PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FILOMENO CAMANO

11/15/22, 3:50 PM G.R. Nos. L-36662-63 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
HIL. v. FILOMENO CAMANO<br /><br />201 Phil. 268 : July 1982 - Philipp…
Home Law Firm Law Library Laws
Jurisprudence

Search

ChanRobles
Professional
Review, Inc.
July 1982 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme
Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 >

July 1982 Decisions >
G.R. Nos. L-36662-63 July 30,
1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FILOMENO CAMANO
201 Phil. 268:

ChanRobles On-

Line Bar Review
EN BANC
[G.R. Nos. L-36662-63. July 30, 1982.]
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1982julydecisions.php?id=346 1/23
11/15/22, 3:50 PM G.R. Nos. L-36662-63 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FILOMENO CAMANO<br /><br />201 Phil. 268 : July 1982 - Philipp…

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. FILOMENO CAMANO, Defendant-
Appellant.
The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Deogracias Eufemio, for Defendant-Appellant.
SYNOPSIS
The accused, who had been drinking, stabbed the

victim Godofredo Pascua twice from behind with a bolo
called "palas," thereby causing his death and another
victim Mariano Buenaflor who was in a kneeling
ChanRobles CPA
position with his head "stooping down" when he was
Review Online
hacked on the head and continuously stabbed until he

died. The accused was charged under two separate

informations for the crime of murder but by agreement
of the parties the two cases were tried jointly. The
accused denied killing Pascua but admitted the killing
of Mariano although in self defense. The trial court in
rejecting the defense of the accused, convicted him of
murder and sentenced him to death. On automatic
review the fact of death of the two victims and the
cause of their deaths are not disputed. Counsel de
oficio for the accused merely claims that the accused is
not guilty of murder but only of homicide.
The Supreme Court held that the trial court did not err
ChanRobles Special in finding the accused guilty of murder in the two cases
Lecture Series
and sustained its findings on the presence of treachery
as the attacks were from behind, but ruled: (a) that
the alternative circumstance of intoxication should be
considered as mitigating; (b) that there is no evident
premeditation as there was no evidence of planning or
preparation in the killing nor of marked persistence to
accomplish that plan and (c) that abuse of superiority
is absorbed in treachery.
Judgment modified, penalty reduced to an

indeterminate penalty of prision mayor as minimum to
reclusion temporal as maximum in each case.

SYLLABUS

1. CRIMINAL LAW; MURDER; AGGRAVATING

CIRCUMSTANCES; EVIDENT PREMEDITATION;
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF. — There is evident
premeditation when the killing had been carefully
planned by the offender, when he prepared before hand
the means which he deemed suitable for carrying it

into execution, and when he had sufficient time

dispassionately to consider and accept the

consequences, and when there has been a concerted

plan (U. S. v. Cornejo, 28 Phil. 457).
July-1982
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; EVIDENT PREMEDITATION; PROOF
Jurisprudence

REQUIRED; ABSENCE OF PROOF IN CASE AT BAR. —

Evident premeditation requires proof of the following:
G.R. No. L-45245 (1) the time when the offender determined to commit
the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the
July 2, 1982 - PEOPLE
culprit had clung to his determination; and (3) a
OF THE PHIL. v.
MARCELINO T. sufficient lapse of time between the determination and
the execution of the crime to allow him to reflect upon
GABILAN
the consequences of his act and to allow his conscience

G.R. No. L-57573 to overcome the resolution of his will. In the case at
July 5, 1982 - bar, as there is no direct evidence of the planning or
DIRECTOR OF LANDS preparation in the killing of Pascua and Buenaflor and
v. ERNESTO DATU of the marked persistence to accomplish that plan, the

trial court’s conclusion that there is evident

premeditation cannot be sustained.
G.R. No. L-58268

July 5, 1982 -
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH;
ENRIQUETA S. TY v.
ABSORBED IN TREACHERY. — The rule is already
EUSTAQUIA ELALE
settled that abuse of superiority is absorbed in

treachery.
G.R. No. L-27546

July 16, 1982 -
PHILIPPINE CHARITY 4. ID.; ID.; QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES;
SWEEPSTAKES TREACHERY; PRESENT WHEN THE ACCUSED ATTACKED
OFFICE v. ASSOC. OF THE VICTIM FROM BEHIND; CASE AT BAR. — The

SWEEPSTAKES STAFF contention of counsel for the accused that treachery is
PERSONNEL not present in the commission of the crime is without

merit, where the witness Amado Payago categorically
G.R. No. L-30595 declared that Filomeno Camano attacked Godofredo
July 16, 1982 - Pascua from behind, a method which has ensured the
MAGDALENA S. accomplishment of the criminal act without any risk to
JOSON v. FORTUNATO the perpetrator arising from the defense that his victim
CRISOSTOMO may put up; where the testimony of said witness is

corroborated by the nature and location of the wounds
G.R. Nos. L-32694 sustained by the deceased; where with respect to the
& L-33119 July 16, other victim Mariano Buenaflor, the evidence shows
1982 - FIDEL that he was attacked while in a kneeling position, with
SILVESTRE v. COURT his arms on top of the gate of the fence surrounding
OF APPEALS his hut and his head was "stooping down" when he was

hacked on the head, causing him to fall to the ground
G.R. No. L-36094 and then successively hacked and stabbed without
July 16, 1982 - respite, as he lay on the ground, until he died, and
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. where the attack was also sudden, unexpected, and
v. ANASTACIO lethal, such as to disable and incapacitate the victim
DELASA from putting up any defense.
G.R. No. L-30269 5. ID.; ID.; ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES;

July 19, 1982 - INTOXICATION; DETERMINATION OF NATURE;
EPITACIO BUERANO CONSIDERED MITIGATING IN CASE AT BAR. —
v. COURT OF Drunkenness or intoxication is mitigating if accidental,
APPEALS not habitual nor intentional, that is, not subsequent to

the plan to commit the crime. It is aggravating if
G.R. No. L-40432 habitual or intentional (Aquino, Revised Penal Code, p.
July 19, 1982 - 407). To be mitigating, it must be indubitably proved
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. (Ibid., at p. 408). A habitual drunkard is one given to
v. FERNANDO FELIPE intoxication by excessive use of intoxicating drinks. The

habit should be actual and confirmed. It lessens
G.R. No. L-41543 individual resistance to evil thought and undermines
July 19, 1982 - will-power making its victim a potential evildoer (Ibid.,
LEANDRO SEDECO v. pp. 408-409). In the case at bar, the intoxication of the
COURT OF APPEALS appellant not being habitual, and considering that the

said appellant was in a state of intoxication at the time
G.R. No. L-51458 of the commission of the felony, the alternative
July 19, 1982 - circumstance of intoxication should be considered as a
mitigating circumstance.
MANUEL YAP v.
COURT OF APPEALS 6. ID.; PENALTY; ONE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE

WITHOUT ANY AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE TO
G.R. No. L-52498 OFFSET IT; PENALTY; CASE AT BAR. — The offense
July 19, 1982 - JESUS being attended by the mitigating circumstance of
B. PACQUING v. intoxication, without any aggravating circumstance to
COURT OF APPEALS offset it, the imposable penalty is the minimum of that

provided by law or 17 years, 4 months and 1 day to 20
A.M. No. 1895-CFI years of reclusion temporal. Applying the
July 20, 1982 - Indeterminate Sentence Law, the appellant should be,
LAMBERTO MACIAS v. as he is hereby, sentenced to suffer an indeterminate
GIBSON ARAULA penalty ranging from 10 years and 1 day of prision

mayor, as minimum, to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day
A.C. No. 2160 July of reclusion temporal, as maximum, in each case.
20, 1982 - AVELINO
FRAN v. JUANITO 7. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS;

FUERTE PROHIBITION OF CRUEL OR UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT;

NOT A CASE OF; DEATH PENALTY. — The death penalty
A.M. No. 2691-CFI is not cruel, unjust or excessive. "The penalty
July 20, 1982 - complained of is neither cruel, unjust nor excessive. In
ARTEMIO T. VICTORIA Ex-Parte Kemmler, 136 U. S. 436, the United States
v. SEGUNDO M. ZOSA Supreme Court said that ‘punishments are cruel when

they involve torture or a lingering death, but the
G.R. No. L-30201 punishment of death is not cruel, within the meaning of
July 20, 1982 - that word as used in the Constitution.’ It implies there
CARMEN P. URBANO something inhuman and barbarous, something more
v. J. M. TUASON & than the mere extinguishment of life."
CO., INC.
G.R. No. L-31682 DECISION

July 20, 1982 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. VIRGILIO CONCEPCION, JR., J.:

NACUSPAG
G.R. No. L-32661 MANDATORY REVIEW of the death sentence imposed

July 20, 1982 - upon the accused Filomeno Camano by the Court of
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. First Instance of Camarines Sur, in Criminal Case Nos.
v. CESAR DE LA CRUZ T-20 and T-21, for the killing of Godofredo Pascual and

Mariano Buenaflor.
G.R. No. L-34840 The inculpatory facts as stated by the trial court show
July 20, 1982 - that:
jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
MARIO RODIS
MAGASPI v. JOSE R. "On February 17, 1970, in the barrio of Nato,

RAMOLETE Municipality of Sagñay, Province of Camarines Sur,

between the hours of four and five o’clock in the
G.R. No. L-35333 afternoon, after the accused had been drinking liquor,
July 20, 1982 - FELIX he stabbed twice the victim Godofredo Pascua with a
M. SULIT v. JOEL P. bolo, called in the vernacular Bicol "palas" which is a
TIANGCO sharp bladed and pointed instrument about two feet

long including the black handle, tapering to the end,
G.R. No. L-37751 about one and one-half inches in width, (Exhibit "C")
July 20, 1982 - while the latter was walking alone along the barrio
MANUEL LAPINIG v. street almost infront of the store of one Socorro
COURT OF APPEALS Buates. The victim, Godofredo Pascua, sustained two

mortal wounds for which he died instantaneously,
G.R. No. L-38140 described by Dr. Constancio A. Tan, Municipal Health
July 20, 1982 - Officer, of Sagñay, Camarines Sur in his Autopsy Report
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. (Exhibit "A", pp. 5, Record Crim. Case No. T-21) as
v. ABUNDIO LABINIA follows:
G.R. No. L-38440

"NATURE OF WOUNDS UPON AUTOPSY:
July 20, 1982 -

DOMINGO V. FLORES,
"1. WOUND STAB — three (3) inches long at left side,
JR. v. JUAN PONCE
three (3) inches below left axilla, a little bit posteriorly,
ENRILE
cutting the skin, subcutaneous tissues, muscles one (1)

rib, pleura of left lung, pericardium, penetrating the

G.R. No. L-41399
ventricles of the heart, Media stinum, the right lung
July 20, 1982 -
and exit to the right chest. One inch opening.
REPUBLIC OF

PHILIPPINES v.
"2. WOUND INCISED, one inch long at the left arm.
CESAR GUY

"CAUSE OF DEATH — Wound No. 1 causing instant

G.R. No. L-41958
death due to severe hemorrhage."
July 20, 1982 -

cralaw virtua1aw library
DONALD MEAD v.
MANUEL A. ARGEL After hacking and stabbing to death Godofredo Pascua,

the accused proceeded to the seashore of the barrio,
G.R. No. L-42963 and on finding Mariano Buenaflor leaning at the gate of
July 20, 1982 - the fence of his house, in a kneeling position, with both
arms on top of the fence, and his head stooping down
hacked the latter with the same bolo, first on the head,
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. and after the victim fell and rolled to the ground, after
v. REINO P. ROLL said blow, he continued hacking him, until he lay

prostrate on the ground, face up, when the accused
G.R. No. L-46954 gave him a final thrust of the bolo at the left side of the
July 20, 1982 - chest above the nipple running and penetrating to the
ELPIDIO YABES, ET right side a little posteriorly and superiorly with an exit
AL. v. NAPOLEON at the back, of one (1) inch opening, (Exhibit B)
FLOJO, ET AL. causing instant death. The victim, Mariano Buenaflor

sustained eight wounds, which were specifically
G.R. No. L-47740 described by Dr. Tan in his Autopsy Report (Exhibit "B"
July 20, 1982 - LIM dated February 17, 1970, as follows:
chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad
PIN v. CONCHITA
LIAO TAN "NATURE OF WOUNDS UPON AUTOPSY:
G.R. No. L-47953

"1. WOUND STAB, Two (2) inches long at the left side
July 20, 1982 - LILIA
of chest above the nipple, running to the right side a
B. GALCERAN v.
little posteriorly and superiorly with an exit at the back
SECRETARY OF
of one (1) inch opening. Penetrating the skin,
LABOR
subcutaneous tissues, pericardium the suricles of the

heart, the left lung towards the right side of back.
G.R. No. L-50439

July 20, 1982 -

"2. WOUND STAB at sternum one and one-half (1-1/2)
ENRIQUE T.
inches deep three-fourth (3/4) inch long penetrating
YUCHENGCO, INC. v.
the skin and the sternum.
CONRADO M. VELAYO

"3. WOUND STAB left side of neck three-fourth (3/4)

G.R. No. L-52435
inch long one and one-half (1-1/2) inches deep.
July 20, 1982 -

ELIZABETH SINCLAIR
"4. WOUND HACKED, cutting left ear and bone four (4)
v. COURT OF
inches long.
APPEALS

"5. WOUND HACKED, left leg three (3) inches long

G.R. No. L-56554
cutting skin and bone of anterior side.
July 20, 1982 - SAN

MIGUEL
"6. WOUND INCISED left palm two (2) inches long.
CORPORATION v.

NATIONAL LABOR
"7. WOUND STAB, one (1) inch long two (2) inches
RELATIONS
deep at the back near spinal column.
COMMISSION

"8. WOUND HACKED, two (2) inches long at dome of

head cutting skin and bone.
G.R. No. L-56833
July 20, 1982 - "CAUSE OF DEATH — Wound number one (1) causing
RAMON V. MERANO v. instant death due to severe hemorrhage from the
EDUARDO C. TUTAAN heart." Out of the eight (8) wounds, two (2) are mortal

wounds, namely, wound Number one (1) and wound
G.R. No. L-58011- Number Three (3), (Exhibit "B") (t.s.n., pp. 18-20,
12 July 20, 1982 - Session November 22, 1971). The two victims
VIR-JEN SHIPPING Godofredo Pascua and Mariano Buenaflor, together with
AND MARINE the accused are neighbors, residing at the same street
SERVICES, INC. v. of Barrio Nato, Sagñay, Camarines Sur (t.s.n., pp. 31,
NATIONAL LABOR Session Nov. 22, 1971). The bloody incident was not
RELATIONS preceded or precipitated by any altercation between
COMMISSION the victims and the accused (t.s.n. p. 60, Nov. 22,

1971).
G.R. No. L-58678
July 20, 1982 - Likewise, it is an undisputed fact that three years prior
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. to this incident, the two victims had a
v. IRINEO V. misunderstanding with the accused while fishing along
MENDOZA Sagñay River. During this occasion it appears that the

accused requested Godofredo Pascua to tow his fishing
G.R. Nos. L- boat with the motor boat owned by Mariano Buenaflor
58973-76 July 20, but the request was refused by both. This refusal
1982 - INOCENTES greatly offended and embittered the accused against
AMORA, JR. v. COURT the victims. From this time on the accused begrudged
OF APPEALS the two, and entertained personal resentment against

them. And although on several occasions, the accused
G.R. No. L-59519 was seen at the same table with Godofredo Pascual
July 20, 1982 - drinking liquor, the friendly attitude towards Pascua,
ADELA FRANCISCO v. seems to be merely artificial than real, more so, with
ALFREDO M. respect to Mariano Buenaflor whom be openly
GORGONIO detested. He consistently refused to associate since

then with the two victims, especially, Mariano
G.R. No. L-35726 Buenaflor. In fact, no less than ten attempts were
July 21, 1982 - made by Amado Payago, a neighbor, inviting the
SOCIAL SECURITY accused for reconciliation with the victims but were
SYSTEM v. CITY OF refused. Instead, defendant when intoxicated or drunk,
BACOLOD, ET AL.
used to challenge Mariano Buenaflor to a fight, and

announce his evil intention to kill them (t.s.n., pp. 50-
201 Phil. 1 53, Session November 22, 1971.)
chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
Also proved beyond dispute, the fact that the bolo or
G.R. No. L-58289 "palas" belongs to the accused. That after killing the
July 24, 1982 - two victims, he returned to his house, where he
VALENTINO L. subsequently surrendered to Policemen Adolfo Avila,
LEGASPI v. MINISTER Juan Chavez, and Erasmo Valencia, upon demand by
OF FINANCE
said peace officers for him to surrender. When brought

to the Police Headquarters of the town for investigation
201 Phil. 8 he revealed that the bolo he used in the killing was

hidden by him under the table of his house. Following
A.C. No. 792 July this tip, Patrolman Jose Baluyot was dispatched, and
30, 1982 - NATIONAL recovered the weapon at the place indicated, which
BUREAU OF when presented to the Chief of Police was still stained
INVESTIGATION v. with human blood from the base of the handle to the
JESUS M. PONCE
point of the blade. And when asked as to who was the

owner of said bolo, the accused admitted it as his. He
201 Phil. 37 also admitted the killing of Godofredo Pascua and

Mariano Buenaflor. However, when he was asked to
A.C. No. 906 July sign a statement, he refused. 1
30, 1982 - TERESITA
B. TABILIRAN v. JOSE For the killing of Godofredo Pascua and Mariano

C. TABILIRAN, JR.
Buenaflor, Filomeno Camano was charged, under two

(2) separate informations, with the crime of murder
201 Phil. 40 attended by evident premeditation and treachery. By

agreement of the parties, the two cases were tried
A.C. No. 1182 July jointly.
30, 1982 - ISABELO
C. ORIJUELA v. The accused admitted killing Mariano Buenaflor, but

TEMISTOCLES A. claims that he did so in self-defense. He denied killing
ROSARIO
Godofredo Pascua. He also denied holding a grudge

against Godofredo Pascua and Mariano Buenaflor and
201 Phil. 45 belittled the fist fight he had with Mariano Buenaflor.

He said that while they were drinking, they had a
A.C. No. 2343 July heated discussion, and because they were drunk, it
30, 1982 - FACUNDO resulted in a fist fight, which they had soon forgotten.
LUBIANO v. JOEL G. 2
GORDOLLA

His version of the incident is that in the early morning
201 Phil. 47 of February 17, 1970, he was fishing in the open sea.

He went ashore at about 7:00 o’clock in the morning
A.M. No. 2397-MJ and was met by Mariano Buenaflor who, upon seeing
July 30, 1982 - that he had a big catch, demanded a percentage for
ERNESTO D. BONILLA the fishery commission. When he refused to give what
v. LEONARDO AFABLE
was asked, Buenaflor remarked that he was hard-

headed. He went home, taking his things along with
201 Phil. 52 him. After eating breakfast, he went to sleep and

awoke at about 3:30 o’clock in the afternoon. 3 He ate
A.M. No. 2681-CFI his dinner 4 and prepared to go out to sea again. While
July 30, 1982 - he was standing in the yard of his house, Mariano
GEORGE O. JAVIER v. Buenaflor, Godofredo Pascua, Gorio Carable, Jesus
MANUEL E. Carable, Tomas Carable, Abelardo Bolaye, Amado
VALENZUELA
Payago, and Loreto Payago, who were drinking at the

store of Socorro Buates, went to him and Godofredo
201 Phil. 56 Pascua, without any provocation whatsoever, boxed

him. He recounted what happened next: "I defend
G.R. No. L-26676 myself but inspite of that I was hit on my upperarm.
July 30, 1982 - Then after that I was again boxed by Mariano Buenaflor
PHILIPPINE REFINING and I was hit on my lower jaw. (Witness pointing to the
CO., INC. v. NG SAM
bolo marked Exhibit C.) And I was able to grab that

bolo from him."
201 Phil. 61

"When I met Godofredo Pascua he was on the act of
G.R. No. L-28692 boloing me but I was able to take hold of his hands and
July 30, 1982 - I was able to grab the bolo. After I have taken the bolo
CONRADA VDA. DE from Godofredo Pascua, all I know is that he fell on the
ABETO v. PHILIPPINE ground and the rest of the group except Mariano
AIR LINES, INC.
Buenaflor run away after seeing that Godofredo Pascua

fell already on the ground. Mariano Buenaflor
201 Phil. 82 approached me having also a bolo then immediately

when we meet each other I boloed him and when he
G.R. No. L-29376 was wounded he run away and when he was running
July 30, 1982 - away I run after him. After I have boloed Mariano
MARIANO WONG v. Buenaflor he run away so I run after him because I
REPUBLIC OF THE know that he has a gun and if he reach home he will
PHILIPPINES
get that gun and he might shoot me." 5 Mariano

Buenaflor was hit on the head.
201 Phil. 69

The trial court, however, rejected the defense of the
G.R. No. L-30279 accused, saying:
July 30, 1982 - PHIL.

NATIONAL BANK v.
"Coming to the evidence for the defense, the Court,
PHIL. NATIONAL
much to its regret cannot give credence to the
BANK EMPLOYEES
testimony and story of the accused, and his lone
ASSOCIATION (PEMA)
witness, Nemesio Camano, who is his first cousin. The

claim of self-defense does not find support in the
201 Phil. 89 evidence presented. The claim, that a group of eight

(8) men headed by Godofredo Pascua and Mariano
G.R. No. L-30456 Buenaflor ganged up on him by boxing him one after
July 30, 1982 - another while others were throwing stones at him; that
VIRGILIO S. he was attacked by Godofredo Pascua with a bolo
VELAZCO CAVITE v. which he succeeded in wresting from him; that he did
EMILIA S. BLAS
not know Godofredo Pascua was killed; that he killed

said Mariano Buenaflor after a bolo duel, are mere
201 Phil. 122 fictions of a desperate man without evidentiary

support. His testimony on these points, and that of his
G.R. No. L-30738 cousin Nemesio Camano are simply incredible not only
July 30, 1982 - because they are inherently improbable in themselves,
BOARD OF but also because of their clear inconsistencies on
LIQUIDATORS v. contradictions against each other. For, conceding in
JOSE ZULUETA
gratia argumenti that he was really ganged up by eight

(8) persons, some boxing him while others throwing
201 Phil. 131 stones at him, and two of whom were armed with a

bolo, and that he was all alone fighting them, and yet
G.R. No. L-31818 he did not suffer any physical injury, is indeed
July 30, 1982 - incredible and beyond belief. With eight (8) persons to
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. contend with, two armed with bolos, it is simply
v. EDMUNDO unbelievable that he should come out of the melee
GADIANO
unscathed.
chanrobles.com:cralaw:red
201 Phil. 143 "The Court has carefully examined and verified very

carefully each and every piece of evidence presented
G.R. Nos. L- by the defense and has relaxed all technical rules of
32144-45 July 30, evidence in favor of the accused in search for
1982 - PEOPLE OF evidentiary support of his claim of self-defense in vain.
THE PHIL. v. NAÑO L. Conscious of the enormity of the offense and the
MILFLORES
bitterness attached to an adverse decision, the Court

has earnestly searched in vain for facts upon which to
201 Phil. 154 lay the basis at least of a finding of reasonable doubt in

favor of the accused at least just to avoid the ugly and
G.R. No. L-32463 unpleasant task of signing an adverse court decision.
July 30, 1982 - But, the falsity of their concocted story is so apparent
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. and self-evident to need further elucidation. This is
v. JOSE L. BATOY
demonstrated by the record. They simply cannot stand,

as basis of belief. Moreover, the Court feels very much
201 Phil. 179 intrigued by the fact that notwithstanding that many

people witnessed the incidents, having occurred in
G.R. No. L-32997 broad daylight, and that the accused had more
July 30, 1982 - sufficient time to look for witnesses among his friends,
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. relatives, and neighbors in the barrio, during the long
v. ANICETO PEDROSO
period that this case has been pending trial since

February 17, 1970, that he could not get any witness
201 Phil. 184 to testify in his favor, other than his lone witness,

Nemesio Camano, whose testimony, coming as it is
G.R. No. L-33169 from a very close relative is naturally very vulnerable
July 30, 1982 - to grave doubt and suspicion for coming from a biased
GLICERIO JAVELLANA source. Could this mean lack of public sympathy
v. CESAR KINTANAR because the horrible act was in truth committed by the

accused? Is this a sign of public condemnation? Be it as
G.R. No. L-33327 it may, this unpleasant circumstance has no bearing or
July 30, 1982 - influence in the painful decision of this case. What
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. impelled and compelled this Court in making this
v. FLORENTINO painful decision, much to his dislike, are the bare and
ALMENDRAS
incontrovertible facts of the case born out by the

evidence presented indicating beyond per adventure of
201 Phil. 211 doubt the stark reality which shows that there exist

that moral certainty that convinces and satisfies the
G.R. Nos. L- reason and conscience of those who are to act upon it.
34527-28 July 30, (People v. Lavarios, L-24339, June 29, 1968, 22 SCRA
1982 - PEOPLE OF 1321) For the bitter conclusions herein reached, is
THE PHIL. v. based on the compelling and irresistible facts born out
DIONISIO by the evidence of record found after sleepless night of
MAGBANUA
study that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable

doubt of the crime charged committed with the
201 Phil. 219 aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation,

treachery, abuse of superior strength, and intoxication
G.R. No. L-35745 with no mitigating circumstance. The accused and his
July 30, 1982 - only witness, Nemesio Camano changed their
JULIANA VDA. DE declarations not only once, twice, or thrice, but many
LICARDO v. times, placing the Court in quandary and confused
WORKMEN’S what theory or testimony is to be believed and
COMPENSATION considered among the mess of contradictory,
COMMISSION
inconsistent, and diametrically opposed statements.

Considering the manner and tenor they were given, —
201 Phil. 247 the accused and his only witness changing stand in

every turn, leaves no room for doubt than that said
testimonies are merely concocted and fabricated as a
G.R. No. L-35950 desperate attempt to salvage a hopeless case." 6
July 30, 1982 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. In this appeal, the fact of death of Godofredo Pascua
v. ARNOLD ZURBITO
and Mariano Buenaflor and the cause of their deaths

are not disputed. Counsel de oficio merely claims that
201 Phil. 256 the accused is guilty of homicide only in each case, and

not murder, as charged; and prays for the modification
G.R. Nos. L- of the judgment and the consequent reduction of the
36662-63 July 30, penalty imposed upon the accused Filomeno Camano. chanrobles virtual
1982 - PEOPLE OF
lawlibrary
THE PHIL. v.

FILOMENO CAMANO
(1) Counsel contends that there is no evident

premeditation since the acts of the accused, as testified

201 Phil. 268
to by the prosecution witnesses, are all indicative of a

"spur-of-the-moment" decision and action.
G.R. No. L-37270

July 30, 1982 -

The contention is well taken. There is evident
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
premeditation when the killing had been carefully
v. MAGNO B. PABLO
planned by the offender, when he prepared beforehand

the means which he deemed suitable for carrying it

201 Phil. 284
into execution, and when he had sufficient time

dispassionately to consider and accept the

G.R. No. L-37632
consequences, and when there has been a concerted
July 30, 1982 -
plan. 7 It has also been held that evident
GREGORIA VDA. DE
premeditation requires proof of the following: (1) the
PAMAN v. ALBERTO V.
time when the offender determined to commit the
SEÑERIS
crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the culprit

had clung to his determination; and (3) a sufficient

201 Phil. 290
lapse of time between the determination and the

execution of the crime to allow him to reflect upon the

G.R. No. L-38208
consequences of his act and to allow his conscience to
July 30, 1982 -
overcome the resolution of his will. 8 In the instant
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
case, it cannot be stated that the killing of Pascua and
v. ENECITO
Buenaflor was a preconceived plan. There is no proof
VILLASON
as to how and when the plan to kill Pascua and

Buenaflor was hatched or what time had elapsed before

201 Phil. 298
the plan was carried out. The trial court merely

concluded that the killing of Pascua and Buenaflor was

G.R. No. L-38544
premeditated because "the accused has been nursing
July 30, 1982 - LUZ
the evil design to kill both the victims since three years
E. BALITAAN v.
prior to the occurrence of the incident on February 18,
COURT OF FIRST 1970, when both of them refused the request of the
INSTANCE OF accused to have his boat towed by the motor boat
BATANGAS belonging to Mariano Buenaflor while fishing along

Sañgay River," and "from that time on, to the fatal
G.R. No. L-38859 killings, said accused refused consistently to join his
July 30, 1982 - neighbors in their drinking spree where both the
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. victims especially Mariano Buenaflor were present;" "in
v. DANILO VIZCARRA
fact, no less than ten attempts made by witness Amado

Payago inviting the accused to be reconciled with the
201 Phil. 326 victims were rejected;" and that "on the contrary, it

has been established that whenever the accused was
G.R. No. L-39966 drunk, he announces his intention to kill the victims,
July 30, 1982 - and as a matter of fact he challenged several times
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. Mariano Buenaflor to a fight."
v. MAXIMO
TABADERO
The incident referred to, however. does not establish

the time when the appellant decided to commit the
201 Phil. 340 crime. If ever, the aforementioned incident merely

established the motive for the killing of the two victims.
G.R. No. L-40494 9
July 30, 1982 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. The fact that the accused had challenged Mariano
v. DOMINGO BURGOS
Buenaflor to a fight whenever he was drunk and

announces his intention to kill the latter does not
201 Phil. 353 reveal a persistence of a criminal design since there is

no showing that in between the utterances of the
G.R. No. L-49401 threats and the consummation of the crime, the
July 30, 1982 - RIZAL appellant made plans or sought the deceased to
COMMERCIAL accomplish the killing.
chanrobles.com : virtual law library
BANKING CORP. v.

JOSE P. ARRO
As there is no direct evidence of the planning or

preparation in the killing of Pascua and Buenaflor and

201 Phil. 362
of the marked persistence to accomplish that plan, the

trial court’s conclusion cannot be sustained.

G.R. No. L-55687

July 30, 1982 -

(2) Counsel for the accused also claims that treachery
JUASING HARDWARE
is not present in the commission of the crime.
v. RAFAEL T.

MENDOZA
The contention is without merit. Amado Payago

categorically declared that Filomeno Camano attacked

201 Phil. 369
Godofredo Pascua from behind, a method which has

ensured the accomplishment of the criminal act without
G.R. Nos. L- any risk to the perpetrator arising from the defense
57601-06 July 30, that his victim may put up. His testimony reads, as
1982 - LAZARO follows:
VENIEGAS v. PEOPLE
OF THE PHIL.
"Q At that time and date while you were in front of

your house did you notice whether there is anything
201 Phil. 376 unusual incident that happened?
G.R. No. L-57841 A Yes, sir.
July 30, 1982 -
BERNARDO GALLEGO Q Can you relate before this Honorable Court?
v. SANDIGANBAYAN

A Yes, sir.
G.R. No. L-59283
July 30, 1982 - Q Please relate it?
CRISANTO MOLINO v.
COURT OF APPEALS
A I saw Filomeno Camano run towards his house and

took a bolo and run after Godofredo Pascua and
201 Phil. 385 immediately stabbed him.
G.R. No. L-60236 Q How far more or less were you when Godofredo
July 30, 1982 - Pascua was stabbed by Filomeno Camano?
DOMESTIC SAVINGS
& LOAN ASSOC., INC. A More or less 12 to 15 meters.
v. MILAGROS
VILLAFANIA-CAGUIOA
Q What was Godofredo Pascua doing when he was

stabbed by Filomeno Camano?
201 Phil. 390

A He was walking to his house.

Q In relation to Godofredo Pascua where was Filomeno

Camano at the time that Filomeno Camano stabbed
Godofredo Pascua?
A From behind sir.
Q After Godofredo Pascua was stabbed by Filomeno

Camano what happened to Godofredo Pascua?
A He fell down and keep on turning.
Q What about Filomeno Camano, what did he do after

Godofredo Pascua fell down?
A He run towards the seashore looking after Mariano

Buenaflor." 10
His testimony is corroborated by the nature and

location of the wounds sustained by the deceased
Godofredo Pascua. The autopsy report, 11 showed that
the point of entry of the stab wound inflicted upon
Pascua was three (3) inches long and three (3) inches
below the left armpit, a little bit posteriorly or toward
the hinder end of the body; and the point of exit was
the right chest, one (1) inch lateral to the right nipple
with a one (1) inch opening. If the deceased was
stabbed while he was facing his assailant, as claimed
by counsel for the accused, the entrance wound would
have been in the front part of the body, and its exit
wound, if any, would be at the back. The trial court,
therefore, did not commit an error in finding that the
deceased Godofredo Pascua was assaulted from
behind.
chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph
With respect to Mariano Buenaflor, the evidence shows

that he was attacked while in a kneeling position, with
his arms on top of the gate of the fence surrounding
his hut and his head was "stooping down." 12 He was
hacked on the head, causing him to fall to the ground,
and then successively hacked and stabbed without
respite, as he lay on the ground, until he died. The
attack was also sudden, unexpected, and lethal, such
as to disable and incapacitate the victim from putting
up any defense.
(3) Counsel de oficio further claims that the

aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior
strength, which the lower court appreciated in fixing
the penalty, is absorbed in treachery.
This contention is likewise correct. The rule is already
settled that abuse of superiority is absorbed in

treachery. 13
(4) Counsel next contends that the alternative

circumstance of intoxication was erroneously
appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. Counsel
argues thusly:
"As to the alternative circumstance of intoxication, it is

respectfully submitted that there was no proof that the
accused was intoxicated at the time of the killing other
than the bare testimony of Payago that from his house
he allegedly saw the accused drinking in his house
which is about 30 meters away. The prosecution did not
present any police report or doctor’s certification that
accused was found to be intoxicated at the time of the
killing. Moreover, it was not shown by competent
evidence that accused purposely became drunk to
facilitate the commission of the offense.
"If at all, intoxication should be properly appreciated as

a mitigating circumstance because it affected accused’s
mental facilities such that it diminished his capacity to
know the injustice of his acts and to comprehend fully
the consequences of his acts." 14
There is merit in the contention. Drunkenness or

intoxication is mitigating if accidental, not habitual nor
intentional, that is, not subsequent to the plan to
commit the crime. It is aggravating if habitual or
intentional. 15 To be mitigating, it must be indubitably
proved. 16 A habitual drunkard is one given to
intoxication by excessive use of intoxicating drinks. The
habit should be actual and confirmed. It is unnecessary
that it be a matter of daily occurrence. It lessens
individual resistance to evil thought and undermines
will-power making its victim a potential evildoer. 17
The records of these cases do not show that the

appellant was given to excessive use of intoxicating
drinks although he used to get drunk every now and
then. The testimony of Amado Payago to this effect,

reads as follows: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Q But after that incident Godofredo Pascua and

Filomeno Camano are already in good terms because
they even go on drinking spree, is it not?
A Yes, sir, that is true but Filomeno Camano has an evil

plan against Godofredo Pascua.
Q And how did you come to know about this plan?
A He talk(s) (about) that very openly specially when he

is drunk.
Q During the three years that the incident where

Camano’s boat was not towed, could you remember
how many times more or less did yon hear him speak
about his plan before the stabbing incident?
A Whenever he is drunk.
Q Can you not remember more or less how many times

have you heard him?
A I cannot remember, sir.
Q About five times?
FISCAL CLEDERA:
chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Already answered.
A Whenever he is drunk.
ATTY. TRIA:
Q How often does he drink (sic), if you know?

A I cannot estimate, sir.
Q What about Mariano Buenaflor, could you also state

that there had been an altercation between him and
Filomeno Camano prior to the incident, is it not?
A Yes, sir.
Q What was this altercation about?
A It started when the request of Filomeno Camano to

tow his boat was refused by Godofredo Pascua because
that boat used by Godofredo Pascua is owned by
Mariano Buenaflor.
Q How did you also know that Camano resented

against (sic) this Buenaflor?
A Everytime he is drunk he keep(s) on challenging

Mariano Buenaflor."
x x x

Q Have you ever seen the accused Filomeno Camano

drink liquor immediately prior to the incident?
A Yes, sir.
Q Where?
A In his house.
Q When you saw him where were you?
A I was also in my house because I can just see his

house from our window.
Q About how far is your house from the house of

Filomeno Camano so that you can see from your
house?
A More or less 30 meters.
Q With whom was Filomeno Camano drinking?

A Bienvenido Pascua, Leopoldo Balaye and this (sic)

persons (who) are living far from our house.
Q According to your personal knowledge do you know

whether or not the accused was drunk when this
incident happened?
A Yes, sir.
Q But the truth is that, you still affirm that you don’t
know of any incident immediately prior that has
precipitated this stabbing incident between the accused
and the victim.
A None, sir.
ATTY. TRIA:
Q How about you, did you now drink that time? No,
sir." 18
The intoxication of the appellant not being habitual,

and considering that the said appellant was in a state
of intoxication at the time of the commission of the
felony, the alternative circumstance of intoxication
should be considered as a mitigating circumstance.
5. Finally, counsel claims that death is a cruel and

unusual penalty and not proper in the cases at bar,
citing Art. IV, Sec. 21 of the Constitution which
provides that: "Excessive fines shall not be imposed,
nor cruel or unusual punishment inflicted."
The contention is without merit. The death penalty is

not cruel, unjust or excessive. In the case of Harden v.
Director of Prisons, 19 the Court said:
"The penalty complained of is neither cruel, unjust nor
excessive. In Ex-Parte Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436, the

United States Supreme Court said that ‘punishments
are cruel when they involve torture or a lingering
death, but the punishment of death is not cruel, within
the meaning of that word as used in the Constitution.’
It implies there something inhuman and barbarous,
something more than the mere extinguishment of life." cralaw
virtua1aw library
The trial court, therefore, did not err in finding the

accused Filomeno Camano guilty of Murder in each of
the two cases. The offense being attended by the
mitigating circumstance of intoxication, without any
aggravating circumstance to offset it, the imposable
penalty is the minimum of that provided by law or 17
years, 4 months and 1 day to 20 years of reclusion
temporal. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
the appellant should be, as he is hereby, sentenced to
suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from 10 years
and 1 day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 17 years, 4
months and 1 day of reclusion temporal, as maximum,
in each case.
chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
WHEREFORE, with the modification of the penalty

imposed upon the appellant, as above indicated, the
judgment appealed from should be, as it is hereby,
AFFIRMED in all other respects. With costs against the
said Appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Barredo, Guerrero, Abad

Santos, De Castro, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin,
Vasquez, Relova and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.
Makasiar, J., Besides intoxication, voluntary surrender

shall also mitigate the guilt of appellant. who had the
choice to surrender or not when demanded by the
policemen, who did not place him under arrest nor had
an arrest warrant.
Aquino, J., I dissent. Premeditation is aggravating. The

accused should be sentenced to two reclusion
perpetuas.
Endnotes:
1. Decision, pp. 2-6.
2. t.s.n., Nastor, p. 102.
3. Id., pp. 97-98.
4. Id., p. 107.
5. Id., pp. 100-101.
6. Decision, pp. 13-16.
7. U.S. v. Cornejo, 28 Phil. 457.
8. People v. Verges, G.R. Nos. L-36882-84,

July 24, 1981, 105 SCRA 744.
9. People v. Alde, 158 Phil. 1285.
10. t.s.n., Nastor, pp. 45-46.
11. Exhibit "A."
12. t.s.n., Nastor, p. 62.
13. People v. Guarnes, 110 Phil. 379;

People v. Belen, 118 Phil. 880; People v.
Tiongson, 120 Phil. 1197.
14. Appellant’s Brief, p. 7.
15. Aquino, Revised Penal Code, p. 407.
16. Id., at p. 408.
17. Id., at pp. 408-409.
18. pp. 51-53 and 60-61, t.s.n., taken by E.

Nastor.
19. 81 Phil. 741, 747.
Back to Home | Back to Main
Copyright © 1995 - 2022 REDiaz

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FILOMENO CAMANO

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FILOMENO CAMANO

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FILOMENO CAMANO

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

11/15/22, 3:50 PM G.R. Nos. L-36662-63 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.

Home Law Firm Law Library Laws

July 1982 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 >

201 Phil. 268:

Line Bar Review

[G.R. Nos. L-36662-63. July 30, 1982.]

The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Deogracias Eufemio, for Defendant-Appellant.

The accused, who had been drinking, stabbed the

hacked on the head and continuously stabbed until he

died. The accused was charged under two separate

Judgment modified, penalty reduced to an

1. CRIMINAL LAW; MURDER; AGGRAVATING

July 5, 1982 - bar, as there is no direct evidence of the planning or

DIRECTOR OF LANDS preparation in the killing of Pascua and Buenaflor and

v. ERNESTO DATU of the marked persistence to accomplish that plan, the

premeditation cannot be sustained.

G.R. No. L-58268

G.R. No. L-27546

PHILIPPINE CHARITY 4. ID.; ID.; QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES;

SWEEPSTAKES TREACHERY; PRESENT WHEN THE ACCUSED ATTACKED

OFFICE v. ASSOC. OF THE VICTIM FROM BEHIND; CASE AT BAR. — The

G.R. No. L-30269 5. ID.; ID.; ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES;

COURT OF APPEALS 6. ID.; PENALTY; ONE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE

20, 1982 - AVELINO

FRAN v. JUANITO 7. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS;

G.R. No. L-31682 DECISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

v. VIRGILIO CONCEPCION, JR., J.:

G.R. No. L-32661 MANDATORY REVIEW of the death sentence imposed

MAGASPI v. JOSE R. "On February 17, 1970, in the barrio of Nato,

G.R. No. L-38440

July 20, 1982 -

rib, pleura of left lung, pericardium, penetrating the

"CAUSE OF DEATH — Wound No. 1 causing instant

July 20, 1982 -

MANUEL A. ARGEL After hacking and stabbing to death Godofredo Pascua,

chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

LIAO TAN "NATURE OF WOUNDS UPON AUTOPSY:

G.R. No. L-47953

heart, the left lung towards the right side of back.

G.R. No. L-50439

July 20, 1982 -

"3. WOUND STAB left side of neck three-fourth (3/4)

July 20, 1982 -

"5. WOUND HACKED, left leg three (3) inches long

July 20, 1982 - SAN

"8. WOUND HACKED, two (2) inches long at dome of

G.R. No. L-56833

G.R. No. L-58678

chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Also proved beyond dispute, the fact that the bolo or

30, 1982 - TERESITA

B. TABILIRAN v. JOSE For the killing of Godofredo Pascua and Mariano

30, 1982 - ISABELO

C. ORIJUELA v. The accused admitted killing Mariano Buenaflor, but

cralaw virtua1aw library

July 30, 1982 - PHIL.

witness, Nemesio Camano, who is his first cousin. The