People v. Cortes G.R. No. L-33614

 G.R. No. L-33614             

November 4, 1930

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.

BENEDICTO CORTES, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

Facts:

In the afternoon, there was a contest between two cocks. Candido, the owner of the cockpit, held the fight as a draw. Analecto Aballe asked Candido to return P1 which Analecto wagered upon one of the birds. Candido gave him the money and Analect started out. As he walked towards the door, he saw Santiago Cortes and he asked why the cockfight had not been proceeded with. Santiago answered, "What business is that of yours?" Anacleto did not respond and proceeded to go out but Santiago suddenly came from behind and wounded him in the back with a dagger. He started running but was then confronted by Alejo, the uncle of Santiago, who struck Anacleto in the breast with a stick. He fell. Benedicto Cortes, the father of Santiago, in turn struck Anacleto on the back with the stem of a coconut branch.

The uncle of Anacleto, saw the incident and he approached Benedicto Cortes, now armed with a piece of wood called togñod. He was struck on the left forearm. Simeon Kilantang tried to help but Benedicto struck him in the forehead. Simeon was on his knees when Santiago struck him on the back of the neck with a round piece of bamboo.Honestorio Bellocillo also struck Simeon on the right hip with a club. The three of the accused and Simeon died after a few moments.

The defense claimed Santiago was acting in self-defense and that Benedicto only helped his son.

Issue:

Is the abuse of superior strength present?

Ruling:

No. Where the abuse of superior strength is to be estimated as an aggravating circumstance from the mere fact that more than one person participated in the offense, it must appear that the accused cooperated together in some way designed to weaken the defense; and if, in the case before us, the two accomplices really participated in the sense necessary to enable the court to estimate against them the aggravating circumstance mentioned, this would make them guilty in the character of principals. But the court having found that only one of the three was a principal and that the other two did not cooperate in the way necessary to make them principals, it is evident that the single principal cannot be said to have taken advantage of superior strength; nor can said aggravating circumstance be estimated against the accomplices. It is difficult to see how the distinctive aggravating circumstance now under consideration could ever be present in a contest between two individuals of approximately equal powers.