United States vs. Reyes and de la Cruz

Where one accused seizes the victim from behind and binds his arms while the other stabs him before any general melee, the killing is attended by treachery (alevosia) and constitutes assassination under article 403 of the Penal Code, not homicide.

Alfredo Reyes and Fortunato de la Cruz were prosecuted under the Penal Code. That Code defined and penalized assassination in article 403 and defined treachery (alevosia) in section 2 of article 10.

Alfredo Reyes and Fortunato de la Cruz were charged with assassination upon an information alleging that on or about August 27, 1907, in Olongapo, Zambales Province, they conspired to assassinate a Chinaman named Ching-Ching with deliberate premeditation and treachery, De la Cruz holding and embracing Ching-Ching and fastening his arms to his side while Reyes wounded him twice with a dagger—first in the throat, penetrating to the vertebrae, and second in the left shoulder—inflicting mortal wounds from which he died.

The trial court found that about a quarter past 5 o’clock on the evening of August 27, 1907, in Olongapo, a fight took place between some Chinamen and Filipinos, in which Ching-Ching received a fatal dagger wound and died in less than fifteen minutes. The trial court found that Reyes and De la Cruz took an active part in the fight; that during the fight De la Cruz, a strong, active man, seized Ching-Ching from behind, holding his arms tightly by his side, while Reyes inflicted two mortal wounds on the Chinaman with a knife or dagger, causing death in less than fifteen minutes.

Both accused denied all knowledge of or participation in Ching-Ching’s death. Reyes set up an alibi, while De la Cruz admitted being present when the dispute arose but insisted that he was not there for more than three minutes and knew nothing about the killing if it happened during the fight. The SC found these statements wholly disproved by the prosecution witnesses L. E. Martin, Eng Ton, Lee He, Lim Chac, and Pablo Lindayog, whose testimony left no room for doubt as to the accused’s participation in the fight during which the Chinaman died. Eng Ton and Lee He, eyewitnesses to the killing, clearly established the accused’s guilt in the manner charged and found by the trial court.

Counsel for the appellants argued that the Chinese witnesses should not be accepted without reserve because the parties to the fight were Chinamen and Filipinos and their statements may have been colored by racial prejudice and animosity. The SC rejected that fear as insufficient to cast reasonable doubt, noting that the testimony was consistent, positive, and definite and was corroborated in all details except the actual killing by wholly reliable and impartial witnesses. Robert M. Saunders, a bar keeper, testified that he had been an eyewitness and observed De la Cruz throughout the fight, and that De la Cruz’s only participation was throwing sand at the Chinaman. Saunders stated that when the fight was on and in full force, he noticed De la Cruz throwing dirt at the Chinamen instead of getting a stick or bolo, and that from his position about fifteen feet from the fight, De la Cruz did not move approximately ten feet from the corner. The SC found that Saunders’s attention was not directed to De la Cruz until the fight was in full force, while the prosecution witnesses testified that the stabbing took place at the very beginning and that the general melee was brought on by the attack on the man killed; there was thus no necessary inconsistency, and the SC believed Saunders was not impartial and had a strong prejudice in favor of the accused.

The trial court found that one of the accused seized the Chinaman from behind and bound his hands to his side while the other struck him with the dagger in the throat, and the evidence further disclosed that this occurred before the general melee arose between the Chinamen and the Filipinos who later participated in the fight.

• Denial and Alibi: The defendants-appellants denied all knowledge of or participation in Ching-Ching’s death; Reyes set up an alibi, and De la Cruz admitted being present when the dispute arose but maintained that he was not there for more than three minutes and knew nothing about the killing if it occurred during the fight.
• Credibility of Chinese Witnesses: The defendants-appellants argued that the testimony of the Chinese witnesses should not be accepted without reserve because the parties to the fight were respectively Chinamen and Filipinos, and the statements of the Chinese witnesses may have been colored by racial prejudice and animosity.

• Sufficiency of Evidence and Participation: Whether the evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that Alfredo Reyes and Fortunato de la Cruz participated in the killing of Ching-Ching.
• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Whether the testimony of the Chinese eyewitnesses should be rejected because of alleged racial prejudice and animosity.
• Treachery and Classification of Offense: Whether the killing was attended by treachery (alevosia) and therefore constituted assassination under article 403 of the Penal Code, rather than homicide.

• Sufficiency of Evidence and Participation: Yes. The evidence of record fully sustained the trial court’s findings that both accused took an active part in the fight and killing; their denials and Reyes’s alibi were wholly disproved by the prosecution witnesses, including eyewitnesses Eng Ton and Lee He.
• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: No. The possibility of racial prejudice did not cast reasonable doubt because the Chinese witnesses’ testimony was consistent, positive, definite, and corroborated in all details except the actual killing by reliable and impartial witnesses; Saunders’s testimony did not create a necessary inconsistency.
• Treachery and Classification of Offense: Yes. The killing was assassination, not homicide, because De la Cruz seized the victim from behind and bound his arms while Reyes stabbed him, employing means that tended directly and especially to insure against risk from the victim’s defense; treachery under section 2 of article 10 and article 403 of the Penal Code applied.

• Sufficiency of Evidence and Participation: The SC reviewed the trial court’s findings and held that the evidence fully sustained them. The trial court found that a fight occurred on August 27, 1907, in Olongapo; that Reyes and De la Cruz took an active part; and that De la Cruz seized Ching-Ching from behind, holding his arms tightly, while Reyes inflicted two mortal dagger wounds, causing death in less than fifteen minutes. The accused denied knowledge or participation, with Reyes setting up an alibi and De la Cruz claiming he was present only briefly and knew nothing about the killing. The SC held these statements wholly disproved by the prosecution witnesses L. E. Martin, Eng Ton, Lee He, Lim Chac, and Pablo Lindayog, whose testimony left no room for doubt as to the accused’s participation; Eng Ton and Lee He were eyewitnesses whose testimony clearly established guilt in the manner charged and found by the trial court.
• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: The appellants contended that the Chinese witnesses should not be accepted without reserve because the fight was between Chinamen and Filipinos and their testimony may have been colored by racial prejudice and animosity. The SC held that fear of prejudice was not sufficient to cast reasonable doubt because the testimony was consistent, positive, and definite and carried conviction of its truth and accuracy; it was corroborated in all details except the actual killing by wholly reliable and impartial witnesses. The SC considered Robert M. Saunders’s testimony that De la Cruz only threw sand, but found no necessary inconsistency: Saunders’s attention was not directed to De la Cruz until the fight was in full force, while the prosecution witnesses testified that the stabbing occurred at the very beginning and that the general melee was brought on by the attack on the victim. The SC also found Saunders not impartial and strongly prejudiced in favor of the accused.
• Treachery and Classification of Offense: The SC held that the offense was assassination as charged, not homicide. It was clearly proven and found by the trial judge that one accused seized the Chinaman from behind and bound his hands to his side while the other struck him with the dagger in the throat, and the evidence further disclosed that this occurred before the general melee arose. The accused thus employed means in the execution of the crime which "tended directly and especially to insure" against risk arising from the defense the injured party might otherwise have made. This marked the offense with the aggravating circumstance of treachery (alevosia) under section 2 of article 10 of the Penal Code and brought it under the definition of assassination in article 403. The SC found no aggravating or extenuating circumstance and imposed the penalty in its minimum degree.

• Treachery (Alevosia) — Under section 2 of article 10 of the Penal Code, treachery is the aggravating circumstance where the accused employs means in the execution of the crime which "tended directly and especially to insure" against risk arising from the defense the injured party might otherwise have made. The SC applied it because De la Cruz seized Ching-Ching from behind and bound his arms while Reyes stabbed him before the general melee, leaving the victim unable to defend himself.
• Assassination under Article 403 of the Penal Code — The crime of assassination, as defined and penalized in article 403 of the Penal Code, is committed when the killing is attended by treachery (alevosia) as defined in section 2 of article 10. The SC applied it because the killing of Ching-Ching was attended by treachery, elevating it from homicide to assassination.
• Credibility of Witnesses and Racial Prejudice — The fear that witnesses may have been prejudiced is not sufficient to cast reasonable doubt where their testimony is consistent, positive, and definite and corroborated in all details except the actual killing by wholly reliable and impartial witnesses. The SC applied it in accepting the Chinese eyewitnesses’ testimony despite the defense’s claim of racial animosity.

• "We think the evidence of record fully sustains the findings of the trial court." — The SC affirmed the factual findings on the accused’s participation despite their denials and Reyes’s alibi.
• "We do not think that the fear that the witnesses may have been prejudice is sufficient to cast a reasonable doubt upon the truth of their statements, which in all details, except only as to the actual killing of the deceased, were corroborated by the testimony of wholly reliable and impartial witnesses." — The SC rejected the defense’s racial-prejudice argument against the Chinese eyewitnesses.
• "Manifesting therefore, the accused employed means in the execution of the crime, which "tended directly and especially to insure" against risk arising from the defense the injured party might otherwise have made." — This passage identifies the treachery that elevated the killing to assassination.

• Section 2, Article 10, Penal Code — Defines treachery (alevosia) as the aggravating circumstance where the accused employs means in the execution of the crime which "tended directly and especially to insure" against risk arising from the defense the injured party might otherwise have made; applied because De la Cruz seized the victim from behind and bound his arms while Reyes stabbed him.
• Article 403, Penal Code — Defines and penalizes assassination; applied because the killing of Ching-Ching was attended by treachery, making the offense assassination rather than homicide.