People vs Kalalo

FACTS:

Nov. 1932, appellants were tried for three criminal cases: the first two for
murder and the last for frustrated murder.
o Marcelo Kalalo was cultivating a land in Calumpang, San Luis, Batangas
from 1931 to 1932. However, when harvest time came Isabela Holgado
reaped all that had been planted thereon.
o Kalalo then filed a complaint on Sept. 28, 1931 an on Dec. 8, 1931 but
both cases were dismissed by a motion filed by Holgado
o Prior to Oct. 1, 1932, Kalalo and Holgado had a litigation over a parcel
of land.
o On Oct. 1, Holgado and her brother (one of the deceased) Arcadio
employed several laborers and had the land plowed. They (laborers
and Arcadio) went to the land early that day.
o But apparently, Kalalo was aware of this so him and 6 others waited for
them, 5 of which were armed with bolos.
o Upon arrival, they ordered them to stop. The laborers did in view of the
threatening attitude of the appellants.
o Shortly after 9am, Isabela and two others arrived and distributed food
to the laborers. (one of the deceased) Marcelino Panaligan arrived and
ordered them to continue their work.
o The appellants then approached them (Marcelino and Arcadio) and
after a remark by Fausta (mother of Kalalos), what is detaining you?
they simultaneously struck with their bolos.
Marcelo on Arcadio
Felipe Kalalo, Juan Kalolo and Gregorio Ramos on Marcelino
o Arcadio and Marcelino died instantly from the wounds received.
Arcadio bore six wounds and Marcelino garnered an astounding
number of 14 wounds.
o After the two dropped dead, Marcelo Kalalo took a revolver from
Marcelino and fire four shots at Hilarion Holgado who was fleeing from
the scene.
Their sentences:
o In case No. 6858: (murder of Marcelino) 17 years, 4 months and one
day of reclusion temporal. Accessory penalties: indemnify the heirs in
the sum of P1,000
o In case No. 6859: (murder of Arcadio Holgado) 17 years, 4 months and
one day of reclusion temporal. Accessory penalties: indemnify the heirs
in the sum of P1,000
o In case No. 6860: Court of First Instance of Batangas, held that the
crime committed was simply discharge of firearms (not frustrated
murder), and Marcelo kalalo was sentenced to 1 year, 8 months, and
21 days of prision correccional and to pay proportionate part of the
costs of the proceedings

ISSUE: Whether or not said sentences were in accordance with the law

Appellants were saying that the fight was provoked by Marcelino who fired at
Marcelo. This was countered by:
o A testimony of Maria Gutierrez, a disinterested witness, which shows
that Marcelino was already dead when Marcelo took the revolver and
fired at Hilarion.
o Since his aggression was exclusively against Arcadio (Marcelo was the
one who slashed Arcadio), and not to Marcelino. If it was true that
Marcelino provoked the fight, Marcelo should have directed his attacks
to him.
o Marcelino was an expert with the revolver but not one of Marcelos
wounds was caused by a bullet. Also, none of the appellants received
any bullet wounds whatsoever.
o And, the fact that the appellants went there, armed with bolos and
determined to prevent the Holgados from plowing the land. They did
not need any provocation in order to carry out their intent.
Appellants were attempting to prove that Marcelo fought alone and it was an
act of self-defense. This was countered by:
o One man alone could not have inflicted on the two deceased, causing
their death.
o Since Marcelino was an expert shot, he could have just shot Marcelo if
that was the case.
o There were two witnesses refuting such allegations.
o Even though Arcadio did use his bolo to defend himself from Marcelo, it
does not explain why Marcelinos wounds were at his back. If they were
fighting, Marcelino wouldnt have turned his back on him.
o Testimony of Isabela Holgado and Maria Gutierrez that the appellants
attacked simultaneously.
o And since Marcelino had a revolver, he should have wounded if not
Marcelino, at least the other appellants.
TC was correct in finding them guilty
o The fact that they were not arrested until after several days because
they had been hiding is corroborative evidence of their guilt.
o They were actuated by the same motive which was to get rid of all
those who might insist on plowing the land
On the issue of whether they are guilty of murder or of simple homicide
o The circumstance of abuse if superior strength, if proven to have been
present, raises homicide to murder.
o The Attorney-General maintains that they are guilty of murder in view
of the presence of abuse of superior strength.
o Trial court is of the opinion that they are guilty of simply homicide but
with the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength.
o SC: This is not apparent here since the deceased were also armed, one
with a revolver and the other with a bolo.
o Therefore, the two cases are mere homicides with no modifying
circumstance to be taken into consideration.
On Case No. 6860:

Since Marcelo fired four successive shots, it shows that he was bent on
killing Hilarion.
o He performed everything necessary to on his part to commit the crime
but he failed by reason of causes independent of his will, either
because of his poor aim or because victim simply was successful in
dodging the shots.
o This constitutes attempted homicide with no modifying circumstance
Sentences were modified:
o Case 6858: crime is homicide, sentenced to 14 years, 8 months and
one day of reclusion temporal each. Minimum is fixed at 9 years
o Case 6859: crime is homicide, sentenced to 14 years, 8 months and
one day of reclusion temporal each. Minimum is fixed at 9 years
o Case 6860: crime is attempted homicide, sentenced to 2 years, 4
months and one day of prision correccional. Minimum penalty is 6
months.
o