PEOPLE v. MELITON BUYCO, GR No.

L-539, 1948-01-27
Facts:
First class private of the Military Police fire several shots with a Thompson
submachinegun against Irineo Gellangala, Apolonio Ikoy, and Napoleon
Zambales, hitting them on different parts of their bodies and as a result
Irineo Gellangala and Apolonio Ikoy died instantaneously and Napoleon
Zambales died a few days later.
The trial court, presided over by his Honor, Judge Jose Quisumbing, after due
trial, rendered judgment on May 8, 1946, finding the following facts as
proven that during a dance on the occasion of the feast of the patron saint of
barrio there was a verbal brawl followed by a fist fight between Cornelio
Soliman and an unknown individual who later resulted to be a resident of
Iloilo City. Accused Meliton Buyco, now appellant, who was on patrol with his
six companions, fired in the air two discharges from his Thompson
submachinegun; that Eusebio Davila, who saw Meliton Buyco fire,
approached the latter end prohibited him from firing again to avoid personal
injury among those present; that Meliton Buyco replied that Davila leave him
alone because he was an agent of the law; Meliton Buyco fired another shot
aimed at a group of persons, among them Pedro Sambales and his son
Napoleon Zambales, and a bullet of this last shot bit Napoleon Zambales,
who died after six days in St. Paul's Hospital, City of Iloilo; that Eusebio
Davila tried to place Meliton Buyco under arrest but the latter threatened
him with his Thompson submachinegun, and when Eusebio Davila attempted
to succor the three wounded persons, Meliton Buyco warned him to withdraw
from the spot, and in view of this attitude on the part of the accused, Eusebio
Davila desisted from his purpose through fear that he might be another
victim of Meliton Buyco. The defense, through the testimony of the appellant
Meliton Buyco and of his companions, the MP soldier Enrique Bernales and
Corporal Braulio Taleon, and Lt. Jose M. F. Pelo, and the musician Antonio
Herradura, attempted to prove that on the night in question Corporal Braulio
Taleon, the appellant Meliton Buyco, and Pvt. Enrique Bernales, and four
other companions, arrived at barrio Trapiche from their station in Guimbal,
near the auditorium where a dance was being held; that the jeep used by
them developed engine trouble, and while they were fixing it, they heard
that a fight was going on inside the auditorium causing public disorder which
the municipal policemen under the command of Chief Eusebio Davila could
not pacify; that the accused Meliton Buyco, followed by Cpl. Braulio Taleon
and Private Enrique Barnales, entered the auditorium, intervened in the fight
to pacify the combatants, but were unsuccessful; that one of the combatants
hurled the accused admits the killing and his counsel frankly asserts in his
brief (p. 7) that his client, acting in defense of the person of Corporal Taleon
"directed a burst of TG (Thompson Gun) shots to Taleon's assailant".
The law must be applied to the facts. In the mind and eyes of the law in such
cases, even though the motive might have been successfully concealed from
the human perception of others, and might be known only to the agent and
to his God, still there it was impelling the agent to the criminal transgression.
The defense would have us deem it strange that the appellant should have
willfully killed the three victims above named. But truth is at times stranger
than fiction, and under the established facts the actual case is one of those
instances.
The trial judge found and held that the defendant was guilty of the crime
charged;
Issues:
The trial judge found and held that the defendant was guilty of the crime
charged; which said agent is criminally liable, pursuant to article 4,
paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code Although the wrongful act be
committed against a person other than the one whom it was intended to
injure, this fact does not excuse the offender from criminal liability for the
voluntary commission of a wrongful act or misdemeanor, according to
paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the Penal Code. (Now art. 4 of Revised Penal
Code).

HELD:
The evidence discloses, as found by the same judge, that Apolonio Ikoy and
Irineo Gellangala died from bullets discharged by the same shot which was
aimed at the former. It will be remembered that the shot was fired from a
submachine gun and, as already staged, it appears that the appellant so
fixed the mechanism of his submachine gun that a single pull at the trigger
would fire several bullets automatically in succession. Article 48 of our
Revised Penal Code, gives an example of the first case mentioned therein of
a single act constituting two or more grave or less grave felonies as follows;
A person fires a gun against another with intention to kill the latter, and not
only kills him but also a third person who was beside the victim: here, he
says, we have a single act, a single shot, which produces two homicides
Although the wrongful act be committed against a person other than the one
whom it was intended to injure, this fact does not excuse the offender from
criminal liability for the voluntary commission of a wrongful act or
misdemeanor, according to paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the Penal Code" (Now
art. 4 of Revised Penal Code. Under art, 249, in relation to article 4,
paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code, the instant defendant must be held
to have thereby committed the crime of homicide
All acts punishable by the law are presumed to be voluntary in the absence
of proof to the contrary. With respect to crimes of personal violence, the
penal law looks particularly to the material results following the unlawful act
and holds the aggressor responsible for all the consequences thereof.
[ GR No. 48396, Sep 11, 1942 ]

PEOPLE v. FELIX BENITEZ 73 Phil. 671

FACTS

In the morning of October 28, 1939, while D'Artagnan Williams, Division Superintendent of
Schools for Negros Occidental, was working in his office, defendant Felix Benitez, special agent
in the office of the Provincial Governor, gave the former a fist blow causing him a contusion
over the mastoid bone on the left ear. The assault appeared to have been prompted by the
defendant's desire to avenge a supposed affront to the Provincial Governor by the Division
Super-intendent in connection with the appointment of teachers. On an indictment for assault
upon a person in authority, defendant was found guilty and sentenced to from 6 months and 1
day to 4 years, 2 months and 1 day of prision correccional and to pay a fine of P500 with
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. This judgment is the subject of review in this
appeal.

ISSUE
Whether or not a division superintendent of schools is a person in authority?

HELD
The Solicitor-General maintains that the defendant is guilty of the complex crime of assault
upon a person in authority with physical injury it appearing from the evidence that, due to the
blow inflicted upon the offended party, he sustained in the left ear an injury which required
more than 30 days of medical treatment. This case has been removed to this Court only upon a
question of law and we were not at liberty to review the evidence presented by the parties.
Accordingly, the finding of the trial court that "no injury of serious nature was caused upon the
offended party by the blow of record," cannot now be disturbed. Under article 48 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by Act No. 4000, a complex crime is committed when a single
act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies. In the instant case, the physical injury
inflicted upon the offended party does not appear to be a grave or less grave felony and,
therefore, there is no complex crime. (People vs. Refre, G. R. No. 39937 [unpublished], February
2, 1934; People vs. Acierto, 57 Phi]., 614.)

The crime committed by the defendant is assault upon a person in authority, with the
aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed in the place where the person in
authority was engaged in the discharge of his duties (article 14, No. 5, Revised Penal Code). The
penalty provided by law is prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine
not exceeding P1,000 to be imposed in its maximum degree. Pursuant to the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, the maximum of the indeterminate penalty to be imposed shall be within the
maximum period of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, and the minimum
shall be within the range of the penalty next lower, that is, arresto mayor in its maximum
period to prision correccional in its minimum period which may be applied in any of its periods
in the discretion of the court according to the circumstances of the case.
(See People vs. Gonzalez, G. R. No. 48293, April 21, 1942.) The minimum penalty imposed by
the trial court is 6 months and 1 day of prision correccional and is within the range of the
penalty provided by law. But the maximum imposed is 4 years, 2 months and 1 day of  prision
correccional, below the range provided by law which is from 4 years, 9 months and 11 days to 6
years.

Judgment is accordingly modified and the accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of from 6 months and 1 day to 4 years, 9 months and 11 days of  prision
correccional, to pay a fine of P500 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency not
exceeding one-third of the principal penalty, with costs.
Marwin Jasper J Manuel
JD – Block 1
Atty Jessie Bautista
Criminal Law 1