G.R. No. 26538 , March 30, 1927
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FLORENTINO SORIANO, defendant-appellant.

PER CURIAM:

FACTS

On the night of May 23, 1926, a Constabulary riot occurred in San Fernando, Pampanga, resulting in five deaths and eleven injuries. Florentino Soriano, a Constabulary soldier, was charged with murder for the death of municipal policeman Faustino Pineda. The incident began at a dance hall. Soriano left the hall, went to the Constabulary barracks to get his rifle and ammunition, and returned. He fired at municipal policemen, and upon encountering Chief of Police Zacarias Nuguid and Policeman Faustino Pineda, Soriano, from behind a tree, asked, “Quien eres tu?” Pineda replied, “Yo soy Pineda, pero no embisto” (I am Pineda, but I am not attacking). Soriano then fired two shots, killing Pineda. Soriano later admitted his participation, including firing at the police, in a voluntary declaration (Exhibit B) and a handwritten account (Exhibit M). The trial court, with one assessor concurring and the other dissenting, found Soriano guilty of murder and sentenced him to death. Soriano appealed, arguing the witnesses were not credible and that the crime should only be homicide, mitigated by provocation, obfuscation, and illegitimate aggression.

ISSUE

1. Whether the guilt of Florentino Soriano for the crime charged was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Whether the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of witnesses Umali and Pascua.
3. Whether the crime committed was murder or homicide, and what penalty is appropriate.

RULING

1. Yes, Soriano’s guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court applied the rigorous standard requiring proof of all elements of the crime. Soriano’s guilt was established by his own voluntary admissions (Exhibits B and M), which were competently corroborated by witnesses, including Zacarias Bundalian who testified to seeing the shooting. The physical evidence (specifically, Constabulary cartridges found at the scene) and Soriano’s lack of seventeen cartridges from his equipment further corroborated his involvement. His claim that his statements were coerced was not credible.

2. No, the trial court did not err in admitting the testimony of Umali and Pascua. The Court, following its previous liberal construction of Act No. 2709 (the law on the array of witnesses), held that the inclusion of these witnesses for the prosecution was not improper. Therefore, no reversible error was committed.

3. The crime committed was the complex crime of murder and an attempt against an agent of the authorities, punishable by death. The killing was murder due to the presence of treachery (alevosia), as Soriano attacked from behind a tree without warning, ensuring his safety from any defense by the victim. The victim was a municipal policeman, an agent of the authorities, thus constituting the crime of attempt against an agent of the authorities. These two crimes form a complex crime under the law. The Court found no mitigating circumstances in favor of Soriano. Provocation, obfuscation, and illegitimate aggression were not present, as the evidence showed Soriano was the aggressor who sought out his weapon and returned to confront the police. Consequently, the penalty prescribed by law for this complex crime is death. The Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment with costs.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
Judgment affirmed, with costs. So ordered.
(Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur. Avanceña, C.J., took no part.)