SUBJECT: TOPIC: Date Made: Digest Maker:

Crim 2 Art 251 3-20-2016 Juvy

CASE NAME: U.S. vs Tandoc
PONENTE: J. Avancea Case Date: March 16, 1920
Case Summary:
De Vera and his laborers were attacked by Jose Bengzons men led by respondent
Tandoc. This resulted to the death of Luis Moyalde. The attack was due to the dispute
between De Vera and Bengzon regarding the harvesting of palay in the land where the
attack took place. SC held that the accused were not guilty of death under tumultuous
affary. There was no confusion in the aggression as well as in the defense of the two
groups. They were united in their common purpose of the attack. As such, they were
convicted of homicide instead.
Rule of Law:
Art. 251. Death caused in a tumultuous affray. When, while several persons, not
composing groups organized for the common purpose of assaulting and attacking each
other reciprocally, quarrel and assault each other in a confused and tumultuous manner,
and in the course of the affray someone is killed, and it cannot be ascertained who
actually killed the deceased, but the person or persons who inflicted serious physical
injuries can be identified, such person or persons shall be punished by prision mayor.

Detailed Facts:
Jose Bengzon claimed as his own a disputed land in Urdaneta,
Pangasinan. He obtained from the CFI Pangasinan a preliminary injunction
against Melecio de Vera (the man in charge of Victorino Navarro's land)
from disturbing Jose Bengzon or his tenants in the harvest of the palay
growing on said land.
Later, however, Melecio de Vera, having given an obligation with sureties
to answer for the damages which Jose Bengzon might suffer, that
injunction was dissolved. But still Bengzon did not allow Melecio de Vera
and his workmen to enter upon said land.
Melecio de Vera accused Jose Bengzon and his tenants (Fulgencio Tandoc,
Jose Corpus and Alberto Campanero) of contempt.
On or about the 7th of January, 1917, Melecio de Vera was gathering
tobacco on said land assisted by his laborers, Lorenzo de Vera, Luis
Moyalde, Celestino Para-an and Fernando Ferrer.
They heard the sound of a horn. Towards the eastern side of the land,
they noticed that around 14 men were coming towards them who later on
attacked them.
When the aggressors saw Louis Moyalde and Fernando Ferrer fallen on
the ground covered with blood, Jose Corpus (one of the aggressors)
sounded the horn and his companions withdrew.
It was identified that Fulgencio Tandoc struck Luis Moyalde's head with a
bamboo stick, the latter falling to the ground and while in this position,
Luis de Vera, Jose Corpus and Bernardino Ruiz also gave him blows with
clubs and canes. On the evening of the same day Luis Moyalde died as a
BLOCK D 2019 1
 result of the blows received by him, the most serious of which was the
one dealt on his head by Fulgencio Tandoc. The information filed in this
cause has to do only with the death of Luis Moyalde. The accused
Domingo Galvez having died before the trial, the prosecution was
dismissed as to him.
Issue:
W/N the accused were guilty of death under tumultuous affray (Art. 251)? -NO
Holding:
The accused were not guilty under Art. 251 or death under tumultuous
affray.
The quarrel here was between two well-known groups of men. The party
formed by the deceased and his companions was the one attacked and
that formed by the appellants was the aggressor. There was no
confusion in the aggression as well as in the defense. The
appellants and their companions were united in their common
purpose to attack, as is shown by the circumstance that they have
rallied together under the signal of two sounds of the horn, in
order to commence said aggression and they withdrew from the field also
under the signal of one sound of the horn.
As is apparent, united they also put into execution this common purpose
by cooperating with each other in inflicting upon the deceased
the blows which caused his death. This unity of purpose determines
the aggressors' common responsibility for the consequences of the
aggression, for which reason the act cannot be considered as a
tumultuous affray for the responsible authors are known.
The act constitutes the crime of homicide.
The aggression was attended with the aggravating circumstance of abuse
of superior strength, which raises the penalty to be imposed upon the
accused to the maximum degree.
Ruling:
Accused were convicted of homicide.

BLOCK D 2019 2