they withdrew from
the field also under the signal of one sound of the horn. As is apparent, united they also put into execution this
common purpose by cooperating with each other in inflicting upon the deceased the blows which caused his death.
This unity of purpose determines the aggressors' common responsibility for the consequences of the aggression, for
which reason the act cannot be considered as a tumultuous affray for the responsible authors are known. The act,
therefore, constitutes the crime of homicide.

In view of the numerical superiority of the appellants and their companions in relation to the number of the party of
deceased and his companions and the fact that former were all armed and three of them carried deadly weapons,
the aggression must be considered as attended with the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength,
which raises the penalty to be imposed upon the accused to the maximum degree.

The judgment appealed from is modified, and the appellants are sentenced, in accordance with article 404 of the
Penal Code, to seventeen years, four months and one day of reclusion temporal. Said judgment is in all other
respects affirmed. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Araullo, Street and Malcolm, JJ. concur.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation