People v. Ramirez 48 PHIL 204

Case Title : THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff and appellee,
vs. PEDRO RAMIREZ, defendant and appellant.
Case Nature : APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos
Norte. Mariano, J.
Syllabi Class : CRIMINAL LAW|HOMICIDE
Syllabi:
1. CRIMINAL LAW; HOMICIDE; HOMICIDE THROUGH RECKLESS

IMPRUDENCE.-
Where it appears that the accused killed the deceased while hunting at night by
shooting him in the belief that he was a deer, after having left the deceased, who was
his companion, at another place, he cannot be convicted of the crime of homicide, no
proof having; been introduced as to the existence of enmity between them, but of
homicide through reckless imprudence, since he has not exercised due diligence to
avoid the accident.
Docket Number: No. 24084
Counsel: Vicente Llanes, Acting Attorney-General Reyes
Ponente: VILLAMOR
Dispositive Portion:
Wherefore the penalty of one year and one day of prisin correccional, with the
accessories prescribed by the law, must be imposed upon him, and with this
modification, the judgment appealed from is affirmed in all other respects, With the
costs against the appellant. So ordered.
[No. 24084. November 8, 1925]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff and

appellee, vs.PEDRO RAMIREZ, defendant and appellant.
CRIMINAL LAW; HOMICIDE; HOMICIDE THROUGH RECKLESS
IMPRUDENCE.Where it appears that the accused killed the deceased
while hunting at night by shooting him in the belief that he was a deer, after
having left the deceased, who was his companion, at another place, he cannot
be convicted of the crime of homicide, no proof having; been introduced as to
the existence of enmity between them, but of homicide through reckless
imprudence, since he has not exercised due diligence to avoid the accident.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte.

Mariano, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Vicente Llanes for appellant.
Acting Attorney-General Reyes for appellee.
VILLAMOR, J.:
The appellant was sentenced by the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte,
for the crime of homicide, to the penalty of fourteen years, eight months and
one day of reclusin temporal, to indemnify the mother of the deceased in the
sum of P500 and to pay the costs.
On the night of February 18, 1923, one Bartolome Quiaoit invited Pedro
Ramirez, the accused herein, Victoriano Ranga, the deceased, and Agustin
Menor to hunt in the mount Balitok of the municipality of Nueva Era,
Province of Ilocos Norte. The three last named proceeded to hunt, leaving
Bartolome Quiaoit in a hut approximately 1 kilometer from the place where
the act complained of took place. Upon the hunters having arrived at a place
in mount Balitok, Pedro Ramirez, who was carrying the shotgun of Bartolome
Quiaoit with a lantern, happened to hunt a deer, and then he told his
companions to stay there and watch over the prey while he entered the forest
to get it. Thus Victoriano Ranga and Agustin Menor were waiting when
suddenly the report of the shotgun was heard hitting Victoriano Ranga in the
eye and the right temple, who thereafter died on that night as a result of the
wounds.
It does not appear that the matter was judicially investigated until the month
of October, 1924, when the complaint was filed which initiated this
proceeding.
The only witness who could testify upon the act complained of is naturally
Agustin Menor who was near the deceased when the latter was shot.
According to Agustin Menor, the defendant, after having gotten the first prey,
told his companions to stay there, while he (Pedro Ramirez) was leaving them
to go on hunting, and "when he was far away, he fired the shotgun," hitting
the deceased Victoriano Ranga. It must be noted that the witness Agustin
Menor changed his first testimony that "when he was far away, he fired the
shotgun," by saying afterwards, "When Pedro Ramirez was a little away, he
turned toward us and fired." And to make it more specific, the defense moved
that the translation of the testimony of the witness be corrected and the
interpreter of the court caused it to be stated in the record that the true
testimony of the witness was as follows: "Pedro Ramirez caused me and
Victoriano Ranga to stay in the mount, telling us: 'Brothers, you stay here
and I am going up to hunt with the lamp' and then after he has gone away, he
(Pedro Ramirez) turned toward us and fired."
On the other hand the defendant, testifying as witness in his behalf, admits
being the author of the shot which caused the death of Victoriano Ranga; that
on that night after getting the first prey, he told his companions to stay there,
watching over the prey, while he was going away looking for another; and so
he did, because otherwise it would have been hard for them to find the prey, if
no one would have been left there; that being far away from his companions,
he seemed to have seen with his lantern something like the eyes of a deer
about fifty meters from him and then he shot it; but much to his surprise, on
approaching what he thought was a deer, it proved to be his companion
Victoriano Ranga. The same witness says that he did not expect to find' his
companions in that spot, for he had warned them not to leave, but they left,
the place.
The testimony of the two witnesses as to the distance of the accused from
them when he fired the gun for the second time is contradictory. On the other
hand, there is not in the record any circumstance as to whether or not the
deceased and the witness Agustin Menor were in the same place where they
were left by the defendant, when the latter fired. The night being dark like
that when the event took place, the hunter in the midst of a forest without
paths is likely to get confused as to his relative situation; and after walking
around, he may think having gone very far, when in fact he has not, from the
point of departure. And so, judging the case from what the two witnesses
Agustin Menor and Pedro Ramirez have testified to, and taking into account
that there existed no motive whatever for resentment on the part of the
defendant against the offended party, we are compelled to conclude that the
act complained of constitutes homicide through reckless imprudence. The
defendant, who was carrying a firearm to hunt at nighttime with the aid of a
lantern, knowing that he had two companions, should have exercised all the
necessary diligence to avoid every undesirable accident, such as the one that
unfortunately occurred on the person of Victoriano Ranga.
While the fact that the defendant, a few days after the event, has offered to
the mother of the deceased a carabao and a horse by way of indemnity,
indicates on the one hand that the defendant admitted the commission of the
crime, on the other it shows that he performed the act without criminal intent
and only through a real imprudence.
The defense alleges that the trial court must have solved the reasonable
doubt in favor of the defendant. After considering carefully the evidence and
all the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion and so hold that the
def endant is guilty of the crime of homicide through reckless imprudence,
and must be punished under paragraph 1 of article 568 of the Penal Code.
Wherefore the penalty of one year and one day of prisin correccional, with
the accessories prescribed by the law, must be imposed upon him, and with
this modification, the judgment appealed from is affirmed in all other
respects, With the costs against the appellant. So ordered.
Avancea, C. J., Street, Malcolm, Ostrand, Johns, and Villa-Real,

JJ.,concur.
ROMUALDEZ J., dissenting in part:
I believe that the guilt of the defendant is only under paragraph 2 of article
568 of the Penal Code.
Judgment modified.

People v. Ramirez 48 PHIL 204

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Ramirez 48 PHIL 204

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

People v. Ramirez 48 PHIL 204

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Title : THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff and appellee,

vs. PEDRO RAMIREZ, defendant and appellant.

Syllabi Class : CRIMINAL LAW|HOMICIDE

1. CRIMINAL LAW; HOMICIDE; HOMICIDE THROUGH RECKLESS

Docket Number: No. 24084

Counsel: Vicente Llanes, Acting Attorney-General Reyes

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff and

APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Vicente Llanes for appellant.

Acting Attorney-General Reyes for appellee.

Avancea, C. J., Street, Malcolm, Ostrand, Johns, and Villa-Real,

ROMUALDEZ J., dissenting in part:

You might also like