298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Bello

No. L-18792. February 28, 1964.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

GUILLERMO BELLO, defendant-appellant.

Criminal law; Aggravating circumstance; Treachery; When stabbing at the back

does not constitute treachery.—There is no treachery although the victim was
stabbed at the back when such wound was but a part and continuation of the
aggression; and the four wounds were inflicted indiscriminately, the stab at
the back having been inflicted as the victim was running away.

Same; Same; Evident premeditation; When carrying of balisong and watching

victim do not constitute premeditation.— Where the carrying of a balisong
had been done by the accused for a long time as a precaution against
drunkards without any present plan or intent to use it against his wife, and his
watching her movements daily merely manifested his jealous character and
there is no evidence that from this jealousy sprouted a plan to snuff out her
life, it is held that evident premeditation was not established.

Same; Same; Superior strength; Deliberate intent necessary.— For superior

strength .to aggravate a crime, it must be clearly shown that there was
deliberate intent to take advantage of it.

Same; Same; Obvious ungratefulness; Support by commonlaw wife.—No obvious

ungratefulness is inferable from the fact that the killer was penniless while the
victim, was able to earn a living and occasionally gave him money, since both
lived together as husband and wife.

Criminal law; Mitigating circumstance; Passion and obfuscation,—The accused's

insistence that his common-law wife abandon her work as hostess and live
with him again, and his rage at her rejection of the proposal, cannot be
properly termed as arising from immoral and unworthy passions, and therefore
the accused in the case at bar can be given the benefit of the mitigating
circumstance of having acted on a provocation sufficiently strong to produce
passion and obfuscation.
299
 VOL. 10, FEBRUARY 28, 1964 299

People vs. Bello

APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of

Quezon.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. Ferdinand
E. Marcos for defendant-appellant.

REYES, J.B.L., J.:

Appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Quezon in

its Criminal Case No. 592-G, for murder.
The information filed against the accused alleged four (4) aggravating
circumstances, namely: treachery, evident premeditation, nighttime,
and superior strength. The trial court made a finding of "treachery,
evident premeditation and in cold blood and without any
provocation"; however, the dispositive portion of the appealed
decision states as follows:

"x x x the Court finds the accused Guillermo Bello guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of murder defined and punished by Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code with the aggravating circumstances of (1) nighttime, (2)
abuse of confidence and obvious ungratefulness, (3) superior strength offset
only by his surrender to the authorities and hereby sentences him to DIE by
electrocution in the manner provided by law, ordering his heirs, after his
death, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Alicia Cervantes in the sum of
P3,000.00, with costs."

The record bears out, the Office of the Solicitor General does not
challenge, and the counsel de oficio agrees with, and adopts, the
following findings of fact of the trial court:

"From the evidence adduced at the hearing of the case, it has been established
to the satisfaction of the Court (1) that on September 17, 1954, the accused
Guillermo Bello, a widower, who at that time was about 54 years of age, took
a young peasant lady named Alicia Cervantes, about 24 years old. as his
common-law wife; (2) that from that day they lived together apparently in
blissful harmony as man and wife without the benefit of marriage bearing,
however, no child, x x x; (3) that on May 15, 1958, the accused who had no
means of substantial livelihood except that of making "kaingin" and who
apparently was then in financial straits induced Alicia Cervantes to accept an
employment as
entertainer in a bar and restaurant establishment known as Maring's Place
situated at the corner of Aguinaldo and Bonifacio Streets, Gumaca, Que

300

300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Bello

zon; (4) that Alicia Cervantes entered the service of Maring's Place on that day
as a public hostess; (5) that the accused being infatuated with his young bride
used to watch her movements in Maring's Place everyday; (6) that on May 16
he saw Alicia enter the Gumaca theater in Gumaca with a man whom the
accused found later was caressing his common-law wife inside the movie
house; (7) that being in love with her he took her out from the movie and
warned her to be more discreet in her personal conduct in Gumaca; (8) that
Alicia Cervantes continued to serve at Maring's Place as a public hostess; (9)
that on May 20, 1958, at 3:00 p.m. the accused went to Maring's Place to ask
for some money from Alicia; (10) that Maring, the owner of the place, and
Alicia refused to give money, Maring telling him to forget Alicia completely
because he was already an old man, an invalid besides and should stop
bothering Alicia; (11) that having failed to obtain financial assistance from his
paramour, the accused left the place somewhat despondent and went home
passing Bonifacio Street; (12) that on his way home he met the brothers Justo
Marasigan and Luis Marasigan who greeted the accused, Luis saying to his
brother Justo the following: 'So this is the man whose 'wife is being used by
Maring for white slave trade'; (13) that these remarks of Luis Marasigan
naturally brought grief to the accused, to drown which he sought Paty's place
in Gumaca where he drank 5 glasses of tuba: (14) that from Paty's place he
went to Realistic Studio which is in front of Maring's Place and from there
watched the movements of Alicia; (15) that at about 9:00 o'clock that night he
entered Maring's Place and without much ado held Alicia from behind with his
left hand in the manner of a boa strangulating its prey and with his right hand
stabbed Alicia several times with a balisong; (16) that seeing Alicia fallen on
the ground and believing her to be mortally wounded, he fled and went to the
municipal building and there surrendered himself to the police of Gumaca."

Both the prosecution and the defense also agree that the crime
committed is not murder but only homicide, but they disagree in the
qualifying or aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The
prosecution holds that the crime is homicide, aggravated by abuse of
superior strength, but
 offset by voluntary surrender. On the other hand, the defense
maintains that the accused is entitled to the additional mitigating
circumstance of passion and obfuscation. The trial court held a
different conclusion, as earlier stated.
While it cannot be denied that Alicia was stabbed at the back, the wound
was but a part and continuation of the aggression. The four (4) stab
wounds (the 3 others were

301

VOL. 10, FEBRUARY 28, 1964 301

People vs. Bello

in the breast, hypogastric region, and in the left wrist—as shown in

the certificate of the Municipal Health Officer) were inflicted
indiscriminately, without regard as to which portion of her body was
the subject of attack. The trial court itself found that the stab in the
back was inflicted as Alicia was running away. For this reason,
treachery cannot be imputed (Peo. v. Cañete, 44 Phil. 478).
Evident premeditation was, likewise, not established. The accused had
been carrying a balisong with him for or a long time as a precaution
against drunkards, and without any present plan or intent to use it
against his common-law wife. That he watched her movements daily
manifested his jealous character, but there is no evidence that from
this jealousy sprouted a plan to snuff out her life.
The evidence does not show, either, any superior strength on the part of
the accused, and, not possessing it, he could not take advantage of it.
True that he was armed with a balisong, but he was old and baldado
(invalid), while Alicia was in the prime of her youth, and not infirm.
The facts are not sufficient to draw a comparison of their relative
strength. Possession of a balisong gives an aggressor a formidable
advantage over the unarmed victim, but the physique of the
aggressor ought also to be considered. At any rate, taking into
account the emotional excitement of the accused, it is not clearly
shown that there was "intencion deliberada de prevalerse de la
superioridad o aprovecharse intencionadamente de la misma" (Sent.
TS. 5 Oct. 1906), i.e., deliberate intent to take advantage of superior
strength.
The crime was committed at nighttime, but the accused did not seek or
 take advantage of it the better to accomplish his purpose. In fact,
Maring's Place was bright and welllighted; hence, the circumstance
did not aggravate
the crime. (U.S. vs. Ramos, et al., 2 Phil. 434; U.S. vs. Bonete, 40
Phil. 958.)
We can not understand how the trial court came to couple the crime with
the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence and obvious
ungratefulness. There is nothing to show that the assailant and his
common-law wife reposed in one another any special confidence
that could be abused, or any gratitude owed by one to the other that
ought to be

302

302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Bello

respected, and which would bear any relation, or connection, with

the crime committed. None is inferable from the fact that the
accused was much older than his victim, or that he was penniless
while she was able to earn a living and occasionally gave him
money, since both lived together as husband and wife. Neither is it
shown that the accused took advantage of any such special
confidence in order to carry out the crime.
Since the aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation,
and abuse of superior strength, which could have qualified the crime
as murder, were not present, and since the generic aggravating
circumstances of nighttime and abuse of confidence and obvious
ungratefulness have not been established, the accused can only be
liable for homicide.
Both defense and prosecution agree that the accused- appellant is entitled
to the benefit of the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender
to the authorities. The remaining area of conflict is reduced to
whether the accused may lay claim to a second mitigating
circumstance, that of having acted on a provocation sufficiently
strong to cause passion and obfuscation. The defense submits that
accused is so entitled, because the deceased's flat rejection of
petitioner's entreaties for her to quit her calling as a hostess and
return to their former relation, aggravated by her sneering statement
 that the accused was penniless and invalid (baldado), provoked the
appellant, as he testified, into losing his head and stabbing the
deceased. The state disputes the claim primarily on the strength of
the rule that passion and obfuscation can not be considered when
"arising from vicious, unworthy, and immoral passions" (U.S. vs.
Hicks, 14 Phil. 217).
We are inclined to agree with the defense, having due regard to the
circumstances disclosed by the record. It will be recalled that the
lower court found that the accused had previously reproved the
deceased for allowing herself to be caressed by a stranger. Her loose
conduct was forcibly driven home to the accused by Marasigan's
remark on the very day of the crime that the accused was the
husband "whose wife was being used by Maring for purposes of
prostitution," a remark that so deeply wounded

303

VOL. 10, FEBRUARY 28, 1964 303

People vs. Bello

the appellant's feelings that he was driven to consume a large

amount of wine (tuba) before visiting Alicia (the deceased) to plead
with her to leave her work. Alicia's insulting refusal to renew her
liaison with the accused, therefore, was not motivated by any desire
to lead a chaste life henceforth, but showed her determination to
pursue a lucrative profession that permitted her to distribute her
favors indiscriminately. We can not see how the accused's insistence
that she live with him again, and his rage at her rejection of the
proposal, can be properly qualified as arising from immoral and
unworthy passions. Even without bemerit it of wedlock, a
monogamous liaison appears morally of a higher level than gainful
promiscuity.
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision should be, and hereby is, modified.
This Court finds the accused-appellant, Guillermo Bello, guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide, attended by two
(2) mitigating circumstances: (a) passion and obfuscation, and (b)
voluntary surrender, and, therefore, imposes upon him an
indeterminate sentence ranging from a minimum of six (6) years and
one (1) day of prision mayor to a maximum of ten (10) years of
 prision mayor; orders him also to personally indemnify the heirs of
Alicia Cervantes in the amount of P6,000.00, and to pay the costs.
So ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion,

Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.

Decision modified.

Note.—To properly appreciate the circumstance of evident premeditation,

it is necessary to establish with
proof, as clear as the proof of the crime itself, (1) the time when the
offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly
indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination; and, (3) a
sufficient lapse of time between the determination and the execution
to allow him to reflect. (People v. Diva, L-22946, April 29, 1968, 23
SCRA 332, 340 citing People vs. Leaño, 36 O.G. No. 59, 1120.)

304

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.