G.R. No. 7498 - People vs. Ginsolongo

On October 19, 1904, Lieutenant Hilarion Layaolayao of the barrio of Tobod, Dumanjug, ordered investigations to determine which residents possessed personal registration certificates (cedulas).
Several policemen – Felix Cambonga, Cesareo Ordeliza, Fau’sto Oatisan, and their corporal Cesareo Padayao – were dispatched to execute the order, commencing their duty at 3:00 p.m. and arriving at the scene by 7:00 p.m.

The police encountered Santiago, Feliciano, and Ciriaco Ginosolongo at their house, where after exchanging greetings, the officers stated the purpose of their presence.
The residents invited the law enforcement personnel into the house. Only Corporal Padayao entered, armed solely with a small whip, while the other three officers, carrying bladed weapons, remained outside in the yard.

Inside the house, Corporal Padayao requested the cedulas from the residents, to which one replied that he would produce them immediately, even offering a cigar as a gesture of goodwill.
During this interaction, Santiago Ginosolongo unexpectedly and without warning extinguished the light and attacked Padayao using a long pointed bolo (pinuti), which pierced him below the left armpit and emerged on the right side.
Following the first stab, Padayao cried out and attempted to seek help by rushing down the stairs, but was struck again on the right leg, further incapacitating him.
In response to Padayao’s cries, the three officers stationed in the yard rushed to assist; however, as they advanced, they were met by the defendants descending the stairs, which escalated into a physical struggle.

Antonio Ginosolongo, the father of the defendants, and Petra Ginosolongo, their sister, were fatally injured in the yard as they intervened in the altercation.
Policeman Felix Cambonga, who actively resisted the aggressor, sustained three dangerous wounds on the forehead, left side, and chest or waist by Santiago Ginosolongo.

Corporal Padayao, after receiving multiple wounds during his attempted escape, eventually succumbed to his injuries about 10 meters from the house.

The tragic events were reported to the justice of the peace of Dumanjug on October 21, 1904, by the widow of Corporal Padayao.
After a preliminary investigation conducted on August 28, 1911, a formal complaint was filed by the provincial fiscal in the Court of First Instance of Cebu.
The defendants – Santiago, Feliciano, and Ciriaco Ginosolongo – were charged with homicide under Article 404 of the Penal Code, and a judgment was rendered on November 7, 1911, sentencing each to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal and ordering them to bear one-third of the costs.

The case was later appealed by the defendants from the conviction rendered by Judge Adolph Wislizenus.
The record, as proven by the evidence, underscored:

Santiago Ginosolongo’s deliberate and unprovoked assault on Corporal Padayao while the latter was engaged in his official duty.
The sequence of events that highlighted the unpreparedness and vulnerability of the assaulted party.
The lack of any provocation by the officers as no evidence indicated that they entered the house aggressively or insulted the occupants.
Testimonies, including that of Felix Cambonga, which implicated Santiago as the principal assailant and attempted to link his brothers only by circumstantial evidence, insufficient to prove their direct participation.

Whether Santiago Ginosolongo’s actions should be categorized as simple homicide (as charged) or as murder, given the presence of treachery and the element of surprise in the assault.
The legal implications of charging the crime based on the classification in the complaint, which strictly stated homicide and did not incorporate the more serious crime of murder despite aggravating circumstances.

Whether the actions of Feliciano and Ciriaco Ginosolongo, who were implicated by circumstantial evidence and testimony during the fight, warrant conviction as accessories to the homicide.
The sufficiency of evidence linking them directly to the commission of homicide, considering the conflicting testimonies and lack of corroborative proofs beyond their mere presence during the altercation.

Whether Santiago Ginosolongo's claim of acting in self-defense (or in defense of his father and sister) holds merit in light of the evidence showing an unprovoked attack by him against an unarmed police corporal.
The consistency and credibility of the defendant’s version of events versus the testimonies of the involved policemen and other witnesses.