Title
People vs Yacat
Case
G.R. No. 110
Decision Date
Oct 24, 1902
A 1900 armed clash in Guyonguyong led to Marcos Bautista's death; defendants convicted of homicide in a tumultuous affray, denied amnesty. Pedro Ureta held liable for failing to prosecute.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 110)

Facts of the Case

On the day of the incident, an altercation erupted between the Bautistas and their assailants, culminating in Marcos Bautista sustaining eight wounds, leading to his death. The circumstances surrounding the conflict were not entirely clear, as none of the five defendants could be individually identified as the killer, nor could it be established who inflicted the fatal wounds. The record sufficiently demonstrated that the violent death of Marcos constituted a homicide, albeit not qualified as murder since the requisite elements for such a charge were absent.

Legal Analysis of Homicide and Murder

The court concluded that due to the chaotic nature of the altercation, where multiple individuals inflicted violence, the respective defendants were culpable under Article 405 of the Penal Code, which addresses homicide that occurs during a confused affray. The evidence did not affirmatively establish that the defendants acted with premeditation or agreement to kill, which are necessary to elevate the crime to murder as defined under Article 403. Therefore, the conviction was appropriate under the specified provisions regarding the circumstances of the crime.

Defendants' Testimony and Implications

The defendants, while asserting their innocence, provided inconsistent testimonies. Their claims of being unarmed were contradicted by the presence of serious injuries on both sides, indicating a fight. The testimonies failed to substantiate their defense; thus, the court found their claims insufficient and upheld the prosecution's position that all five participated in the tumultuous affray.

Aggravation and Sentencing

The prosecution's contention regarding Antonio Yacat's culpability was acknowledged, particularly considering his familial ties to the victim, which constituted an aggravating circumstance under Article 10. Consequently, the court imposed a sentence of five years of correctional imprisonment on Antonio, whereas the other three defendants each received a sentence of four years. Additionally, they were ordered to pay compensation to the victim's family and share joint liability for costs.

Criminal Liability of Local Officials

Pedro Ureta, the local president at the time of the incident, was found criminally liable for his inaction in prosecuting the involved parties after the known homicide. His refusal to investigate the violent occurrence facilitated the defendants' escape from accountability. Thus, he was sentenced to a lesser penalty compared to the defendants, acknowledging his failure in public duty.

Dismissal of Amnesty Application

The defendants sought dismissal based on the amnesty procl

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.