G.R. No. L-24546 - People vs. Macalisang

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-24546)

Factual Background

On the morning of November 14, 1949, two distinct shootings occurred in Sinacaban, Misamis Occidental. First, Mayor Sofronio Avancena was mortally wounded in an attack attributed to members of the Simbajon family; the perpetrators in that incident included Victoriano Simbajon and others, who were later convicted. Shortly thereafter, while being transported in a jeep by Fr. William Bourke toward Ozamis City after having been wounded in the earlier episode, Chief of Police Isaias Macalisang pointed his service revolver from the front seat and fired at a bystander, Francisco Dano, who was standing at the curb. Dano received a bullet entering his back and exiting his right chest; he was taken to Ozamis City and died the same day.

Trial Court Proceedings

The trial court prosecuted Isaias Macalisang for murder in Criminal Case No. 5131. The lower court found him guilty of murder, sentenced him to life imprisonment, ordered indemnity of P6,000.00 to the heirs of Francisco Dano, and imposed costs. The present appeal followed to the Supreme Court.

Evidence at Trial

The prosecution adduced eyewitness testimony that the gun was in appellant’s possession and that he fired at Dano. Fr. Bourke testified that upon hearing the shot he saw the gun still pointed toward the roadside. Benjamin Lopez, the priest’s houseboy, testified that he saw appellant take the gun from his lap, aim at Dano about forty meters away, and fire once, after which Lopez seized the gun; Fr. Bourke later surrendered the weapon to the Philippine Constabulary. Perfecta vda. de Dano testified that her husband told her, while dying, that “Chief Isaias Macalisang” shot him, a statement the Court treated as a dying declaration under Section 31, Rule 130, Rules of Court. Captain Benjamin Rafols testified that he interviewed appellant in the hospital and that appellant admitted, “I was the one who shot Mr. Dano,” although the appellant appeared confused about the earlier shooting. The defense offered appellant’s testimony that he was unconscious or in shock after being wounded in the earlier incident and presented Dr. Rico Medina, who testified that appellant’s wounds could produce momentary unconsciousness but that there was a significant probability appellant could have regained consciousness within ten minutes and retained control of his upper extremities.

The Parties’ Contentions

The prosecution maintained that the evidence established that Isaias Macalisang deliberately fired the fatal shot and that Dano’s statement to his wife constituted a dying declaration identifying appellant as the shooter. The defense conceded that appellant fired but pleaded lack of criminal intent on the ground that appellant was unconscious or under shock at the time of the shooting; the defense further argued that the killing should not be qualified as murder by treachery.

Issues Presented

The Court framed the primary issues as whether the shooting was deliberate and criminally voluntary and whether the homicide was qualified by treachery so as to constitute murder rather than homicide. A subsidiary issue concerned the appropriate penalty in view of appellant’s prior convictions.

Findings of Fact

The Supreme Court accepted the testimony of Fr. Bourke, Benjamin Lopez, Captain Rafols, and Perfecta vda. de Dano over appellant’s claim of incapacity. The Court found beyond reasonable doubt that Isaias Macalisang fired the gun that caused the death of Francisco Dano. The Court also found that Dano’s statement to his wife that appellant shot him was admissible as a dying declaration per Section 31, Rule 130, Rules of Court. The Court found appellant’s evidence of unconsciousness insufficiently persuasive in light of contemporaneous eyewitness accounts, the doctor’s concession that consciousness could have been restored within ten minutes, and appellant’s own admission to Captain Rafols.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court modified the conviction. It held that the killing was not murder qualified by treachery, but constituted homicide. The Court therefore reduced the degree of the offense and imposed an indeterminate sentence, concluding that appellant was a recidivist with one aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstance. The judgment appealed from was modified accordingly.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reasoned that treachery requires proof that the attacker deliberately adopted a method of assault “with a special view to the accomplishment of the act without risk to the assailant from any defense that the party assailed may make.” The mere location of the bullet wound in the back and the suddenness of the attack do not, standing alone, establish treachery. Citing prior authorities, the Court observed that where the decision to kill is sudden and the victim’s position accidental, treachery does not attach. In this case the Court found that the attack was an impulsive act upon encountering Dano while en route to Ozamis City, rather than a premeditated plan executed in a manner to ensure the assailant’s safety. Accordingly, the element that elevates the crime to murder was absent and the proper classification was homicide.

Sentence Modification and Penalty

Because the Court reclassified the offense to homicide, and because Isaias Macalisang had prior convictions for ser

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-24546)

Parties and Posture

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE prosecuted the present criminal case for murder against ISAIAS MACALISANG, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
The trial court convicted appellant and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordered indemnity of P6,000.00 to the heirs of the deceased, and imposed costs.
The appeal resulted in the decision now under review which modified the penalty and affirmed liability in part.
The record contains related convictions of members of the Simbajon family whose convictions were affirmed in G.R. No. L-18073-75 on September thirty, nineteen sixty-five.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by Sanchez, J., with concurrence by Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Ruiz Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ.

Key Facts

On the morning of November fourteen, nineteen forty-nine, Mayor Sofronio Avancena and others were ambushed and Mayor Avancena was mortally wounded in Sinacaban, Misamis Occidental.
Minutes later, appellant Isaias Macalisang, who had been wounded earlier in the same incident, was placed in the front seat of Fr. William Bourke's jeep and was being conveyed to Ozamis City.
While the jeep was negotiating a curve in Barrio Casoy, appellant pointed his service revolver at Francisco Dano, who stood at the roadside, and fired a single shot.
Francisco Dano was hit in the back and chest, was transported to Ozamis City, and died the same day.
Appellant had earlier sustained gunshot wounds including a scrotal wound and a broken left leg and had been treated by Dr. Rico Medina.

Evidentiary Findings

Fr. William Bourke testified that he saw the gun held by appellant still pointed at the side of the road after the shot was fired.
Benjamin Lopez testified that he saw appellant take his gun from his lap, point it at Dano, and fire once, and that he later surrendered the gun to the Philippine Constabulary.
Perfecta vda. de Dano testified that her husband identified appellant as his assailant shortly after being shot, which the Court treated as a dying declaration under Section 31, Rule 130, Rules of Court.
Captain Benjamin Rafols testified that appellant admitted to him, "I was the one who shot Mr. Dano," during an interview in the hospital.
Dr. Rico Medina testified that appellant was in very serious condition and that the wounds could cause momentary unconsciousness but that appellant could have regained consciousness after about ten minutes and retained control of his upper extremities.

Issues

Whether appellant fired the shot that caused the death of Francisco Dano.
Whether appellant was unconscious or under shock at