GR 444; (January, 1902) (Digest)
G.R. No. 444 : January 28, 1902
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. LEONCIO ALFONT, defendant-appellant.
FACTS:
On the morning of April 7, 1898, on the road between Mabolo and Mandaue, the defendant, Leoncio Alfont, who was commanding a group of insurgents against Spanish rule, shot and killed a woman named Eduviges Monteclaro. The deceased was driving a quilez (a light carriage) from Cebu at the time. Alfont admitted firing his rifle but claimed he only intended to intimidate Monteclaro to stop after she failed to halt when challenged. He alleged his horse reared at the moment he fired, causing the shot to hit the carriage without his knowing if anyone was harmed. However, evidence presented included his admission to the victim’s husband on the same day that he had killed his wife and would kill him too if he did not leave, statements that he killed her because she was a Spanish spy, and public rumor identifying him as the killer.
ISSUE:
Whether the defendant, Leoncio Alfont, is guilty of the crime of homicide for the death of Eduviges Monteclaro, and if any mitigating or aggravating circumstances are present.
RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for homicide under Article 404 of the Penal Code. The Court found the defendant’s claim of lack of intent and accidental shooting unconvincing and contradicted by the weight of evidence, including his own admissions and witness testimonies. The killing was not considered an involuntary act or due to imprudence. No specific mitigating or aggravating circumstances were found to be present in the commission of the crime. However, considering the conditions of disorder prevailing at the time (the insurrection against Spanish rule), the circumstance under Article 11 of the Penal Code was applied to reduce the penalty. The defense’s argument that the killing was justified because the victim disobeyed an order from insurgents was rejected, as Alfont’s group was an undisciplined band without established military lines or regulations; thus, the act was an ordinary crime committed during rebellion, punishable under Article 244 of the Penal Code. The appealed sentence was affirmed, with the additional order for the defendant to pay an indemnity of 1,000 Mexican pesos to the victim’s widower and heirs, and to pay the costs.