G.R. No.

L-3002 May 23, 1951

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

E. L. Peralta for appellant.

JUGO, J.:

Aniceto Martin was accused of the complex crime of parricide with abortion before the
Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte. After trial he was acquitted of abortion, but found
guilty of parricide and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to
indemnify the heirs of the penalty of deceased in the sum of P2,000, with the accessory
penalties of the law, and to pay the costs. He appealed.

We shall not consider the charge of abortion as he was acquitted of it, confining our review to
that of parricide.

The defendant, twenty-eight years old, a farmer, was living in the barrio No. 12 of the
municipality of Laoag, Ilocos Norte. He courted the girl Laura Liz of the same barrio for
several months and was accepted. They had sexual intercourse before marriage and she
became pregnant. In an advanced stage of pregnancy, she came to live with the family of
the family of the defendant and demanded marriage, which was duly solemnized on June 7,
1948, and they continued to live as husband and wife.

Between four and five o' clock in the morning of August 1, 1948, the corpse of Laura was
found inside the family toilet, which was at a certain distance from their home, with a
maguey rope, six meters long and one centimeter in diameter, around her neck, leaving a
circular mark around it with the exception of the nape which was unmarked undoubtedly
due to her long and thick hair covering it. The corpse was first seen by Anselma Martin,
sister of the accused, who was living in the same house, and Saturnino Tumaneng, brother-
in-law of Laura, who happened to be passing by. The defendant was absent from home.

The barrio lieutenant immediately reported the matter to the chief of police who, accompanied
by a policeman, came to the barrio that same morning to make an investigation. When the chief
of police arrived, the defendant had not yet returned home. A relative looked for him,
finding in a farm which was at considerable distance from the defendants house, and brought him
to the latter. Upon being interrogated by the police officer, the defendant at first denied any
knowledge of the event, but later promised to make a statement in the municipal building.

The police took possession of the rope and put the defendant in a jeep bound for the
municipal building. There the defendant made a confession in the Ilocano language, which
he signed and swore to at about noon before the provincial fiscal at the latter's house. Said
confession, as translated into English, reads as follows:

I, Aniceto Martin, married, 27 years old, resident of Bo. No. 12, Laoag, Ilocos
Norte, after having been sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby declare
the following:
Policeman: — Why are you here in the office of the Chief of Police of Laoag,
Ilocos Norte, this 1st day of August, 1948?

Aniceto: — I am here, sir, in the office of the Chief of Police of Laoag as I

That at dawn, today August 1, 1948, at about 4 o' clock, I awoke and my wife
also awoke and she said to, "Why is it that you seem to have no interest in
me?, and I answered her I do not have interest in you and I did not love you
with intent to marry you because I am not the author of your pregnancy;
again she said to me, "Why is it that you consented to be wedded with me if
you did not love me? and in answer, I again told her that I merely consented
to be married to you, because otherwise, you would file an action against me,
I then went down to our closet west of our house at barrio No. 12, Laoag
Ilocos Norte, for major personal necessity, and my wife, Laura Luiz, came
after me to the toilet with a rope in her hands and, as she approached me
while I was in the very act of ejecting waste matters inside the toilet she
placed around my neck the rope which she had in her hands, and
immediately, I gripped the rope and took it off and I said, "Why did you do
this? my wife also said, "Yes because you do not love me." I snatched the
rope from my wife and in turn I placed same around her neck, and in that
position I tightened the rope with my two hands and when my wife, Laura
Luiz, died I laid her then and there at the foot of the door of our closet with
head towards the east. Soon after my wife expired I left her already and I
proceeded to the country where we use to go, barrio Barit, No. 55, Laoag,
west of the barrio school threat.

Q. How did you place the rope around the neck of your wife Laura Luiz, for
which reason she died? — A. I wound the rope one turn around the neck of
my wife, Laura Luiz, and my two hands tightened the rope and when she
expired I laid her at the foot of the door of the toilet and then I went away.

Q. The rope which you used in throttling your wife, where is it?. — A. It was
just laid down at the place where she was, sir.

Q. Who knows about and who saw what had you done to your wife which
caused her death? — A. Nobody knows about it and saw it, sir, I, alone.

Q. Is it not true that the reason why you killed your wife was that you made a
preconcerted plan with your sister, Anselma Martin and your mother,
Ciriaca Tomas to commit the crime ? — A. No, sir, I have no companion, I
am alone.

Q. Why did you treat your wife in that way? — A. I became obfuscated, is,
when she placed the rope around my neck, and in turn, I tried the same in
her person but, in so trying she died.

Q. Are you, therefore, very positive that the death of your wife, Laura Luiz,
was caused by you in having tightened the rope that was wound around her
 neck? — A. Yes, sir, that was the cause of her death, I have no doubt that I
was the one who killed my wife, Laura Luiz, today August 1, 1948. I killed
her in our toilet at barrio No. 12 Laoag.

Q. Have you some more to say ?- A. I say, no more, sir.

Q. Were you, in any manner compelled, threatened, maltreated or

Q. Are you willing to sign your name at the bottom and at the margin of your
declaration? — A. Willingly, sir, because said declaration is what in truth
and in fact I did, and in testimony hereof, I sign my name in the presence of
attending witnesses this 1st day of August, 1948, at Laoag, Ilocos Norte.

Dr. Roman de la Cuesta, resident physician of the Ilocos Norte Provincial Hospital, performed an
autopsy on the corpse of Laura and issued a certificate which reads as follows:

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

This is to certify that the undersigned performed an autopsy on the person one
Laura Luiz Martin, on August 1, 1948, at 9 o'clock a.m. at the request of the Chief
of Police of Laoag, Ilocos Norte, with the following findings:

(a) Acute dilatation, heart.

(b) Spleen, enlarged, malarial.

(c) Pregnancy, 8 month, female fetus.

(d) Almost circular contusion around the neck, but absent in the occipital region.

(e) No evidence of strangulation in the lungs.

In the opinion of the undersigned the cause of death was acute dilatation of the
heart. (Heart failure)

Dr. de la Cuesta testified that Laura must have died five or six hours before he examined
her corpse at about nine o'clock in the morning of August 1; that the cause of death was
heart failure due to fright or shock; that the deceased was eight months pregnant at the
time of her death; that there was no expulsion of the fetus; and that the foetus must have alive
at the time of the death of Laura.

At the trial the defendant testified that while he was moving his bowels in the toilet with his
back toward the door of the same, he left that a rope was being put around his neck from
behind. He forthwith snatched the rope and wound it around the neck of the person who
had attempted to strange him upon knowing who that person was. The person fell and
upon looking at the same he found that it was his wife.
This version cannot be believed, for although it was dark, his wife must have shouted or
given some sign of who she was when she felt the rope tightening around her neck.
Furthermore, this version is against that freely given by him in his spontaneous confession
made before the chief of police and sworn to before the provincial fiscal. There is no reason
for supposing that either the chief of police or the provincial fiscal had any motive for wringing
from him a forced false confession.

As to the motive of the defendant, it may be found in the fact that the defendant married
Laura unwillingly due to fear being sued, because he was suspected that he was not
responsible for her pregnancy.

The appellant contends that the death of Laura was not due to the strangling, but to her
heart disease. It should be noted, however that the heart failure was due to the fright or
shock caused by the strangling, and consequently, the defendant was responsible for the
death, notwithstanding the fact that the victim was already sick. Had not the defendant
strangled the deceased, the latter, notwithstanding her illness, would not have died. In
other words, the defendant directly caused her death.

In the case of People vs. Reyes (61 Phil. 341, 343,) the Court held:

. . . 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 (which was not
shown), appellants assault being the proximate cause of the death, he would be
responsible. (U.S. vs. Luciano, 2 Phil., 96; U.S. vs. Lugo & Lugo, 8 Phil., 80; U.S.
vs. Brobst, 14 Phil. 310; U.S. vs. Rodriguez, 23 Phil 22.)

In the case of U.S. vs. Brobst (14 Phil. 310), the following doctrine was established:

Where death results as the direct consequences of the use of illegal violence, the
mere fact that the diseased or weakened condition of the injured person
contributed to his death, does not relieve the illegal aggressor of criminal
responsibility. (Syllabus)

The trial court considered two mitigating circumstances in favor of the defendant: (1) that of
unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased without any sufficient provocation on the
part of the defendant — which in this case is equivalent to incomplete self-defense on the
part of the defendant, he should not have wound it around her neck and tightened it — and
(2) the lack of instruction, without any aggravating circumstances to offset them, the
penalty next lower in the degree should be imposed, which is that of reclusion temporal.

In view of the foregoing, the judgment appealed from is modified by imposing upon the
appellant the penalty of from twelve (12) years of prision mayor to twenty (20) years of
reclusion temporal, with the accessory penalties of the law, to indemnify the heirs of the
deceased in the sum of P6,000, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and
to pay the costs. It is so ordered.