Bernabe v. Bolinas

9/11/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME018
812
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Bernabevs.Bolinas,Jr.
No.L22000.November29,1966.
ESTELITA BERNABE, petitionerappellant, vs. ANDRES
BOLINAS,JR.,asAsst.ProvincialFiscalofIloiloandALFONSO
B.BAGUIO,asProvincialFiscalofIloilo,respondentsappellees.
Criminal law Treachery.For alevosia to exist, the aggressor must
have adopted a mode of attack intended to facilitate the commission of the
crimewithoutrisktohimself.
Same Where treachery was present.Where the driver of a jeep
intentionally bumped the unsuspecting victim, and then the said driver
jumpedfromthejeepandstabbedtodeaththevictimwhilehewasprostrate
ontheground,thekillingwasattendedwithtreachery.
Mandamus Fiscals When mandamus lies to compel fiscal to amend
information.The writ of mandamus was issued in a case to compel the
provincialfiscaltoamendaninformationforhomicide,bychargingmurder,
where it appears that the killing was attended with treachery and that the f.
iscalneglectedtoperformthelegaldutytochargetheaccusedwithmurder.
APPEALfromanorderofdismissalrenderedbytheCourtofFirst
InstanceofIloilo.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
R.A.Gonzalesforpetitionerappellant.
A.R.Bolinas,Jr.,forrespondents.
BARRERA,J.:
EstelitaBernabe,wifeofSedesiasdelCastillo,whodiedofinjuries
inflicted on his person on the night of November 25, 1962, filed a
petitionformandamusinthe
813
VOL.18,NOVEMBER29,1966
813
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001571792811ae1a39632003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
1/5
9/11/2016
Court of First Instance of Iloilo (Civil Case No. 6323), seeking to

compel the respondent Provincial Fiscal of Iloilo to amend the
information in Criminal Case No. 9624 of the same court, from
homicidetomurder,withaggravatingcircumstanceofuseofmotor
vehicle.
It was alleged therein that in connection with the death of
petitioners husband, a complaint for homicide through reckless
imprudence was first filed by the Chief of Police of Sara, Iloilo,
against Pedro del Castillo, Jr., which complaint was Iater amended
tochargehim,togetherwithPedrodelCastillo,Sr.,withthecrime
of homicide. When the case was remanded to the court of first
instance for further proceedings, petitioner widow requested the
provincial fiscal for reinvestigation, maintaining that the accused
should properly be charged with murder. However, after such
reinvestigation, the Assistant Provincial Fiscal reproduced the
complaint for homicide. Thus, the widow instituted the action,
claimingthatinrefusingtoamendtheinformationfromhomicideto
murder, the respondents Provincial Fiscal and Assistant Provincial
Fiscal acted with the grave abuse of discretion and neglected the
performanceofanactwhichthelawenjoinedthemtodo.
Respondents moved for the dismissal of the mandamus case. It
wastheircontentionthatfromtheaffidavitsofthewitnessesforthe
government, there was no treachery attending the stabbing and
killing of the victim, for which reason they found that the offense
committedwasonlyhomicide.Asthegovernmentprosecutorshave
thediscretiontodeterminenotonlythesufficiencyorinsufficiency
of evidence establishing a prima facie case, but also the nature or
kindofoffensecommitted,itisclaimedthatmandamuswillnotlie
tocompelthemtochangetheinformationalreadyfiled.Sustaining
the foregoing allegations, the court, in its order of June 28, 1963,
grantedthemotionanddismissedthepetitionformandamusforlack
oflegalbasis.Petitionerfilesthepresentappeal.
Fromtheaffidavitsofthewitnesses,whichwereattachedtothe
complaintandpresentedduringtheinvestigationbytheprosecuting
officers,theincidentappearedtohave,happenedasfollows:
IntheeveningofNovember25,1962,thedeceasedSe
814
814
desias del Castillo, one Fernando Castromayor and the accused

PedrodelCastillo,Sr.,afteradrinkingspreeinastore,wereforced
to seek shelter from the rain in the house of one Tinong in
Aguinaldostreet,Sara,Iloilo.Whilethereat,PedrodelCastillo,Sr.
andCastromayorengagedinafightwherePedrowasbested.After
they were separated by Sedesias, the latter and Castromayor left
2/5
9/11/2016
together.Theymetapolicemantowhomtheincidentwasreported.
At about 9:30, and while they were on their way home (Sedesias,
Castromayor and the two other witnesses), a speeding jeep came
heading to their direction which caused Sedesias .to shout to his
companions,"getawayfromtheroad,thereisajeep."Thevehicle
veered toward Sedesias, bumping and throwing him to the ground.
Thereupon,PedrodelCastillo,Sr.jumpedfromthejeep,struckthe
fallen man with something on the head and then stabbed the latter
twice in the neck. When Castromayor saw this, he ran away
pursued by Pedro. When it was realized that the stricken man was
Sedesias, and not Castromayor, Pedro del Castillo, Jr., who was
drivingthejeep,tried,withothers,tobringtheformertothedoctor,
butSedesiasexpiredwithoutreceivingmedicaltreatment.Withthe
foregoing version of the facts by the supposed eyewitnesses the
Fiscalsconcludedthattherewasnotreacheryinthecommissionof
theoffense,andthusrefusedtoamendtheinformationforhomicide,
tomurder,asprayedforbythepetitionerappellant.
The issues presented by this appeal are (1) whether considering
theaffidavitsofthesupposedeyewitnesseswhicharealsothebasis'
ofthehomicidecharge,therewasabuseofdiscretioncommittedby
respondentsappellees when they refused to amend the information
to murder and (2) if there was such abuse of discretion, whether
respondentsappellees may be compelled by mandamus to amend
theinformation.
To justify their action of refusing to amend the information,
respondentsappelleescapitalizeonappellant'scontentionthatwhen
the incident happened, the night was dark. They argue that if this
were so, the supposed writnesses could not have seen, as they
alleged to 'have' seen, the striking of the head and stabbing of the
neckofthe
815
VOL.18,NOVEMBER29,1966
815
victim by the accused. Furthermore, it is maintained that since. it

wasthedeceasedhimselfwhowarnedhiscompanionsofthecoming
ofthejeepoftheaccused,theattackcannotbeconsideredsuddento
qualifytheslayingtomurder.
Itmaybepointedoutthatappelleesdonotclaiminsufficiencyof
evidence of the probable guilt of the accused for the death of the
victim. They only say that in their appreciation or appraisal of the
factsasnarratedbythewitnesses,therewasnotreacheryattending
thecommissionofthecrime.Itistheestablishedjurisprudencethat
for alevosia to exist, the aggressor must have adopted a mode of
attack intended to facilitate the commission of the crime: without.
3/5
9/11/2016
risktohimself.(Peoplev.Caete,44Phil.478U.S.v.Balagtas,19
Phil.194Peoplev.Calinawan,83Phil.642Peoplev.Tagaro,G.R.
No. L18518, Jan. 31, 1963 People v. Baloyo, G.R. No. L11215,
Jan.30,1960).Whatisnecessarytodetermine,therefore,iswhether
theattackorinflictionofthefatalinjuriesonthevictiminthiscase
was made in, such a manner as to insure the commission thereof
with ease and without danger to the accused, of retaliation or
defensethatmightbeputupbythedeceased.
Thesupposedeyewitnesses,VirgilioPalencia,RisalinoPatanao,
and Fernando Castromayor, unanimously declared under oath that
afterthedeceasedwasbumped,inallappearances,intentionally,by
the jeep in which the accused was riding, the latter jumped off the
vehicle,struckSedesiasontheheadwhileprostrateontheground,
and then stabbed him twice in the neck. Under the situation as
declaredbythesewitnesses,therecanhardlybeanydoubtastothe
helplesscondition01thevictimwhenhereceivedtheinjurieswhich
causedhisdeath.Thefactthathehadseenthecomingofthevehicle
doesnotjustifytheconclusionthathecouldhavebeenpreparedfor
theattackby.theaccused.Thefactthatthevictimwasbumpedby
thejeepseemstoindicatethathewasnotanticipatingthathewould
be bumped or hit by it much less that while he was lying on the
ground,somebodywouldcomearoundandinflictinjuriesonhim.
Withregardtotheotherissueoftheproprietyof
816
816
Dutertevs.Moreno
theremedyofmandamus,itmaybetruethat,asappelleesaver,itis
areliefforofficialinaction.Itisclaimedthatwiththefilingofthe
information for homicide, appellees have already performed their
dutyand,therefore,thereisnocauseofactionagainstthem.Itmust
beremembered,however,thataprosecutingofficerissworn,under
hisoathofoffice,notmerelytofilechargesagainstanaccused,but
to file the corresponding complaint or information in accordance
with thefactsand/or evidence obtaining in a case. Consideringthe
circumstances stated above, there was created and imposed upon
herein respondentsappellees a legal duty to file the information
which, in view of the declarations of the alleged eyewitnesses,
should be for murder, Clearly, their failure to do so
rendered the
1
respondentsFiscalssubjecttothewritofmandamus.
WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is hereby reversed and
set aside. Respondentsappellees are hereby directed to amend the
informationinCriminalCaseNo.9624oftheCourtofFirstInstance
ofIloiloaccordingly.Nocosts.Soordered.
4/5
9/11/2016
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Regala, Makalintal,

Bengzon,J.P.,Zaldivar,SanchezandCastro,JJ.,concur.
Dizon,J.,tooknopart.
Orderreversed.
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.
5/5

Bernabe v. Bolinas

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bernabe v. Bolinas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/11/2016

Court of First Instance of Iloilo (Civil Case No. 6323), seeking to

desias del Castillo, one Fernando Castromayor and the accused

victim by the accused. Furthermore, it is maintained that since. it

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Regala, Makalintal,

You might also like