TodayisThursday,June23,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

ENBANC

G.R.No.L32066March15,1903

THEPEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINEISLANDS,plaintiffandappellee,
vs.
GONA(Mansaca),defendantandappellant.

JoseMa.Capiliforappellant.
AttorneyGeneralJaranillaforappellee.

OSTRAND,J.:

The defendant was charged before the Court of First Instance of the Province of Davao with the crime of
homicide,theinformationreadingasfollows:

That on or about October 26, 1928, in the municipal district of Pantukan, Province of Davao, Philippine
Islands,aswithinthejurisdictionofthecourt,thesaidaccusedvoluntarily,illegally,andcriminallyandwitha
bolowhichhethencarried,assaultedtheMansacaMapudul,causinghimamortalwoundontheleftsideof
theneckandthatasaconsequenceofsaidwound,thesaidMapuduldied.

Upontrialthecourtbelowfoundthedefendantguiltyaschargedintheinformationandtakingintoconsideration
the extenuating circumstance of nonhabitual intoxication, sentenced him to suffer twelve years and one of
reclusiontemporalwiththeaccessorypenaltiesprosecutedbylawtoindemnitytheheirsofthedeceasedinthe
sumofP1,000,andtothecosts.Fromthissentencedthedefendantappealed.

It appears from the evidence that on the evening of October 26, 1928, a number of Mansacas celebrated a
reunion in the house of the Mansaca Gabriel. There seems to have been liberal supply of alcoholic drinks and
someofthemenpresentbecameintoxicated,withtheresultthataquarreltooktheplacebetweentheMansaca
Duncaandthedefendant.DuncaandhissonAguipoeventuallyleftthehouseandwerefollowedbyMapuduland
one Award. The defendant left the house about the same time with intention of assaulting Dunca, but in the
darkness of the evening and in the intoxicated condition of the defendant, the mistook Mapudul for Dunca and
inflicatedonhimamortalwoundwithabolo.

TherecannodoubtthatthedefendantkilledMapudulandthatheisguiltyofthecrimecharged,buthisattorney
arguesthatinviewofthefactthatsaiddefendanthadnointentiontokillthedeceasedandcommittedthecrime
bymistake,heshouldhavebeenfoundguiltyofhomicidethroughnegligenceunderparagraph1ofarticle568of
thePenalCodeandnotofthegravercrimeofintentionalhomicide.

Thiscontentioniscontrarytoearlierdecisionsofthiscourt.InthesecaseofUnitedStatevs. Mendieta(34 Phil.,

242),thecourtsaid:

EvenadmittingthatthedefendantintendedtoinjureHilarioLauiganinsteadofPedroAcierto,eventhat,in
viewofthemortalwoundwhichinflicteduponthelatter,innowaycouldbeconsideredasarelieffromhis
criminalact.Thathemadeamistakeinkillingonemaninsteadofanother,whenitisprovedthatheacted
maliciouslyandwillfully,cannotrelievehimfromcriminalresponsibility.Neitherdowebelievethatthefact
thathemadeamistakeinkillingthewrongmanshouldbeconsideredasamitigatingcircumstances.

Theappealedsentenceisaffirmedwiththecostsagainstthedefendant.Soordered.

Johnson,Malcolm,Villamor,Johns,RomualdezandVillaReal,JJ.,concur.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation