Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 444
Neither does justice require the admission of the contention made at the trial court by the counsel for
the defense, to wit, that Leoncio Alfont fired at the deceased because she disobeyed an order
prohibiting the passing of a line established by the insurgents because the band captained by
Alfont was made up of seditious uprisers who went about from place to place without discipline or
organization, and on the scene of the occurrence there was neither trench, line of defense, military
position, nor established encampment with military rules, methods, or regulators. Therefore it was
impossible that there should have been a violation of the same on the part of the deceased which
could justify or excuse her violent death, and for that reason the criminal act in question must be
treated as an ordinary crime committed during rebellion or sedition, and to be punished according to
article 244 of the Penal Code and the provisions thereof, since the death of Eduviges Monteclaro
was not necessary or indispensable to the object and purpose of the rebels.
Based upon the considerations set forth it is deemed proper to affirm the sentence appealed from, it
being understood furthermore that the defendant is condemned to the payment of an indemnity of
1,000 Mexican pesos to the widower and heirs of the deceased and to the payment of costs. It is so
ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Cooper, and Mapa, JJ., concur.
Ladd, J., did not sit in this case.