Title
People vs. Cortez
Case
G.R. No. L-13968
Decision Date
Oct 31, 1962
A 1955 wedding dance in Isabela turned violent when a brawl escalated into a fatal stabbing. Librado Pascual died from a chest wound; his ante mortem statement implicated attackers. The Supreme Court ruled it homicide, not murder, due to lack of treachery, and rejected a dubious confession.
murder
homicide
abuse of superior strength

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-13968)

Factual Background

The facts established by the prosecution showed that the dance was sufficiently illuminated and that at about 9:30 o’clock Balbino Dulay, acting as master of ceremonies, announced a special dance number for candidates running for municipal offices. While Pedro was attempting to move spectators back from the dancers, he was pushed back by persons near Sergio Pataueg, Felix Sacang, and Alejo Uy. When Pedro again requested that the crowd move back, Pataueg delivered a fist blow that caused Pedro to retreat to the center of the dancing area.

Thereafter, Ernesto Pascual and Remigio Pascual arrived and told the three Banquero residents—Pataueg, Sacang, and Uy—to desist from causing trouble. An altercation quickly followed, with Pataueg striking Ernesto and a fist fight erupting between the Pascual brothers and the Banquero residents. Dulay saw Uy with a drawn balisong while Sacang held another weapon. Dulay moved forward to stop the fight and led the armed men, together with Pataueg, back toward their earlier positions. The Pascual brothers then ran away.

As Dulay returned to his original position, a policeman Pedro Cortes fired a shot in the air. Immediately after, Uy, Pataueg, and Sacang rushed into the middle of the dancing space where Librado Pascual stood with both arms crossed over his breast. From behind, Pataueg clubbed Librado with a long piece of wood, striking the upper part of his back. Librado wheeled around to face the assailant with raised hands. Sacang then hacked Librado with a bolo on the back of the head. Finally, Librado turned to face Sacang, and at that moment Uy, coming from Librado’s right, stabbed him with a dagger on the right chest, just below the armpit. The three assailants then ran away.

Medical Evidence and Ante Mortem Statement

Librado was taken promptly to a clinic in Cauayan, Isabela, where Dr. Angel P. Albano admitted him at 12:30 o’clock in the morning of October 25. The doctor found three injuries: a stab wound measuring two and one-half inches wide and six inches deep at the fourth interspace above the right nipple that penetrated the lung, and two other injuries consisting of a contused wound on the head and an ecchymosis on the scapular region. Because of the seriousness of the stab wound, an operation was performed. After being told by Librado that he believed he was going to die, Dr. Albano instructed Sgt. Ordonez to take Librado’s ante mortem statement.

Sgt. Ordonez prepared a typewritten statement, which Librado signed. A portion of the statement (Exh. A) reflected that Librado reported he was brought for treatment, described the stab wound and a cut, identified Pataueg as the one who clubbed him and Uy as the one who stabbed him, and stated that he was pacifying a trouble between the Banquero residents and some residents of Turod. Librado affirmed that he had been attacked without just cause because he only intervened to pacify the trouble. Dr. Albano certified the cause of death as internal hemorrhage due to the stab wound on the breast. Librado died at 1:20 o’clock the same morning.

Defense Theory and the Claimed Exculpation by Domingo Paual

At the trial, which occurred about two years after the incident, Domingo Paual testified for the defense. He claimed that he was the person who stabbed Librado. He explained that during the flight from the fight at the dance, Librado blocked his way and hit him with fists and clubbed him on the back. The defense presented this alleged confession as an exculpatory admission that shifted the stabbing to Paual.

The decision found Paual’s narration unreliable. It characterized his account as a last-minute concoction designed to exculpate the accused. It also noted internal improbabilities: Paual stated that he and Librado faced each other, which made it difficult to understand how Librado’s club could have landed on Paual’s back. It further observed that Paual claimed he was boxed and clubbed on the back by several men, yet he allegedly suffered no wounds or bruises as a result. Additionally, the testimony noted that Paual did not report his alleged involvement when the four accused were arrested on October 26, 1955. His justification was fear of reprisal from Librado’s relatives, yet he claimed he informed Tirso Gaffud with a request that the information be conveyed to the police. Gaffud was presented as a witness for the accused, but he did not mention the alleged information and request from Paual.

The court also considered Uy’s own testimony. Uy claimed he saw Paual stab Librado and that, in Paual’s presence, he told Paual’s parents about it. The decision regarded this as inconsistent with the purported willingness to exculpate: if Uy knew Paual was the killer, it was difficult to see why Paual would still inform Uy after Uy’s release on bail, and why neither Paual nor Uy reportedly informed the police or the justice of the peace during the preliminary investigation. The timing of Paual’s admission—about two years after the incident and during the defense’s presentation—further undermined its credibility.

Challenges to Witness Credibility and to the Ante Mortem Statement

Uy assailed the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, specifically Jeremias Lungub, Balbino Dulay, and Gregorio Santua. The decision held that no motive had been shown for these witnesses to implicate Uy falsely. It also recorded that Uy admitted he had no known grudge against Lungub and Santua. It further treated the relationship of Lungub to the deceased—Lungub being the brother-in-law of Librado—as insufficient reason for perjury.

As to admissibility, Uy challenged the ante mortem statement. The decision rejected this contention. It held that the testimony of Dr. Albano, who was present when Librado gave the declaration, and that of Sgt. Ordonez, who typed it, sufficiently proved the statement’s authenticity. It also determined that Librado made the statement under the consciousness of impending death, based on Dr. Albano’s testimony and the seriousness of the wound that resulted in death shortly after the statement was taken. It cited People vs. Chan, 50 Phil., 182 and People vs. Andia, et al., 112 Phil., 338.

Trial Court Ruling and the Appeal

The trial court found Uy guilty of murder, qualified by treachery. On appeal, the Solicitor General did not sustain the conviction for murder. It pointed to the context of the stabbing: at the moment Librado was stabbed, he was already under attack by Pataueg and Sacang, and he was allegedly in the act of defending himself. The Solicitor General argued that Uy did not commit the act in a manner that ensured success or made it impossible or hard for Librado to defend himself. It characterized the decision to kill as sudden and not deliberately aimed at a vulnerable position that Uy had sought to exploit. It invoked People vs. Cadag, et al., 112 Phil., 314, to support the view that an accidental vulnerability did not justify treachery as a qualifying circumstance.

Legal Basis and Reasoning of the Court

The Court accepted the Solicitor General’s position insofar as it held that treachery could no longer be treated as a qualifying circumstance that would sustain a conviction for murder. The record did not show that Uy deliberately ensured the success of the attack or made it impossible for Librado to defend himself at the time of the stabbing. However, the Court treated abuse of superior strength as a g

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms