People v. Kalalo GR Nos. L-39303-39305 March 17, 2009 (attempted)

 

People v. Kalalo GR Nos. L-39303-39305 March 17, 2009

 

FACTS:

                        On November 10, 1932, the appellants, namely, Felipe Kalalo, Marcelo Kalalo, Juan Kalalo and Gregorio Ramos, were tried in the Court of First Instance of Batangas, together with Alejandro Garcia, Fausta Abrenica and Alipia Abrenica in criminal cases Nos. 6858, 6859 and 6860, the first two for murder, and the last for frustrated murder. Upon agreement of the parties said three cases were tried together and after the presentation of their respective evidence, the said court acquitted Alejandro Garcia, Fausta Abrenica and Alipia Abrenica, and sentenced the other appellants.

 

                        Prior to the commission of the three crimes, the appellant Marcelo Kalalo and Isabel Holgado, the latter being the sister of one of the deceased, had a litigation over a parcel of land situated in the barrio of Calumpang in the municipality of San Luis, Batangas. Kalalo filed two complaints against the said woman in the Court of First Instance of Batangas, alleging that he, Kalalo cultivated the land in question during 1931 and 1932 but that, when harvest time came Isabela Holgado reaped all that had been planted thereon. Both complaints were dismissed.

 

                        On October 1, 1932, Isabela Holgado and her brother Arcadio Holgado, one of the deceased, ordered the plowing of the disputed land and employed several laborers for that purpose. Marcelo Kalalo, upon learning about it, went to the place accompanied by his brothers and Felipa and Juan, his brother-in-law Gregorio Ramos and by Alejandro Garcia. They were all armed with bolos and upon arriving at the place, they ordered the workers to stop. Having been informed of the cause of the suspension of the work, Marcelino Panaligan, one of the deceased, ordered the laborers to continue the work. At this point, Marcelo Kalalo approached Arcadio and the other appellants approached Marcelino Panaligan and they all simultaneously struck with their bolos. Arcadio Holgado and Marcelino Panaligan died instantly from the wounds received. After the two had fallen, Marcelo Kalalo took the revolver that Marcelino Panaligan carried, and fired four shots at Hilario Holgado who was then fleeing from the scene in order to save his own life.

 

ISSUE:

WON the appellants are guilty of murder or of simple homicide in each of the cases.

 

HELD:

It is true that under article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines murder, the circumstance of “abuse of superior strength”, if proven to have been presented, raises homicide to the category of murder;but it is also to be borne in mind that the deceased were also armed, one of them with a bolo, and the other with a revolver. The risk was even for the contending parties and their strength was almost balanced because there is no doubt but that, under circumstances similar to those of the present case, a revolver is as effective as, if not more than three bolos. For this reason, this court is of the opinion that the acts established in cases Nos. 6858 and 6859 (G.R. Nos. L-39303 and 39304, respectively), merely constitute two homicides.

As to the third case,  the evidence shows that Marcelo Kalalo fired four successive shots at Hilarion Holgado while the latter was fleeing from the scene of the crime in order to be out of reach of the appellants and their companions and save his own life. The fact that the said appellant, not having contended himself with firing only once, fired said successive shots at Hilarion Holgado, added to the circumstance that immediately before doing so he and his co-appellants had already killed Arcadio Holgado and Marcelino Panaligan, cousin and brother-in-law, respectively, of the former, shows that he was then bent on killing said Hilarion Holgado. He performed everything necessary on his pat to commit the crime that he determined to commit but he failed by reason of causes independent of his will, either because of his poor aim or because his intended victim succeeded in dodging the shots, none of which found its mark. The acts thus committed by the said appellant Marcelo Kalalo constitute attempted homicide.