People V. Babiera

PEOPLE v. BABIERA September 19, 1928 | Villareal, J. | Accomplices 4. PETITIONER: The People of the Philippine Islands RESPONDENTS: Clemente Babiera, Justo Babiera, and Dominga Bores SUMMARY: Due to land disputes, Clemente suddenly attacked Severino with a bolo when the latter was on the way home. Justo and Dominga held down Severino to look for his revolver and shots were heard after. The CFI found them guilty of murder with Clemente as principal and Dominga and Justo as accomplices. The SC modified CFI’s judgment to Clemente as principal in the crime of murder for having killed Severino in a treacherous manner; and Justo and Dominga as accomplices in the crime of homicide for while they took part in the commission of the crime through simultaneous acts, they were not aware of the manner in which Clemente was going to attack Severino. DOCTRINE: Art. 18. Accomplices. — Accomplices are those persons who, not being included in Art. 17, cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts. Art. 62. Effect of the attendance of mitigating or aggravating circumstances and of habitual delinquency. — Mitigating or aggravating circumstances and habitual delinquency shall be taken into account for the purpose of diminishing or increasing the penalty in conformity with the following rules: (4) The circumstances which consist in the material execution of the act, or in the means employed to accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of those persons only who had knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the act or their cooperation therein.

FACTS: 1. Justo Babiera sold 2 parcels of land to Basilio Copreras with the condition of a given period for Justo to repurchase the land. The period lapsed and Basilio registered the titles of the land and leased them to Severino Haro. 2. Justo, however, filed several actions against Basilio to recover the land; one of which was dismissed. Since Severino possessed the land as lessee, he paid the expenses of the suits in Basilio’s behalf. 3. The intervention of Severino in the suits must have vexed Justo for he went with his co-partner of shares, Rosendo Paycol, to the land and threatened Fermin Bruces, Severino’s co-partner, to stop plowing the land. This was followed by another threat by Paycol and Justo’s son, Clemente, to stop

5.

6.

7.

plowing the land or eslse they would pull out someone’s intestines. Severino told Fermin to disregard the threats. Severino’s brother, Jose, and the caretaker of the land asked for palay seeds from Paycol but were denied since Paycol said he needed it for his own farm, alluding to the land in Severino’s possession. Paycol told them that their attorney had guaranteed that they would reclaim the land, if not by fair means, by foul. On the day of the crime, Severino was told that Clemente’s cows were grazing on the land. Severino told Clemente what happened and asked him to take better care of his cow in the future. That night, Severino and his companions were on their way home. The house of Paycol, however, was along the path to and from the land. When Severino neared Paycol’s house, Clemente suddenly appeared and struck Severino with a bolo. In trying to see the assailant and defending himself, Severino was further injured and fell to the ground. Justo appeared and placed himself on top of Severino and held his hands. Dominga Bores, Clemente’s mistress, held Severino’s knees. They were heard looking for Severino’s revolver. Before the assailants left, two or three revolver shots were heard. The CFI found them guilty of murder: Clemente as principal and Justo and Domingo as accomplices due to the evidence produced by the prosecution, such as the examinations of doctors and the ante-mortem declaration of Severino. Clemente contends that he only acted in defense of his life and property after Severino tried to take Clemente’s cow despite an agreement for Clemente to indemnify Severino of the damages the cow made; that in the struggle to get back the cow, he received a bolo cut from Margarito Mediavilla (companion of Severino) and that Severino fired the revolver shots which wounded Clemente. Clemente also contends that Severino was of a quarrelsome disposition, prone to starting quarrels.

8. ISSUE/s: 1. WoN Justo and Dominga are liable as accomplices– YES (but only for homicide) RULING: SC modified CFI’s judgment to Clemente as principal in the crime of murder and Justo and Dominga as accomplices in the crime of homicide. RATIO: 1. The prosecution was able to disprove all of Clemente’s contentions. There was no evidence to show that Severino tried to take the cow despite the agreement for the indemnification of the damages cause. His alleged attitude. The allegation that Severino and Mediavilla instigated the attack on Clemente was also not proved. To prove that Severino was of a quarrelsome Page 1 of 2

disposition, it must be proof of his general reputation in the community and not of isolated and specific acts. Even with such proof, it could not overthrow the conclusive evidence that it was Clemente who attacked Severino treacherously. The Court also said that Clemente could have inflicted the wounds himself to evade liability. 2.

There is proof beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, there being the qualifying circumstance of treachery when Clemente attacked Severino suddenly from behind and inflicted various wounds on Severino who died a week later as a result. Clemente is criminally liable as principal by direct participation.

3.

Justo and Dominga are liable as accomplices because while they did not take a direct part in the infliction of the wounds that caused Severino’s death, or cooperated by acts without which they could not have been inflicted, or induced Clemente to inflict them, yet they took part in the commission of the crime by simultaneous acts consisting in Justo having mounted Severino Haro's body and held down his hands, while the Dominga sat on his knees while he lay stretched out on the ground in order to allow Clemente to search the body for his revolver. However, they cannot be held as accomplices of murder since it does not appear to have been proven that they knew the manner in which Clemente was going to assault Severino, in accordance with the provision of article 79 of the Penal Code, to the effect that the circumstances which consist in the material execution of the act, or in the means employed to accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of those persons only who had knowledge of them at the time of the act or their cooperation therein.

Page 2 of 2