http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1951/jan1951/gr_l-3090_1951.

html

people vs limaco

facts:

Liberato Envelino, his wife and son left their house in Sitio Bunlas, Kabankalan, Negros
Occidental, to work on their clearing or kaingin several kilometers away. In the house were left his
three daughters — Inacia, Severa, and Sofia, all surnamed Envelino and a niece Martina Amores,
aged 15, 14, 5 and 3 respectively. According to the eldest daughter, Inacia, appellant Ricardo
Limaco came to the house and found the four girls in the kitchen. He asked her sister Severa to
sell him a pig which he wanted to butcher. Severa told him that he better wait for her parents
because she would not dare sell the animal in their absence and without their consent. Visibly
disappointed and resenting her refusal to sell, he addressed Severa thus: "If you do not want to, it
is better that you will be hacked because you are selfish." Almost simultaneously, he drew his
bolo, locally known as "talibong", from its sheath, and attacked Severa with it, inflicting on her
seven wounds, two of which were mortal; Sofia and Martina rushed to Severa and embraced her,
but Ricardo in his fury also boloed them, inflicting on each four wounds, two of which were mortal.
The three girls died on the spot.

In the meantime, Inacia who witnessed the horrible slaughter drew back in terror, and fearing that
her turn would come next, jumped down from the kitchen through an opening in the wall and hid
herself in the bushes. After an hour and thinking that the accused had left, she ventured into the
house and found the dead bodies of her two sisters and niece, sprawled on the very spot in the
kitchen where she last saw them, covered with wounds. Later, in the evening her parents and
brother arrived and she related the gory details.

The authorities in Kabankalan were finally notified and the chief of police and one policeman and
the president of the Sanitary Division went to the place and made the corresponding
investigation. The accused was arrested by two policemen in his home in sitio Nabhang,
municipality of Ayungon, and according to the policemen he admitted to them having killed the
three girls, even surrendering the bolo,with which he boloed them, with its corresponding
scabbard.

The trial court found the accused guilty of murder.

Issue:

Whether or not the decision of conviction for the crime of triple murder sentencing the accused-
appellant Ricardo Limaco"life imprisonment at hard labor, without hope of any pardon or reprieve
whatsoever, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased should be suspended?

held:

It is a well settled rule that the courts are not concerned with the wisdom, efficacy or morality of
laws. That question falls exclusively within the province of the Legislature which enacts them and
the Chief Executive who approves or vetoes them. The only function of the judiciary is to interpret
the laws and, if not in disharmony with the Constitution, to apply them. And for the guidance of
the members of the judiciary we feel it incumbent upon us to state while they as citizens or as
judges may regard a certain law as harsh, unwise or morally wrong, and may recommend to the
authority or department concerned, its amendment, modification or repeal, still, as long as said
law is in force, they must apply it effect as decreed by the law-making body.
The crime committed in this case is truly shocking. Three innocent girls, two of tender age,
apparently without any provocation, were butchered and hacked to death. While some members
of this Court are for imposing the extreme penalty, others believe that the appellant is entitled to a
mitigating circumstance, either that he, a relatively ignorant man interpreted the refusal of one of
the victims to sell a pig as an affront and thereby became obfuscated and lost his head, or that he
lacks education and instruction for the reason that he did not finish even the first grade in
elementary school. In that case, this mitigating circumstance will compensate the aggravating
circumstance of dwelling, thereby resulting in the imposition of the penalty in its medium degree.
For lack of sufficient votes, the penalty will be reclusion perpetua. But this penalty is for each of
three murders, it being understood that the maximum period of imprisonment will not exceed forty
years. With this modification, the decision appealed from, is hereby affirmed with costs.