People vs. Noble

Defense of a relative's honor requires satisfactory proof of an actual unlawful aggression against the relative; the accused's uncorroborated testimony, contradicted by more credible prosecution evidence and inconsistent with the probabilities, will not justify the killing.

Isabelo Noble was a 32-year-old physician in Taal, Batangas. His sister, Consolacion Noble, was a 50-year-old widow who lived in the home of former Governor Vicente Noble together with her daughter, Corazon Apacible. Paz Fores, a 25-year-old physician visiting from Manila, was staying with Corazon as a friend. In the post-liberation period, American soldiers were stationed in the area, and social fraternization between local residents and American servicemen was common and openly practiced.

On the early evening of October 22, 1945, George F. Ott, a private in the United States Army, together with two other American soldiers, took Consolacion Noble, her daughter Corazon Apacible, and Paz Fores to see a cinema showing in an Army camp in a barrio of Taal, Batangas. Paz Fores, a physician from Manila, was visiting and staying with Corazon Apacible in the home of former Governor Vicente Noble, where Corazon and her mother Consolacion lived. In going to and returning from the show, Consolacion rode alone with Ott in a jeep driven by the latter, while the two younger women were accommodated in another jeep with the other two American soldiers. Upon returning to town, the three women invited the three Americans into the house. Ott's two companions seated themselves on a sofa in the drawing room, while Ott fetched a phonograph from his jeep and placed it on a table in the ante-room. As Ott was fixing the phonograph, with one of the ladies standing near him, Dr. Isabelo Noble, brother of Consolacion, came up the stairs and shot the American several times with a .45 caliber pistol. Ott died shortly after on the way to an Army hospital.

The identity of the lady who was with Ott in the ante-room was the central point of dispute. The defense — that Noble killed Ott to repel an attack on his sister's honor — depended entirely on that lady being Consolacion. Noble testified that upon reaching the top of the stairs, he saw Ott holding Consolacion's hands and trying by force to embrace and kiss her; that he drew his revolver and fired a shot that missed; that as the American started to pick up a chair, perhaps to hurl at him, he fired several more shots; and that all he knew afterwards was that Ott had fallen and he threw away his gun. Lolita O. de la Raya, a teacher staying in the Noble house, corroborated the claim that Consolacion was the woman with Ott. Consolacion Noble herself was called by the prosecution in rebuttal but, to the fiscal's surprise, confirmed her brother's testimony, stating that her earlier sworn statement to the justice of the peace — which identified her daughter Corazon as the woman in the ante-room — was false, and that the three women had agreed to say Corazon was there in order to hide the truth from Vicente Noble, who allegedly objected to Consolacion fraternizing with American soldiers.

The prosecution witnesses Corazon Apacible and Paz Fores testified that it was Corazon, not Consolacion, who was beside Ott when the shooting began. Corazon testified that she was standing about two meters away from Ott, who had his back toward the stairway tinkering with the phonograph, when Isabelo Noble appeared with a gun, walked straight to Ott, said "George, this is your end," and fired. She begged the assailant to stop, but several more shots followed. Paz Fores, who was inside a bedroom, heard the first shot, rushed to the open door, saw Noble's back, and heard two or three more shots as Noble repeatedly said in Tagalog, "I told you this will happen," apparently addressing Corazon. The medical officer's autopsy report showed multiple gunshot wounds — one in the left anterior axillary fold, three entry wounds above and to the left of the umbilicus, four exit wounds in the lumbar regions, two wounds below the right iliac crest with a .45 caliber bullet recovered, and the second phalanx of the middle finger of the left hand nearly cut in two — none showing powder burns.

Noble claimed he was intoxicated that evening, having drunk half a bottle of wine at his clinic after failing to meet a woman named Gorgonia Manigbas. He also claimed to have voluntarily surrendered, having sent for policemen through Vicente Punzalan. The trial court found the evidence insufficient to conclusively show intoxication, rejected voluntary surrender because Noble was already under arrest by the Military Police when municipal policemen arrived, and refused to credit his pre-arraignment offer to plead guilty to simple homicide as a mitigating circumstance.

• Defense of Relative's Honor: Petitioner maintained that he killed Ott upon discovering the American holding his sister Consolacion's hands and attempting by force to embrace and kiss her, thus acting in defense of his sister's honor.
• Intoxication: Petitioner argued that he was intoxicated on the night in question, having consumed half a bottle of wine at his clinic, and that this state of drunkenness should be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance.
• Voluntary Surrender: Petitioner contended that he surrendered voluntarily to the authorities, having sent for policemen through Vicente Punzalan after the incident.
• Offer to Plead Guilty to a Lesser Offense: Petitioner asserted that his willingness, expressed before arraignment through counsel, to plead guilty to simple homicide if the information were amended should be considered a mitigating circumstance.

• Identity of the Woman: Respondent countered that it was Corazon Apacible, not Consolacion Noble, who was with Ott in the ante-room when the shooting occurred, as testified to by Corazon Apacible and Paz Fores.
• True Motive: Respondent argued that the killing was motivated by jealousy and frustration, as Noble was in love with Paz Fores, who was engaged to Ott, and Noble himself had introduced Ott to Fores.
• Falsity of the Defense Narrative: Respondent maintained that Consolacion Noble's sworn statement to the justice of the peace on the day following the crime — identifying her daughter as the woman with Ott — was the truthful account, and that her subsequent testimony for the defense was motivated by blood affinity with the accused.

• Defense of Relative's Honor: Whether the killing of George F. Ott was justified by the defense of the accused's sister's honor.
• Qualifying Circumstance: Whether the killing was qualified as murder by treachery.
• Mitigating Circumstance of Intoxication: Whether the accused was entitled to the mitigating circumstance of intoxication.
• Mitigating Circumstance of Voluntary Surrender: Whether the accused voluntarily surrendered to the authorities.
• Mitigating Circumstance of Plea to a Lesser Offense: Whether an offer to plead guilty to a lesser offense constitutes a mitigating circumstance under Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code.

• Defense of Relative's Honor: No. The defense failed because the credible evidence showed it was Corazon Apacible, not Consolacion Noble, who was with Ott, and the probabilities overwhelmingly contradicted the accused's version.
• Qualifying Circumstance: Yes. The killing was murder qualified by treachery, the attack having been sudden and unexpected, incapacitating the victim from repelling or escaping it.
• Mitigating Circumstance of Intoxication: No. The quantity of liquor consumed, if any, was insufficient to affect the accused's mental faculties, as demonstrated by his own testimony that he intended to give his uncle an injection.
• Mitigating Circumstance of Voluntary Surrender: No. The accused was already under arrest by the Military Police when municipal policemen arrived and was not in a position to escape.
• Mitigating Circumstance of Plea to a Lesser Offense: No. An offer to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense cannot be considered a mitigating circumstance under Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code.

• Defense of Relative's Honor: The accused bore the burden of proving justification for the killing, and his version was rejected on multiple grounds. There was no evidence outside his own testimony that Consolacion possessed any physical attraction for Ott; the fact that they rode alone in a jeep both ways appeared to be a simple act of courtesy toward the eldest lady in the party, not an indication of infatuation. The time, place, and occasion were highly unpropitious for any imputed amorous advance by Ott, as a party was ongoing with people moving about. The evidence showed Ott had deported himself correctly in his association with Filipino women. The manner of the killing — at least five shots, two fired after Ott had already fallen, as shown by bullet marks on the floor — indicated bitter hatred rather than a defensive reaction. Paz Fores' testimony that she was engaged to Ott and that Noble had courted her without success established jealousy and frustration as the true motive. The testimony of Corazon Apacible and Paz Fores that Corazon was the woman beside Ott carried the characteristics of veracity in its simplicity and naturalness, while the defense witnesses' testimony did not ring true. Consolacion's sworn statement to the justice of the peace the day after the crime was convincing in its details, and her subsequent retraction was attributable to blood affinity with the accused. The claim that the three women agreed to name Corazon instead of Consolacion solely to hide Consolacion's fraternization from Vicente Noble was untenable, as Corazon — young and single — would have brought greater dishonor than Consolacion, a 50-year-old widow, and the alleged prohibition was refuted by the women's openly frequent socializing with American soldiers.

• Qualifying Circumstance: The crime was murder characterized by treachery. According to the credible testimony of Corazon Apacible, the attack was sudden and unexpected, incapacitating Ott from repelling or escaping it. The offender adopted a method that tended directly and especially to insure the accomplishment of his purpose without risk to himself arising from any defense the offended party might make. Although the victim and the accused were face to face when the attack commenced, Ott had just wheeled around to see who had spoken to him when Noble opened fire, giving him no opportunity to defend himself.

• Mitigating Circumstance of Intoxication: The mitigating circumstance of intoxication must be proved to the satisfaction of the court. The trial court found the evidence insufficient to conclusively show that the accused was drunk, and this finding was affirmed. In light of the accused's own testimony, the amount of liquor consumed, if any, was not of sufficient quantity to affect his mental faculties. The inference drawn from his testimony that he was thoughtful enough not to neglect giving Don Vicente Noble his injection indicated that his intoxication was not of such a degree as to affect his mental capacity to fully understand the consequences of his act.

• Mitigating Circumstance of Voluntary Surrender: Voluntary surrender was not established. Even assuming the defendant sent for policemen through Vicente Punzalan after the crime, he was already under arrest by the Military Police when he spoke to Punzalan. When municipal policemen arrived, he was still under arrest and not in a position to escape even if he had wanted to. He was found by Richard Chael of the Military Police in a room of the house and taken into custody by local police officers upon Chael's indication.

• Mitigating Circumstance of Plea to a Lesser Offense: An offer to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense cannot be considered a mitigating circumstance under the provisions of Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code. The enumerated mitigating circumstances in that article do not include such an offer.

• Defense of a Relative's Honor — The defense of a relative requires proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defended. In this case, the Court found that the accused failed to discharge his burden of proving that any unlawful aggression against his sister occurred, as the credible evidence showed the woman with the victim was not his sister, and the probabilities overwhelmingly contradicted the claim of an amorous assault.

• Treachery (Alevosia) — Treachery qualifies a killing as murder when the offender adopts means, methods, or forms of execution that tend directly and specially to insure its accomplishment without risk to himself arising from any defense the offended party might make. The attack must be sudden and unexpected, rendering the victim unable to repel or escape it. Here, the victim had just turned to see who had spoken when the accused opened fire, giving him no opportunity to defend himself.

• Mitigating Circumstance of Intoxication — Intoxication is mitigating only when it is not habitual or intentional (deliberate) and when the quantity of intoxicating liquor consumed is sufficient to impair the accused's mental faculties. The Court held that the amount consumed here, if any, was insufficient, as demonstrated by the accused's own testimony that he still intended to administer an injection to his uncle.

• Mitigating Circumstance of Voluntary Surrender — Voluntary surrender requires that the offender has not been actually arrested, that he surrenders to a person in authority or an agent of a person in authority, and that the surrender is voluntary. Surrender is not voluntary where the accused is already under arrest by other authorities and is not in a position to escape.

• Offer to Plead Guilty to a Lesser Offense — An offer to plead guilty to a lesser offense is not among the enumerated mitigating circumstances under Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code and cannot be appreciated as such.

• "Judged by this testimony, the crime committed was murder characterized by treachery. According to this testimony, the attack was sudden and unexpected to the point of incapacitating George Ott to repel or escape from it. The offender adopted a method which tended directly and especially to insure the accomplishment of his purpose without risk to himself arising from any defense which the offended party might make." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi for the murder qualification, applying the canonical formulation of treachery to the facts.

• "Jealousy and disappointment drove the defendant to his rash act. No amount of denial can destroy Paz Fores' testimony that she was engaged to George Ott and that the defendant was in love with her." — This passage identifies the true motive behind the killing, undermining the defense of relative's honor and establishing the prosecution's theory of the case.

• "An offer to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense cannot be considered as a mitigating circumstance under the provisions of article 13 of the Revised Penal code." — This passage establishes a clear rule of exclusion: only the enumerated circumstances in Article 13 may be appreciated as mitigating, and a plea offer to a lesser offense is not among them.

• U.S. vs. Davis, 11 Phil. 96 — Followed as controlling authority on the definition of treachery, itself citing earlier jurisprudence on the elements of alevosia.
• U.S. vs. Cabiling, 7 Phil. 469 — Cited through U.S. vs. Davis as supporting authority on treachery.
• U.S. vs. Babasa, 2 Phil. 102 — Cited through U.S. vs. Davis as supporting authority on treachery.
• U.S. vs. Baluyot, 40 Phil. 385 — Cited through U.S. vs. Davis as supporting authority on treachery.

• Article 13, Revised Penal Code — Cited by the Court in rejecting the claim that an offer to plead guilty to a lesser offense constitutes a mitigating circumstance, the Court holding that only the circumstances enumerated in that article may be appreciated as mitigating.

Moran, C.J., Paras, Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Hilado, Bengzon, and Padilla, JJ., concurred.

• Briones, M. — Justice Briones concurred with the conviction but dissented on the rejection of mitigating circumstances, arguing that the evidence sufficiently established both intoxication and voluntary surrender. He found that the accused had consumed at least half a bottle of whisky, corroborated by the policeman Consorcio Noche's testimony that the accused vomited and smelled of wine while being conducted to the Municipal Building, and that this intoxication was not habitual or deliberate. He also found that the accused surrendered voluntarily, supported by the testimony of Vicente Punzalan and Consorcio Noche, and confirmed in part by the American Military Police investigator Richard Chael. Briones characterized the killing as an unexpected access of violence akin to an amok episode, explainable only by the accused's seriously impaired mental state from intoxication.