7/24/2019 people vs. alcala.docx

1/1

People vs. Alcala 46 Phil 739

Facts: On the evening of June 13, 1921, the deceased Eugenio Rubion was in his house in

company with his wife and childen! "he deceased#s mothe$in$law, %gipina Robinita, with

he husband, &iiaco %guinaldo, was also thee! %fte having ta'en thei suppe, thedeceased and &iiaco %guinaldo dan' some wine, and aftewads all etied to sleep! "he

deceased went to the hand$ail of the doo and ested thee! %bout midnight, his wife,

Emeteia E(e, who was sleeping within the house, was awa'e by the noise poduced by a

blow! )he got up, loo'ed out, and saw the accused *alentin %lcala upon Eugenio Rubion,

holding the latte by the nec', while the appellant, +aulo %lcala, who had a club in his hand,

held the 'nees of the deceased! pon seeing this, Emeteia E(e e-claimed: .Jesus &hist/

0hat have you done with my husband. "he accused waned he to 'eep uiet, and she an

within the house, stepping the hand of he mothe who wo'e up and called he husband,

who said: .Eugenio, what is that Eugenio, light,. to which Emeteia answeed: ."hey ae

*alentin and his bothe!. &iiaco %guinaldo went downstais and found Eugenio Rubion at

the base of the staicase with his face downwad and between the two accused, one ofwhom, *alentin, who had a leathe scabbad on his waist, said, .ta'e cae not to say

anything of what has happened!.

"hen, *alentin and the heein appellant, bought the copse of Eugenio Rubion to the house,

placed the body with his face downwad ove a pillow, within the mosuito net, whee

Emeteia E(e had slept, whom *alentin %lcala abused afte all othe pesons who wee thee

had un away! inally, *alentin left afte theatening Emeteia E(e, saying, .4f you epot all

that has happened, 4 will 'ill you5 and if you ae obliged to testify, you must testify against

"anuilino and &atalino, tenants of 6alaw!.

Issue: 0O7 the accused committed aggavating cicumstances of noctunity and of the

cime having been committed in the dwelling of the o8ended paty!

Held:"he accused sought the nighttime fo the pepetation of the cime, the fact is that

they at least too' advantage of it, fo they appoached the house at an ealy time, and yet

they did not commit the cime until late in the night! "his is sucient in ode that the

aggavating cicumstance of noctunity may be held to e-ist!

%s to whethe the cime must be held to have been committed in the dwelling of the

o8ended paty, we ta'e it that, although the accused wee found with the deceased at the

foot of the staicase of the house, that place must be egaded as an integal pat of the

dwelling of that family! "he poch of a house, not common to di8eent neighbos, is a pat of

the dwelling!

"heefoe, hold that the cime poven in this case is homicide with two aggavating

cicumstances, to wit, noctunity and that of the act having been committed in the dwelling

of the o8ended paty, and we nd the heein appellant guilty of such a cime