Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-6368

February 21, 1911

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
BONIFACIO DIVINO, defendant-appellant.
Pastor Salo for appellant.
Attorney-General Villamor for appellee.
MORELAND, J.:
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Nueva Ecija, Hon.
Julio Llorente presiding, convicting the appellant of robbery and sentencing him to three years and
nine months ofpresidio correccional, to the accessories provided by law, and to the payment of the
costs of the trial.
It appears that on or about the 3rd or 4th day of July, 1907, between 8 and 10 o'clock of the night,
two persons, one armed with a gun, forcibly took from the possession of one Miguel Lagamia a
carabao belonging to his employer, Felix Atacador. They not only took the carabao but compelled
said Miguel Lagamia to accompany them as far as a talajal where they liberated him. On or about
the 4th day of September of the same year the carabao above mentioned was found in the
possession of Leoncio San Gabriel, a cropper in the employ of the accused Bonifacio Divino, who
stated that the carabao had been delivered to him by the said accused to be used in the work to be
performed by Leonico San Gabriel upon the lands of the said accused. Leonico San Gabriel having
possession of the carabao without the documents of title required by law, and the accused not
having said documents, said carabao, with three others also at the same time in the possession of
the accused without the corresponding evidences of title, was taken by the provincial officials. While
the said carabao was being used in public work by the provincial government pending its
identification by the owner, it was recognized by Felix Atacador, the man from whose servant it had
been forcibly taken by the robbers. Upon recognizing the carabao, Atacador presented the
documents justifying his claim of ownership and after due comparison of the marks upon the
carabao with those in the documents presented, the provincial governor delivered the carabao to
Atacador. The owner recognized the carabao in question not only from the brands which appeared
upon it but also from certain natural physical peculiarities which the carabao presented. As a witness
Atacador fully identified the carabao not only from its brand but also from said natural physical
peculiarities, and had no hesitation in asserting positively and without equivocation that the carabao
in question was the one of which his servant, Miguel Lagamia, had been forcibly robbed. The identity
of the carabao found in possession of the government with that of which Atacador had been robbed
was clearly and fully established by several other witnesses, among them the provincial governor,
Sr. Tinio, who testified that at the time Atacador presented his claim to the carabao then in the

possession of the provincial government, he had carefully compared the marks in the documents
presented by Atacador with those upon the carabao and that he entertained not the slightest doubt
that the marks were identical.
No direct denial was made by the defendant or his witnesses of the identity of the carabao in
question with the carabao found in the possession of the provincial government and that lost by
Atacador. The only question presented by the evidence of defendant's witnesses is one over the
identity of the marks appearing in the documents of ownership of Atacador and those appearing
upon the carabao. All of these witnesses, however, admit the identity of the private marks. The only
mark in controversy is the municipal mark. Two of the witnesses seemed to assert that at the time
the carabao was taken from the possession of the accused and turned over the provincial
government the municipal mark upon the carabao was wanting. The testimony of these witnesses,
however, was not positive, and, in our judgment, does not deserve the consideration which the
learned trial court gave to the positive and direct testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution.
These witnesses unhesitatingly assert that at the time the carabao came into the possession of the
provincial government it had upon its body not only the private mark of Atacador but the municipal
mark of Batangas.
While the persons who committed the robbery were not recognized and their identity is entirely
unknown, nevertheless, the accused, having been found in possession of the stolen carabao shortly
after the commission of the crime, without the documents necessary under the law to justify
ownership and possession, and he not having made the slightest explanation as to that possession,
his conviction under the evidence presented in this case is justified by law. (U. S. vs. Soriano, 9 Phil.
Rep., 441; U. S. vs. Santillan, 9 Phil. Rep., 445.)
The judgment of conviction is affirmed, with costs against the appellant. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Carson and Trent, JJ., concur.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-24084

November 3, 1925

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
PEDRO RAMIREZ, defendant-appellant.
Vicente Llanes for appellant.
Acting Attorney-General Reyes for appellee.

VILLAMOR, J.:
The appellant was sentenced by the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte, for the crime of
homicide, to the penalty of fourteen years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal, to
indemnify the mother of the deceased in the sum of P500 and to pay the costs.
On the night of February 18, 1923, one Bartolome Quiaoit invited Pedro Ramirez, the accused
herein, Victoriano Ranga, the deceased, and Agustin Menor to hunt in the mount Balitok of the
municipality of Nueva Era, Province of Ilocos Norte. The three last named proceeded to hunt,
leaving Bartolome Quiaoit in a hut approximately 1 kilometer from the place where the act
complained of took place. Upon the hunters having arrived at a place in mount Balitok, Pedro
Ramirez, who was carrying the shotgun of Bartolome Quiaoit with a lantern, happened to hunt a
deer, and then he told his companions to stay there and watch over the prey while he entered the
forest to get it. Thus Victoriano Ranga and Agusto Menor were waiting when suddenly the report of
the shotgun was heard hitting Victoriano Ranga in the eye and the right temple, who thereafter died
on that night as a result of the wounds.
It does not appear that the matter was judicially investigated until the month of October, 1924, when
the complaint was filed which initiated this proceedings.
The only witness who could testify upon the act complained of is naturally Agustin Menor who was
near the deceased when the latter was shot. According to Agustin Menor, the defendant, after having
gotten the first prey, told his companions to stay there, while he (Pedro Ramirez) was leaving them
to go on hunting , and "when he was far away, he fired the shotgun," hitting the deceased Victoriano
Ranga. It must be noted that the witness Agustin Menor changed his first testimony that "when he
was far away, he fired the shotgun," by saying afterwards, "When Pedro Ramirez was a little away,
he turned toward us and fired." And to make it more specific, the defense moved that the translation
of the testimony of the witness be corrected and the interpreter of the court caused it to be stated in
the record that the true testimony of the witness was as follows: "Pedro Ramirez caused me and

Victoriano Ranga to stay in the mount , telling us: 'Brothers, you stay here and I am going up to hunt
with the lamp' and then after he has gone ways, he (Pedro Ramirez) turned toward us and fired."
On the other hand the defendant, testifying as witness in his behalf, admits being the author of the
shot which caused the death of Victoriano Ranga; that on that night after getting the first prey, he told
his companions to stay there, watching over the prey, while he was going away looking for another;
and so he did, because otherwise it would have been hard for them to find the prey, if no one would
have been left there; that being far away from his companions, he seemed to have seen with his
lantern something like the eyes of a deer about fifty meters from him and then he shot it; but much to
his surprise, on approaching what he thought was a deer, it proved to be his companion Victoriano
Ranga. The same witness says that he did not expect to find his companions in that spot, for he had
warned them not to leave, but they left, the place.
lawph!1.net

The testimony of the two witnesses as to the distance of the accused from them when he fired the
gun for the second time is contradictory. On the other hand, there is not in the record any
circumstances as to whether or not the deceased and the witness Agustin Menor were in the same
place where they were left by the defendant, when the latter fired. The night being dark like that
when the event took place, the hunter in the midst of a forest without paths is likely to get confused
as to his relative situation; and after walking around, he may think having gone very far, when in fact
he has not, from the point of departure. and so, judging the case from what the two witnesses
Agustin Menor and Pedro Ramirez have testified to, and taking into account that there existed no
motive whatever for resentment on the part of the defendant against the offended party, we are
compelled to conclude that the act complained of constitutes homicide through reckless imprudence.
The defendant, who was carrying a firearm to hunt at nighttime with the aid of a lantern, knowing that
he had two companions, should have exercised all the necessary diligence to avoid every
undesirable accident, such as the one that unfortunately occurred on the person of Victoriano
Ranga.
While the fact that the defendant, a few days after the event, has offered to the mother of the
deceased a carabao and a horse by way of indemnity, indicates on the one hand that the defendant
admitted the commission of the crime, on the other it shows that he performed that act without
criminal intent and only through a real imprudence.
The defense alleges that the trial court must have solved the reasonable doubt in favor of the
defendant. After considering carefully the evidence and all the circumstances of the case, we are of
the opinion and so hold that the defendant is guilty of the crime of homicide through reckless
imprudence, and must be punished under paragraph 1 of article 568 of the Penal Code.
Wherefore the penalty of one year and one day of prision correccional, with the accessories
prescribed by the law, must be imposed upon him, and with modification, the judgment appealed
from is affirmed in all other respects, with the costs against the appellant. So ordered.
Avancea, C. J., Street, Malcolm, Ostrand, Johns, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.
Separate Opinions

ROMUALDEZ, J., dissenting in part:

I believe that the guilt of the defendant is only under paragraph 2 of article 568 of the Penal Code.