No. 1744. July 19, 1938) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaimiff and eppelice, 's: ANASTACIO APOLINAR, defendant: and appellant PENAL. LAW, HOMICIDE, DEFENSE OF PROPERTY AS EXTENUATION FOR CRIMINAL LIABILIT focciving the fatal blow, seas carrying on his ers a sack of pala coming fiom the land tilled by the defendant It is sald: That the fight co propesty is nct oF such importance as righ wo life, and defemse of property can be invoked a3 a justifying circumstance oaly svhen ito coupled with an attack on the person of one entrust wih said property, ((rom the Decisions of the Suprome Court of Spain) ~ The deceased, upon APPEAL thom a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. Felix ‘The foete are stated inthe opinion of the court HONTIVEROS, J Midnight of December 22, 1936, the defendant and appellant Anastacio Apolinar alias Atoog,was at that time the occupant of a parcel fofland owned by Joaquin Gonzales in Pepallasen, La Paz, Umingan, Pangasinan. Armied with a shotgun, Atong was looking over saic tand when he observed thar there was a men earrying 2 bundle on his shoulder, Believing that he was a thief (of palay), the defendant called us attention but he ignored him. Thereafter, the defendant fired in the air and then atthe person, who however managed to flee ‘The person, who would later be identified as Dorsingo Petras, was able to get back to his house and consequently narrated to Angel ‘Natividad, the barrio chief, that he hed been wounded in the back by a shotgun forgetting palay from the past of the Ind tilled by the fappallant Atong, He then shoored the two wounds ~ one in each side ofthe spinal columa - which wounds were circular in form and & lite bigger chan a quarter of an inch, according to the medical eport of Dr. Manascuil, {ram which a could be inferred that the shotgun of the defendant was loaded with “Te defendant sunrendered to the authorities immediatly aftr the incident and gove a sworn statement (Exhibit F) before the Justice of Peace of Um.ngan oo December 23, 1936, He scted tha on vat night, ujon seeing person coming from she water, carrying & Sack filled with palay, he shoutod to osk who it mas but since there was no resporse, he fire i the ai. Then, be esked agin, and Since the man gave no response sil and instead sumed around aed started fo flee, be Fred at im, The derendant sal nthing Teaotdiig ony agarossion (earlier) commited or attempted by said man toward the bari chief Bonifacio Mendores, which agaression "Snow the basis of hs defense before the Cour of First Insiace of Pangasinan when this ssve was cased. Seid defense, therefore, is Cntemible Moreover, aeording to the defendant and his witnesses, che aggression against Mendones was cari out by sti Petras ‘with bolo Ie the prevent case no holo has heen presented before the Court a quo, which would have suppored the defense if indeed se cecense had been armed tw night Sams oeFridece shows that u2on geting Seriously wounded, he was carrying the sok of play on his arin coming rom the land ted bythe defendant, Howaver. this snot suficient forthe defendant ro be justi in shouting the deczased. The right to prope s nro importance as righ: of, wn defense of property ean be invoked asa jusifving citeumstance only when its cougded with an etch on the person of one entrusted with sai property Although legitimate defense cannot be appreciated in favor of the defendant in the ease at bar, the evenuating circumances of ‘obfiscation can nonetheless be considered in his favor (ar shat of voluntary surrender to the authorities The prevence of these two fxcumstanees without any aggravating circumstence reduces the Sentence to the next loner penalty for the senfonced ere, 1 prisio mayor, pursuant 10 the provisicns of par. $ of Artile 63 of the Revised Penal Cade, Considering the facts of the case, we decide tha juigment mus. be modified. We Believe tha: i¢ must be modified by imposing on the defendant and apeellat an Wulgansinate Fenty sith a miniaum of 2 years ofrisiin correciamal and @ maximum of & years and one day of fri meyer ‘With this modification, we affirm all ocher respeets of the appealed decision with costs against sppellant ‘So ordered Hornilieno, Pres., Paras, impertal and Albert, MM. concur Jujganeut modified.