G.R. No. L-20234 - De la Cerna vs. Potot

The accused, Catalino Mercoleta, was charged with the murder of a Chinaman known as Go-Siaco alias Tiago.
The killing occurred on January 31, 1910, in the municipality of Carigara, Province of Leyte, Philippine Islands.
The crime was committed with a bolo, a bladed weapon allegedly borrowed from the accused’s grandfather.

The accused had previously sold a certain amount of hemp to the victim.
He claimed that the victim had defrauded him by deceiving the weight of the hemp, thereby shortchanging him of its value.
This alleged fraud fostered a personal grudge, which became the primary motive for the killing.

Upon learning that the victim would be passing along the beach that morning, the accused obtained the bolo—borrowed without proper consent from Zacarias Villarino, his grandfather’s relation.
He concealed himself in an uninhabited area near the anticipated path of the Chinaman.
He deliberately waited until the victim was within reach, then sprang from behind to inflict a fatal blow on the left side of the victim’s neck.

During a preliminary investigation before the auxiliary justice of the peace in Carigara, the accused voluntarily detailed his motive, planning, and execution of the killing.
His confession included statements about being aggrieved over the hemp transaction and deliberately setting up the encounter with the victim.

Basilio Riel testified that he heard a cry of “juapia” and observed two men walking in tandem, immediately noting the victim’s fall following the cry.
Zacarias Villarino corroborated that the accused visited his house to borrow the bolo and subsequently returned it with visible bloodstains, and attested to the fact that the accused was left-handed—an important detail given the location of the wound.
Urbano Banez, a lieutenant of the Constabulary, confirmed the accused’s statements made during the preliminary investigation, asserting that these were given freely and voluntarily.

The evidence indicated that the accused attacked the victim from behind, leaving no chance for defense.
This method of attack was classified as alevosia, a qualifying circumstance that elevates the killing to murder.

The accused’s actions—borrowing the bolo ahead of time, concealing himself, and awaiting the victim—demonstrated clear premeditation.

Although the crime occurred in a relatively remote area, it was not sufficiently established that the vicinity was entirely uninhabited or lacked houses.

The accused was tried and, after a series of testimonies and the corroborated confession, was found guilty of murder by the Court of First Instance.
The lower court originally imposed the extreme penalty of death, which was later modified to cadena perpetua in accordance with the provisions of article 11 of the Penal Code.
The judgment was ultimately affirmed with costs awarded against the appellant.

Whether the killing committed by the accused was done with alevosia, thereby depriving the victim of any chance for defense.
Whether there was evidence of premeditation, as indicated by the accused’s actions prior to the murder.

Whether the accused’s confession, given during the preliminary investigation before the auxiliary justice of the peace, was voluntary and sufficiently corroborated by evidence.
Whether the corroborative testimonies (such as those of Basilio Riel, Zacarias Villarino, and Urbano Banez) established the exact circumstances of the murder.

Whether the provisions of article 11 of the Penal Code correctly apply, especially in light of the presence of mitigating versus aggravating circumstances.
Whether the evidence supports the decision to modify the sentence from death to cadena perpetua in the context of the established circumstances.