G.R. No. 412 - People vs. Abalos

On the evening of October 23, 1900, shortly after 8 o’clock, six unknown persons approached the vicinity of Pedro Pascua’s house in the pueblo of Santa Maria, Province of Ilocos Sur.
Among these persons, one ordered the man inside the house to come down; when Pedro Pascua hesitated out of fear, one of the group—later identified as Cayetano Abalos—entered the house and attacked.

Once inside, Cayetano Abalos, without any apparent motive, struck Pedro Pascua repeatedly with a dagger, inflicting five wounds.
Two of the wounds, located on the left side of the chest and the abdomen, were deemed serious and dangerous by the attending medical practitioner.
The victim underwent a 31-day recovery process; however, a residual opening on the abdomen resulted in a hernia, which exposed him to further grave complications.

Despite the accused’s attempt to flee immediately after the assault, specific identification was made by Pedro Pascua, as well as by his wife and daughter.
Additional eyewitness testimony was provided by two witnesses and corroborated by three neighboring witnesses who were drawn by the victim’s wife’s cries.
The accused’s subsequent disappearance from his residence, and his failure to appear despite judicial citations until his arrest on April 3 of the following year, further bolstered the evidence.
Testimonies from local officials, including justices of the peace from the districts of Ilocos Sur and Union and the local president of Narvacan, invalidated the alibi presented by the accused.
An alternative alibi, which mentioned that Cayetano Abalos allegedly went to the town of San Jose de Abra, was contradicted by two other witnesses.

The crime was aggravated by circumstances specified under Nos. 15 and 20 of article 10 of the Penal Code.
The circumstances include the use of darkness and the silence of the night to execute a burglary-like assault in the victim’s own home, without any provocation from the victim.

The case was prosecuted as a grave assault (lesión grave) under article 416, No. 3 of the Penal Code.
In addition to the conviction for the principal act of assault, Cayetano Abalos was held responsible for accessory penalties prescribed under article 61 of the Penal Code and ordered to pay 100 pesos in indemnity for the injured party.
The solicitor-general challenged the validity of the judgment on the grounds of its pronouncement after the new organic law took effect on June 16 of that year.
Testimonies and statutory provisions were reviewed, notably article 65 of the law organizing the courts for the Philippine Islands, to assess the legitimacy of the acts performed by judges acting under a transitional period.
Comparative legal references were made to the American decision in Norton vs. Shelby County and Spanish legal precedents, underscoring the doctrine that acts by judges, albeit under a mistaken belief regarding their tenure, remain legal if performed in good faith.

Whether the evidence sufficiently establishes the guilt of Cayetano Abalos as the principal perpetrator of a grave assault against Pedro Pascua.
Whether the aggravated circumstances—such as the use of darkness and the unprovoked nature of the assault—justify classifying the incident under the maximum degree of grave assault as provided by the Penal Code.

Whether the judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance after June 16, the effective date of the new organic law, remains valid despite the alleged expiration of the judges’ official tenure under the previous law.
Whether the de facto exercise of judicial power by judges who continued their functions in good faith, even if technically their term had ended, is acceptable under the doctrine of good faith and common error.

Whether the mitigating circumstance provided in article 11 may be applied in a case characterized by the use of aggravating factors.
Whether any extenuating circumstances are applicable, given the severity and gravity of the injury inflicted.