Facts:
Agustin Tengyao, the defendant and appellant, was charged with
murder for the death of prisoner
Villamor Pagarigan on
17 February 1956 in
Bontoc, Mountain Province. The information was filed on
11 May 1956 for murder under
Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code. Upon arraignment, Tengyao pleaded
not guilty and the case proceeded to trial. After the prosecution had rested, Tengyao moved to dismiss on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove a
prima facie case and requested time to file a memorandum; the trial court denied the motion to dismiss on
24 April 1958, and also denied his motion for reconsideration on
28 June 1958. During the resumed trial, Tengyao testified in his defense, asserting that he shot and killed Pagarigan in the performance of duty as a provincial guard to prevent the prisoner’s escape and under what he claimed was an
impulse of uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury if Pagarigan escaped. The prosecution evidence established that Tengyao, a jail guard, and
Walter Casiwen were assigned to watch Pagarigan and
Pais Palaoay, who had been ordered to cut
zacate for the provincial carabaos. After Pagarigan cut and bundled grass, he asked permission to defecate, which was granted, after which he went about seven or eight meters away and sought cover behind stone boulders where he was visible only from the bust up. Tengyao passed water, prepared to light a cigarette, and noticed Pagarigan had disappeared from sight; he called out, searched near the defecation area, then saw footprints, followed them, and saw Pagarigan running away. Tengyao ordered him to stop; when Pagarigan refused, Tengyao fired a
warning shot in the air from about seven meters away, and when Pagarigan did not heed the warning, he fired another shot which misfired. Tengyao reloaded his gun, aimed and fired at Pagarigan’s leg as Pagarigan jumped to the lower part of the rice paddies from about four meters away, hitting him. While Pagarigan was in the lower part of the rice paddies, approximately seven meters away, Pagarigan attempted to jump; Tengyao aimed and fired at his back but stated that he was not sure he hit him. After reaching Pagarigan, he found that he had hit Pagarigan on the back. Tengyao reported the incident through Casiwen to the provincial authorities; Captain
Juan M. Duyan and Dr.
Sotero A. Torralba received the report, after which investigation was conducted by sergeant
Martin C. Cabigas, who also took Tengyao into custody. On the same day, Tengyao
freely and voluntarily narrated to Cabigas how he shot and killed Pagarigan; on
18 February 1956, Tengyao subscribed and swore to that statement before Judge Jerome Fakat, Justice of the Peace of Bontoc (Exhibit C). The following details were established by post mortem examination: Dr. Torralba found a
thru-and-thru gunshot wound on the middle third, medial aspect, right thigh, with entry on the back of the thigh and exit on the front middle part; a second thru-and-thru wound in the inter-scapular region with exit about two centimeters below the right nipple; and a lacerated thorax wound. Dr. Torralba opined that the assailant must have followed the victim from behind, and that
internal hemorrhage caused death, possibly instantaneous. Tengyao denied that he killed with malice, claiming duty and fear; he also attacked the accuracy of Exhibit C, alleging unintelligible language and emotional tension during its preparation. Judge Fakat testified that he read the questions and answers in the Bontoc dialect, which Tengyao understood, and that Tengyao acknowledged the truth and showed no indication of compulsion or misunderstanding. The trial court found Tengyao’s sworn statement (Exhibit C) more believable than his testimony and convicted him of murder, imposing
reclusion perpetua, ordering him to indemnify the heirs in the sum of
P6,000, and to pay costs. On appeal, the conviction was modified as to the offense and penalty, while the rest of the judgment was affirmed.
Issues:
Whether Tengyao should be convicted of
homicide instead of
murder, and whether he was entitled to the mitigating circumstances he invoked, thereby affecting the proper
penalty.
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: