Title: People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee

vs.
Ancieto Martin, defendant-appellant
G.R. No: L-3002
Ponente: JUGO, J

Facts:
1. Defendant-Martin, 28 years of age, was a farmer living in
Barrio No. 12, Municipality of Laoag, Ilocos Norte.

2. Thereon, Defendant-Martin courted Laura Liz of the same

barrio and was accepted after several months. Laura became
pregnant as a result of their sexual intercourse.

3. Laura lived with the family of Defendant-Martin during her

the advanced stage of her pregnancy. The family of Defendant
demanded marriage. Consequently, on June 7, 1948, their
marriage was solemnized.

4. On August 1, 1948, 4:00am, Laura was found dead inside the

family toilet, with a circular mark around her neck, by
Anselma Martin (Sister of Defendant), who lives within the same
house and by Saturnino Tumaneng (Brother-in-law of Laura, who
was passing by at that time. A rope was also seen at a
distance from Laura’s body.

5. On the same morning, the chief of police, together with 1

policeman, came to the barrio to conduct an investigation,
duly reported by the barrio lieutenant. At that time,
Defendant had not yet returned home, but was later on seen
by a relative in the farm, near the house.

6. Defendant-Martin was interrogated by the police officers.

Defendant denied any knowledge about the event, but later on
promised to give statement at the Municipal Building.
 7. At the Municipal building, Defendant-Martin made a
confession in the Ilocano Language admitting the killing,
alone, with a rope, because Laura had been pregnant to
another man, which Defendant signed and sworn before the
provincial fiscal’s house.

8. Autopsy result showed that Laura’s cause of death was heart

failure due to fright or shocks and there was no evidence of
strangulations in the lungs. The fetus was also alive at the
time of death of the Deceased-Laura.

9. Defendant-Martin was charged with a complex crime of

parricide with abortion before the Court of First Instance.

At the trial, Defendant-Martin testified he was moving

bowels in the toilet, a rope was being place within his neck
from behind by an unknown, countered and did the same, and
it turned out that it was his wife.

10. Defendant-Martin was acquitted of abortion, but was

found guilty of parricide with penalty of reclusion
perpetua, and to pay 2,000 for indemnification of the heirs
of the Deceased-Laura. Defendant-Martin moved to appeal.

11. On appeal, appellant contends that: (1) the death of

Laura was not due to the strangling, but to her hearth
disease; and (2) To that, Defendant is not responsible for
the death of Laura.

Issue: W/O the strangling of the Defendant-Martin is the cause of

death of Laura?

Ruling: Y E S.
SC did not believe the confession made by Defendant-Martin to the
2 policemen and Prosecutor was freely given and it was coupled
with motive, forcing Defendant to a false confession.

Opposing argument to the contention of Defendant-Martin:

(1) The heart failure was due to the fright or shock caused
by the strangling; and
(2) Consequently, defendant was responsible for the death,
notwithstanding the fact that the victim was already
sick.

Citing the cases of:

People vs. Reyes
“A person is responsible for the consequences of his criminal act
and even if the deceased had been shown to be suffering from a
diseased heart, appellants assault being the proximate cause of
the death, he would be responsible.”

U.S. vs Brobst
“Where death results as the direct consequences of the use of
illegal violence, the mere fact that the diseased or weakened
conditions of the injured person contributed to his death, does
not relieve the illegal aggressor of the criminal
responsibility.”