PEOPLE VS.
PANTOJA
Not Cited Recently
G.R. No. L-18793, October 11, 1968 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-
APPELLEE, VS. GETULIO PANTOJA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
DECISION
CAPISTRANO, J.:
This murder case is before us for review of the sentence of death passed upon the
accused by the Court of First Instance of Quezon.
Late in the night of June 28, 1957, in the Barrioof Malinao, Atimonan, Quezon, a group
of seven young men serenaded the house, where EstelitaErotes [Link] to come
up, the young men accepted the [Link] Wenceslao Hernandez was seated
beside Estelita, an uninvited Philippine Army Sergeant, Getulio Pantoja, in T-Shirt,
came up and asked Hernandez to allow him to sit beside Estelita, but Hernandez
refused the [Link] time was about 1:30 A.M., June [Link] said nothing and
showed no sign of [Link], he immediately left and went to his camp about half
a kilometer distant, put on his fatigue uniform, got a rifle, went back to the house and
stationed himself on the [Link] time was about 2:00 [Link] this time,
the serenaders left the house to go to and serenade another house in the Northern part
of the [Link] followed the [Link] the serenaders had walked a distance of
about thirty meters with Pantojafollowing them at a distance of about five
meters, Pantoja suddenly shouted "Ano yan? Ano yan?".Turning their heads back they
saw Pantoja raise the garand rifle and aim at [Link] any of them could run
away, Pantoja fired two shots in rapid [Link] first shot hit
Angel Marasigan who instantly fell on his [Link] second shot
hit Wenceslao Hernandez who fell [Link] other serenaders scampered away for
[Link], who had walked nearer, then fired one more shot at the prostrate body
of Marasiganand four more shots at the prostrate body of Hernandez.
The accused, testifying in his own defense, admitted that the shots he fired from
the garand rifle killed Marasigan and [Link] autopsy report attributed the
deaths to internal hemorrhage and the destruction of vital organs.
The lower court found the defendant guilty of double murder, thatis, of a complex crime,
and sentenced him to the penalty of death.
We immediately noted that the lower court erred in finding the appellant guilty of a
complex [Link]'s brief, however, does not contain an assignment of this
[Link] notwithstanding, we can consider the error, the case under review being a
criminal case.
It is well known to students of criminal law, as early as thirty-five years ago, that
according to Article 48, as amended, of the Revised Penal Code, there are two classes
of complex [Link] first class comprises cases where a single act constitutes two or
more [Link] second class covers cases where one crime is the necessary means
for committing the [Link] case at bar does not fall under the first class because in
this case there were two acts, two shots, one killing Marasigan, and the other killing
[Link] there were only one shot killing both Marasiganand Hernandez, there
would have been a complex crime, double [Link] second class, obviously, does
not cover the case at [Link] are of the considered opinion that the appellant is guilty of
two separate and distinct murders and that he should suffer the penalty for each
murder.
Appellant contends that the qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation and
treachery did not [Link] contention is tenable with respect to evident premeditation
because the appellant only had about half an hour (1:30 to 2:00 A.M.) for
meditation and reflection from the time he left the house, went to his camp, put on his
fatigue uniform, got a garand rifle and returned to said house, followed the serenaders a
short distance and then fired the two [Link] time in the circumstances was
insufficient for full meditation and [Link] was insufficient, in the juridical sense, for
his conscience to overcome the resolution of his will had he desired to hearken to its
[Link] contention is untenable with respect to [Link] appellant followed
the serenaders as they walked, made no indication that he would shoot, and then
suddenly fired from behind two shots in rapid succession at Marasigan and Hernandez
from a distance of about five [Link] the circumstances, clearly there was
treachery.
Appellant contends that the generic aggravating circumstances of abuse of public
position and ignominy were not [Link] contention is [Link] is nothing
to show that the appellant took advantage of his being a sergeant in the Philippine Army
in order to commit the [Link] mere fact that he was in fatigue uniform and had an
army rifle at the time is not sufficient to establish that he misused his public position in
the commission of the [Link] regard to ignominy the mere fact that the appellant
fired one more shot at the prostrate body of Marasigan and four more shots at the
prostrate body of Hernandez is not sufficient to show the existence of said aggravating
circumstance.
Appellant contends that he should be given the benefit of the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary [Link] contention is [Link] evidence shows that immediately
after the commission of the murders, the appellant voluntarily surrendered to his
detachment camp commander to whom he also surrendered the garand rifle, and that
he was ordered confined in the stockade.
The penalty for murder is reclusiontemporalin its maximum period to death (Art. 248,
Revised Penal Code).There being one mitigating circumstance, voluntary surrender, the
penalty for each murder should be reclusiontemporalin its maximum period in relation to
the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
The appellant contends that the lower court erred in rejecting his defense
of [Link] contention lacks [Link] legal presumption of sanity is reinforced by
the evidence showing that when he committed the crimes, appellant was calm and
collected, and did not show any sign of [Link] fact that he fired four more shots at
the prostrate body of Hernandez, who had refused his request to be allowed to sit
beside Estelita, shows that revenge was in his [Link] report of Dr. Cesar Catindig of
the V. Luna General Hospital where appellant was confined for one month by order of
the trial court does not show that appellant was [Link] merely shows that he
wassuffering from psychoneurotic depressive reaction and
psychoneurotic dissociative [Link] report, however, concludes:
"In the absence of reliable information it could not be ascertained whether the crime
imputed to him was committed when he was in such a state of mind."
That part of the judgment below awarding compensatory damages in the amounts of
P6,000 to the heirs of Angel Marasigan and P6,000 to the heirs
of Wenceslao Hernandez should be [Link] 1947, when the Project of Civil Code
was drafted, the Code Commission fixed the sum of P3,000 as the minimum amount of
compensatory damages for death caused by a crime or [Link] Project of Civil
Code was approved by both Houses of the Congress in 1949 as the New Civil Code of
the Philippines, which took effect in [Link] 1948 in the case of People
vs. Amansec, 80 Phil. 424, the Supreme Court awarded P6,000 as compensatory
damages for death caused by a crime "considering the difference between the value of
the present currency and that at the time when the law fixing a minimum indemnity of
P2,000 was enacted." The law referred to was Commonwealth Act No. 284 which took
effect in [Link] 1948, the purchasing power of the Philippine peso was one-third of its
pre-war purchasing [Link] 1950, when the New Civil Code took effect, the minimum
amount of compensatory damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict was fixed
in Article 2206 of the Code at P3,[Link] article repealed by implication
Commonwealth Act [Link], from the time the New Civil Code took effect, the
Courts could properly have awarded P9,000 as compensatory damages for death
caused by a crime or [Link] is common knowledge that from 1948 to the present
(1968), due to economic circumstances beyond governmental control, the purchasing
power of the Philippine peso has declined further such that the rate of exchange now in
the free market is U.S.$1.00 to almost P4.00 Philippine [Link] means that the
present purchasing power of the Philippine peso is one-fourth of its pre-war purchasing
[Link] are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the amount of award of
compensatory damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict should now be
P12,000.
Parenthetically, we should point out that, in proper cases, besides compensatory
damages in the sum of P12,000, the courts may also award additional sums as further
compensatory damages for loss of earnings and for [Link] courts may likewise
award additional sums as moral damages and as exemplary damages.(Arts. 2206 and
2230, New Civil Code.)
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the judgment of the court below is hereby modified by: 1.
Sentencing the appellant for each murder to an indeterminate penalty of from 15 years
to 20 years; 2. Ordering the appellant to pay the heirs of Angel Marasigan the sum of
P12,000 as compensatory damages, and to pay the heirs of Wenceslao Hernandez the
sum of P12,000 as compensatory damages.
Costs against appellant.
