Title
People vs. Bienvenido Orbillo
Case
G.R. No. L-2444
Decision Date
Apr 29, 1950
An 80-year-old murdered in 1946 during a card game altercation; defendants ambushed him, falsely claiming self-defense. Supreme Court ruled homicide, citing disrespect to age, rejecting their claims.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-2444)

Incident Summary

During the card game, tension arose when the defendant's son, Carlos, attempted to cheat by concealing a card, leading to an argument with the elderly Liberato Deligero, who was winning. Plaintiff issued a challenge for a duel, which Deligero did not accept, and the defendant and his companions left the tienda. Afterward, Deligero, accompanied by his granddaughter, was ambushed on his way home, where the defendant attacked him with a rock and ultimately shot him with a carbine. Witness Valentin Callado testified that he observed the attack from a nearby coconut grove.

Testimony and Evidence

The evidence presented included witness accounts of the events leading up to the attack and the subsequent actions of the defendant. Callado described how he saw the defendant strike the old man and how Carlos and Mina attempted to hide Deligero's body upon realizing he was still alive. Additional testimony from a special policeman, Juanito Mabug-at, outlined how he apprehended the defendant later that night, who confessed to killing Deligero.

A post-mortem examination indicated multiple injuries that led to Deligero’s death, including fractures and a bullet wound. The medical examiner emphasized that the bullet wound was inflicted from close range, indicating a lack of struggle.

Defendant's Defense

In his defense, Bienvenido Orbillo claimed he acted in self-defense, asserting that Deligero intercepted him with a carbine and threatened him. He mentioned a struggle over the firearm, which led to shots being fired inadvertently, followed by him hitting Deligero in the face with a rock. The defense attempted to portray Deligero as a bully and a skilled marksman to support the notion that he posed a real threat.

Trial Court Decision

The trial court found the defendant guilty of frustrated homicide, citing premeditation as an aggravating circumstance. However, this finding was disputed during the appeal process, where it was contended that the trial court overlooked critical evidence and testimony that indicated the defendant had initiated the confrontation.

Appeals Court Findings

Upon review, the appellate court found that the evidence supported a conviction for murder rather than frustrated homicide due to the nature of the attack, and the aggravating circumstance of disrespect towards an olde

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.