People of the Philippine Islands vs. Bucsit

In parricide by poisoning, the aggravating circumstance of poisoning is compensated by the mitigating circumstance under article 11 of the Penal Code as amended, leaving reclusion perpetua. In murder by poisoning, where no aggravating or mitigating circumstance is present and the accused is an assistant lieutenant of the barrio, article 11 of the Penal Code as amended cannot be considered, and the penalty is cadena perpetua.

Cipriana Bucsit was the wife of Pastor Pagaduan, while Placido Licudine was her paramour. The Penal Code, as amended, supplied the governing provisions on parricide, murder, poisoning as an aggravating or qualifying circumstance, and the article 11 mitigating circumstance later applied by the courts.

Cipriana Bucsit was married to Pastor Pagaduan, and Placido Licudine was her paramour. The two had illicit relations for some time and conspired to do away with Pagaduan in order that they might marry.

Pursuant to that plan, Licudine prepared poison and mixed it with Pagaduan’s morisqueta. Pagaduan unsuspectingly partook of the poisoned food and died as a result. The family dog also consumed a portion of the delicacy and expired. The conspirators then attempted to cover up the crime by having Licudine return from the fields and report Pagaduan’s death.

The father-in-law recovered Pagaduan’s body and informed the municipal officials. Dr. Querol, the president of a sanitary division in the Province of La Union, viewed the remains and reported that Pagaduan had come to his death by poisoning. A further investigation followed, resulting in Bucsit and Licudine each signing confessions prepared in the dialect, in the presence of witnesses, and sworn to before a notary public. In synthesis, they admitted that the poison had been prepared by Licudine and mixed with the morisqueta that Pagaduan ate.

Called before the justice of the peace of the municipality of Bacnotan, Province of La Union, the two accused, when asked whether they were guilty, answered: “Si, Señor, somos culpables [Yes, sir, we are guilty].” The confessions and the plea of guilty before the justice of the peace were corroborated by the testimony of reliable witnesses, among them the father of the woman who, notwithstanding his paternal affection, told the truth even to the extent of inculpating his own daughter.

• Parricide Conviction and Penalty of Cipriana Bucsit: Whether Cipriana Bucsit was correctly convicted of parricide and sentenced to reclusion perpetua for the death of her husband, Pastor Pagaduan, by poisoning.
• Murder Conviction of Placido Licudine: Whether Placido Licudine was correctly convicted of murder for killing Pastor Pagaduan by means of poisoning.
• Penalty for Placido Licudine: Whether Placido Licudine’s penalty should be cadena perpetua instead of the trial court’s seventeen years, four months and one day of cadena temporal, and whether article 11 of the Penal Code as amended could be considered in his favor.
• Civil Liability and Costs: Whether the trial court’s award of P1,000 indemnity to the heirs of Pastor Pagaduan, jointly and severally, and the costs should be affirmed.

• Parricide Conviction and Penalty of Cipriana Bucsit: Yes. As the wife of Pastor Pagaduan, Bucsit was guilty of parricide; the aggravating circumstance of poisoning was compensated by the mitigating circumstance under article 11 of the Penal Code as amended, leaving reclusion perpetua.
• Murder Conviction of Placido Licudine: Yes. The killing of Pastor Pagaduan by means of poisoning established murder through the qualifying circumstance of poisoning.
• Penalty for Placido Licudine: Cadena perpetua. No aggravating or mitigating circumstance was present, and article 11 of the Penal Code as amended could not be considered because Licudine was the assistant lieutenant of the barrio.
• Civil Liability and Costs: Yes. The judgment was affirmed with modification only as to Licudine’s penalty; the P1,000 indemnity to the heirs, jointly and severally, and the costs were left undisturbed, with one-half of the costs of the instance against each appellant.

• Parricide Conviction and Penalty of Cipriana Bucsit: The victim was her husband, so the killing was parricide. The crime was committed by poisoning, an aggravating circumstance. However, the mitigating circumstance under article 11 of the Penal Code as amended applied to her, compensating the aggravating circumstance. The trial court’s sentence of reclusion perpetua was therefore correct. The Court also noted the confessions and plea of guilty were corroborated by reliable witnesses, including her father.
• Murder Conviction of Placido Licudine: Licudine was not the husband but the paramour. The killing of another by poisoning is a qualifying circumstance for murder. The evidence showed he prepared the poison and mixed it with the morisqueta. Thus murder was established.
• Penalty for Placido Licudine: No aggravating and no mitigating circumstance was found, leaving the penalty in the medium degree. Article 11 of the Penal Code as amended could not be taken into consideration because Licudine was the assistant lieutenant of the barrio in which he lived. The trial court’s sentence of seventeen years, four months and one day of cadena temporal was incorrect; the proper penalty was cadena perpetua (life imprisonment).
• Civil Liability and Costs: The trial court ordered the accused to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P1,000 and to pay costs. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment with modification only as to Licudine’s penalty, and imposed one-half of the costs of the instance against each appellant. The civil indemnity and costs thus remained.

• Parricide by poisoning — The wife who kills her husband commits parricide. Bucsit, as the wife of Pastor Pagaduan, was guilty of parricide when she and Licudine caused his death by poison. The aggravating circumstance of poisoning was compensated by the mitigating circumstance under article 11 of the Penal Code as amended, so reclusion perpetua was correct.
• Murder by poisoning — Killing another by means of poisoning is murder, poisoning being a qualifying circumstance. Licudine’s preparation of the poison and its mixture with Pagaduan’s morisqueta established this qualifying circumstance.
• Article 11 mitigating circumstance unavailable to assistant barrio lieutenant — The mitigating circumstance under article 11 of the Penal Code as amended cannot be taken into consideration in favor of an accused who was the assistant lieutenant of the barrio in which he lived. Licudine therefore could not invoke it, and with no aggravating or mitigating circumstance found, the penalty was cadena perpetua.
• Corroboration of confessions and plea of guilty — The accused’s confessions and plea of guilty before the justice of the peace were corroborated by reliable witnesses, including the father of the woman, who testified even against his own daughter. This corroboration supported the convictions.

• "The wife and her paramour have had illicit relations for some time. They conspire to do away with the husband in order that they may marry. Poison is prepared by the man and mixed with the food of the husband." — States the conspiracy and method that gave rise to the parricide and murder charges.
• "The woman, Cipriana Bucsit, was found guilty by the trial judge of the crime of parricide, and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. This judgment was correct, for in her case there is present the aggravating circumstances that the crime was committed by means of poisoning, which, however, is compensated by the mitigating circumstance provided by article 11 of the Penal Code as amended." — States the ratio for Bucsit’s conviction and penalty.
• "The man, Placido Licudine, was found guilty of the crime of murder, there being present the qualifying circumstance that the accused had killed another by means of poisoning. No circumstance to aggravate, and none to mitigate, criminal liability was found; which leaves the penalty in the medium degree. Article 11 of the Penal Code, as amended, could not properly be taken into consideration in this connection in view of the fact that the accused was the assistant lieutenant of the barrio in which he lived." — States the ratio for Licudine’s murder conviction and the inapplicability of article 11 to him.
• "Judgment must be affirmed, with the modification above indicated which is, that the defendant and appellant Placido Licudine shall be sentenced to cadena perpetua (life imprisonment). One-half of the costs of this instance against each appellant. So ordered." — States the dispositive portion and the modification of Licudine’s penalty.

• Article 11, Penal Code as amended — The Court applied this mitigating circumstance to Cipriana Bucsit, compensating the aggravating circumstance of poisoning, but held it could not be considered for Placido Licudine because he was the assistant lieutenant of the barrio in which he lived.

Araullo, C.J., Avanceña, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns and Romualdez, JJ., concur.