ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
August-1916 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 9366 August 1, 1916 - YAP TICO & CO. v. H. C. ANDERSON

    034 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. 10010 August 1, 1916 - CHU JAN v. LUCIO BERNAS

    034 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. 11371 August 1, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. CECILIA MEMORACION

    034 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. 11497 August 1, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LORENZO BLANZA

    034 Phil 639

  • G.R. No. 11597 August 1, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. DARIO PADILLA

    034 Phil 641

  • G.R. No. 11634 August 1, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. BARAMBANGAN

    034 Phil 645

  • G.R. No. 8452 August 2, 1916 - DEAN C.WORCESTER v. MARTIN OCAMPO

    034 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. 11389 August 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN SELLANO

    034 Phil 655

  • G.R. No. 11425 August 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. NGAN PING

    034 Phil 660

  • G.R. Nos. 10114 & 10137 August 3, 1916 - MELECIO MONTINOLA v. JOSE G. MONTALVO ET AL.

    034 Phil 662

  • G.R. No. 11050 August 7, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LIM SOON

    034 Phil 668

  • G.R. No. 11159 August 7, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL B. ASENSI

    034 Phil 671

  • G.R. No. 11420 August 7, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. WAN YANG

    034 Phil 679

  • G.R. No. 9957 August 8, 1916 - PERFECTO DE LA VEGA ET AL. v. TOMAS BALLILOS (or BALIELOS)

    034 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. 11477 August 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. TORIBIIO ANDAYA

    034 Phil 690

  • G.R. No. 11507 August 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SEVERO DE LOS REYES

    034 Phil 693

  • G.R. No. 11510 August 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. BAHATAN

    034 Phil 695

  • G.R. No. 10712 August 10, 1916 - ANSELMO FERRAZZINI v. CARLOS GSELL

    034 Phil 697

  • G.R. No. 11566 August 10, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO JOSE

    034 Phil 715

  • G.R. No. 11565 August 11, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO JOSE

    034 Phil 723

  • G.R. No. 11162 August 12, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. F. LULING

    034 Phil 725

  • G.R. No. 11530 August 12, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN PONS

    034 Phil 729

  • G.R. No. 10100 August 15, 1916 - GALO ABRENICA v. MANUEL GONDA

    034 Phil 739

  • G.R. No. 11165 August 15, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL B. ASENSI

    034 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. 11338 August 15, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. TAN OCO

    034 Phil 772

  • G.R. No. 11480 August 17, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ROBERTO PANGILION

    034 Phil 786

  • G.R. No. 10374 August 18, 1916 - PIO MERCADO v. MARIA TAN-LINGCO

    034 Phil 793

  • G.R. No. 10891 August 18, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. EUGENIO KILAYKO

    034 Phil 796

  • G.R. No. 11711 August 18, 1916 - MANUEL CEMBRANO CHAN GUANCO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 802

  • G.R. No. 10988 August 19, 1916 - ROQUE SAMSON v. BRAULIO GARCIA

    034 Phil 805

  • G.R. No. 11488 August 19, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LICERIO CASTEN

    034 Phil 808

  • G.R. No. 11653 August 19, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GENOVEVA AQUINO

    034 Phil 813

  • G.R. No. 12096 August 22, 1916 - EMILIO DE CASTRO v. FERNANDO SALAS

    034 Phil 818

  • G.R. No. 11401 August 23, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO CRISTOBAL ET AL.

    034 Phil 825

  • G.R. No. 11427 August 23, 1916 - VY LIONG LIN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 832

  • G.R. No. 11505 August 25, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SATAOA BUNGAOIL

    034 Phil 835

  • G.R. No. 11737 August 25, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO JOSE ET AL.

    034 Phil 840

  • G.R. No. 11739 August 25, 1916 - CESAR MERCADER v. ADOLPH WISLIZENUS

    034 Phil 846

  • G.R. No. 11986 August 25, 1916 - MANUEL ORIA Y GONZALEZ v. RICHARD CAMPBELL

    034 Phil 850

  • G.R. No. 11071 August 26, 1916 - S. CHASE DE KRAFFT v. APOLINAR VELEZ

    034 Phil 854

  • G.R. No. 10868 August 28, 1916 - LEOCADIO JOAQUIN v. O. MITSUMINE

    034 Phil 858

  • G.R. No. 11267 August 31, 1916 - SEE CHIAT SEE HUAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 865

  • G.R. No. 11562 August 31, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SIMON LAZARO

    034 Phil 871

  • G.R. No. 11772 August 31, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GAN LIAN PO

    034 Phil 880

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 11510  August 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. BAHATAN<br /><br />034 Phil 695

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 11510. August 8, 1916. ]

    THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BAHATAN and KAMIHAN, Defendants-Appellants.

    W. H. . Booram for Appellants.

    Attorney-General Avanceña for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. MURDER; AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES; UNINHABITED PLACE. — Where it appears that the crime was committed within 150 meters of an inhabited house and there is no evidence as to the nature of the ground between the place of the killing and the house referred to, the aggravating circumstance of despoblado has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt.

    2. ID.; ID.; PREMEDITATION. — In order to support a finding that the qualifying or aggravating circumstance of premeditation was present in the commission of a particular crime, the evidence must show that there were meditation and reflection by the accused resulting in a deliberate determination to commit the crime; and where it appears that the conception of the crime was close in a point of time to the execution thereof; and the evidence fails to show that he meditated and reflected on his purpose to commit the crime sufficiently to permit the formation of a deliberate determination, the element of premeditation has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt.

    3. ID.; ARTICLE 11, PENAL CODE. — Where it appears that the persons convicted of murder are Igorrotes; that they belonged to a pagan savage tribe, and were brought up in the belief that to kill under the circumstances disclosed by the record was justifiable; that they were ignorant of the laws and customs of civilized society and had little conception of responsibility under any law except that their tribe, it is error not to apply article 11 of the Penal Code, as a amended, in reduction of the penalty to be imposed.


    D E C I S I O N


    MORELAND, J. :


    This case comes to this court en consulta, that is, automatically, the accused having been condemned to die. They were charged with murder. The trial court found them guilty as charged with the aggravating circumstances of premeditation and despoblado and sentenced them to death.

    There is absolutely no doubts as to the guilt of the accused. They both pleaded guilty on arraignment and voluntarily went on the stand as witnesses and testified to the facts constituting the crime charged. They detailed fully and clearly the reasons why they killed Lajo and the manner in which they accomplished his death.

    An examination of the record convinces us that the evidence on which the trial court based its finding that the crime was committed in an uninhabited place, that is, en despoblado is not sufficient to sustain the finding. It appears that the crime was committed within 150 meters of a house owned and occupied by Bahatan and that fact, taken in connection with the lack of evidence as to the character of the land intervening between the place of the killing and the house in question, leaves a doubt in our mind as to the fact of despoblado.

    We are also unconvinced that there was premeditation in the commission of the crime charged. The statement of the accused demonstrates with fair clearness that the conception of the crime was substantially simultaneous with its execution. No such time, apparently, elapsed between the conception of the crime and the execution thereof as would justify us in finding that the purpose to commit the crime was persisted in to such an extent as to show premeditation. The fact that Bahatan killed Lajo for the purpose of avenging the death of his grandfather does not mean, necessarily, that the accused had reflected on his purpose to commit the crime and that, after such reflection, he had persisted in it to the extent necessary to show premeditation. On the contrary, it appears from the record that the idea of killing Lajo as revenge for his having killed Buhatan’s grandfather came from another Igorrote by suggestions and did not originate with Buhatan himself.

    We are of the opinion also that the court erred in not applying article 11 of the Penal Code. It appears that the appellants are Igorrotes, that they belong to a pagan savage tribe and have been brought up in the belief that to kill under the circumstances disclosed in this record is justifiable. They are ignorant of the law and customs of civilized society and have little conception of responsibility under any law except that of their tribe.

    We agree with the trial court that the crime is properly classified as murder, there being present the qualifying circumstance of alevosia. It clearly appears from the statement of the accused themselves of the manner in which they accomplished the death of Lajo.

    The sentence of the trial court is hereby modified and the accused are sentenced each to 17 years 14 months and one day of cadena temporal, to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of the deceased Lajo in the sum of P1,000, and to pay the costs of the trial; no costs on this appeal. So ordered.

    Torres, Johnson, Trent, and Araullo, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 11510  August 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. BAHATAN<br /><br />034 Phil 695


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED