Anything under the Sun
Assassination of the century (2)
1) Version of the State — “The prosecution, on the other hand, insists that the shooting was the result of a deliberate, willful and premeditated plan; that Gil went to the government building on the morning in question, not for the purpose of securing a license, but with intent to kill his enemy, the provincial governor, incited thereto by intense hatred and animosity, which had been engendered by bitter personal and political quarrels; that his pretense of securing a license was a mere pretext adopted for the purpose of securing admission to the office of the governor, while the latter was alone, that when he entered the office, the governor was seated, not at the desk as alleged by the accused, but at the end of a long table, where he was engaged in writing an official indorsement; that the accused crossed the room to a point about half way down the length of the table, where he stopped and immediately commenced firing at the governor, who being unarmed arose from his seat, and attempted to escape into the adjoining office, the accused pursuing him into a corridor connecting the two offices.”
2) Court analysis of the evidence -
a) “If the account of what occurred in the office of the deceased governor on the morning of the 27th of December 1907, as told by the accused when testifying in his own behalf, be accepted as true, this testimony, taken together with the other evidence of record not in conflict therewith, would leave no room for doubt of his guilt of the crime of unlawfully taking the life of Benito Lopez, deceased, the commission of the crime being marked with certain extenuating circumstances, but unmarked either by “treachery” (alevosia) or “deliberate premeditation” (premeditacion conocida) as charged in the information, and as the slayer was alone with his victim when the fatal shots were fired no eyewitness could be called to the stand to contradict the testimony of the accused as to what occurred in the office from the time he entered until the explosion of the pistol shots attracted the attention of the other occupants of the building. In our opinion, however, the ante-mortem statement of the deceased, taken together with the other evidence of record, conclusively establishes not only the falsity in all its essential details of the tragedy given by the accused, but also the fact that the crime was committed with treachery (alevosia) and deliberate premeditation (premeditacion conocida).
b) “As will be seen, the dying declaration of the wounded man flatly contradicts the testimony of the accused as to the alleged provocation and insult; the chief bulwark of the defense against the evidence of the prosecution tending to prove the existence of deliberate premeditation; and it flatly contradicts the statement of the accused, that he availed himself, — the chief bulwark of the defense against the evidence of the prosecution tending to prove that the accused committed the crime with “treachery” (alevosia), in that he opened fire on his unarmed and defenseless victim without giving him time or opportunity to offer resistance. But it must be admitted, as claimed by the counsel for the defense, that the account of what occurred, as given by the dying man, is so meager and incomplete that, in itself, and if it were not corroborated by other evidence of record, as will hereinafter appear, it would be by no means sufficient to sustain a finding of the falsity of the account given by the accused. (To be continued)