Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1917 > August 1917 Decisions > G.R. No. 12057 August 30, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. CLEMENTE GAMPOÑA, ET AL.

036 Phil 817:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 12057. August 30, 1917. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CLEMENTE GAMPOÑA, TOMAS MANGRUBANG and ROMAN GUILLERMO, Defendants-Appellants.

Irineo Javier for appellant Gampoña.

Alberto Reyes for the other appellants.

Solicitor-General Paredes for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRAFT AS AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE. — Four men who had determined to kill another desired to lure him to a remote and uninhabited place in order that the crime should be less easily discovered. To this end they invited him to go with them on a journey to a distant mountain on the pretense that they would there find a molave tree from which flowed a liquid called bulbulong, supposed to have a peculiar virtue. The victim accepted the invitation and was murdered upon this trip in a remote and uninhabited place. Held: That the aggravating circumstance of craft was present.

2. IGNORANCE AND LACK OF EDUCATION AS MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE. — In a case of murder perpetrated for a reward it was found that the aggravating circumstances were numerous and well marked, with no mitigating circumstance except ignorance and lack of education (Penal Code, art. 11). Held: That the sentence of death was properly imposed.


D E C I S I O N


STREET, J. :


It appears from the evidence in this case that on or about April 1, 1915, Leon Raneses was murdered in the municipality of Sinait, in the Province of Ilocos Sur, under the following circumstances: Clemente Gampoña, being moved by the desire to possess the wife and the property of Raneses, induced Valentin Yacas, Liberto Tumbaga, Tomas Mangrubang, and Roman Guillermo to kill him for a reward to be paid in money. In order to accomplish the work with the least possible danger of discovery, it was decided that the intended victim should be lured to a wild, remote, and uninhabited place in the mountains. To this end he was invited to go with these four men to a place called Pittao upon the pretense that they would there find a molave tree from which flowed bulbulong, a mysterious liquid supposed to have the virtue of making the man who possessed it irresistible to women. By prearrangement the party met late in the evening on the date mentioned above at a hut situated in a field of Tomas Mangrubang. To this place the deceased was brought by Limberto Tumbaga; and there these two found their three companions ready for the journey. The party proceeded on its way, but after they had climbed some distance up Mount Camiding they decided to stop for the night. When Raneses had fallen asleep the assassins, who had remained awake, arose and proceeded to their work. Valentin Yacas struck the deceased in the forehead with a hatchet — a blow which necessarily would have been fatal. Roman Guillermo then struck him in the right side and Tomas Mangrubang struck him in the left side with the sharp edge of the same instrument, inflicting other wounds of a serious nature. When the victim was dead the body was buried in the bed of a dry stream nearby, and the murderers returned to their homes. Within a short period they were paid the reward which had been promised by Clemente Gampoña, being P160 in money. This money was divided among the four.

The accused in this proceeding are Clemente Gampoña, Tomas Mangruban, and Roman Guillermo. Another of the four agents in this murder, Liberto Tumbaga, was joined in the complaint but asked for a severance and was not tried in this case.

The principal witness for the prosecution was Valentin Yacas, who admitted that he himself struck the first blow. Nevertheless as he made the fullest and most complete declaration of the circumstances of the tragedy, at the time of the preliminary examination, the prosecuting authorities decided to use him as their witness. To this end they procured a dismissal as to him before the justice of the peace; and his name does not appear in the complaint in the present action. This circumstance does not affect the admissibility of his testimony.

The testimony given by Valentin Yacas is consistent and in our opinion was not discredited by other testimony. On the contrary it is confirmed in material particulars by sundry admissions and confessions of each of the accused, made at or about the time of the preliminary examination. As a result of these confessions, and under the guidance of some of the actors in this tragedy, human bones were found at or near the place where the body of the deceased had been buried; and there can be no doubt that these formed part of the skeleton of the deceased.

In the light of the proof adduced in this case there appears no room to doubt the guilt of all of the defendants.

There were present in this case the aggravating circumstances of craft, alevosia, evident premeditation, and that the crime was committed in an uninhabited place. (Subsections 2, 7, 8, 15 of section 10.) The circumstance of nocturnity in this case is sufficiently estimated in the circumstance of alevosia and need not be considered. It is also evident that the aggravating circumstances of craft, evident premeditation, and the commission of the crime in an uninhabited place are involved to some extent with each other; and upon close analysis it would probably be found that the number of these aggravating circumstances could be reduced. For instance, it might be argued that evident premeditation is sufficiently estimated in craft and the commission of the crime for a reward. However, it is obvious that no benefit would result to these defendants as a result of such process, for the aggravating elements are so pronounced and numerous that it would be impossible under the circumstances of this case to reduce the penalty below the maximum prescribed for the crime of murder.

Ignorance and lack of education is conceded as a mitigating circumstance in favor of Tomas Mangrubang and Roman Guillermo, under article 11, as amended. But this circumstance also is not sufficient in our estimation to reduce the penalty below the maximum prescribed for the crime of murder. This also was the finding of the trial judge, who imposed upon the three defendants the penalty of death. In this we think there was no error.

For the reasons stated the judgment under review must be affirmed, with costs of this instance against the defendants. The penalty of death shall be executed at a time to be fixed by the trial court in all respects in accordance with law. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Johnson, Carson, Araullo and Malcolm, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






August-1917 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 12139 August 3, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. SALVADOR CABE

    036 Phil 728

  • G.R. No. 12769 August 3, 1917 - FLORENCIO YULO v. JOHN S. POWELL, ET AL.

    036 Phil 732

  • G.R. No. 12778 August 3, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. ONG SIU HONG

    036 Phil 735

  • G.R. No. 12439 August 4, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. SY TOON, ET AL.

    036 Phil 736

  • G.R. No. 12658 August 8, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. MAGDALENA GRIÑO

    036 Phil 738

  • G.R. No. 12492 August 9, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. ADRIANO GUINTO, ET AL.

    036 Phil 740

  • G.R. No. 12442 August 10, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. EUGENIO P. ESCALANTE

    036 Phil 743

  • G.R. No. 12581 August 10, 1917 - JOSE LINO LUNA v. EULOGIO RODRIGUEZ

    036 Phil 748

  • G.R. No. 12724 August 10, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. MARGARITA FELICIANO

    036 Phil 753

  • G.R. No. 12472 August 11, 1917 - DY SUN TIT v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    036 Phil 755

  • G.R. No. 12625 August 11, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. LEONCIO SANCHEZ

    036 Phil 756

  • G.R. No. 12693 August 11, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. CAMILOY, ET AL.

    036 Phil 757

  • G.R. No. 12823 August 11, 1917 - JOSE M. DIZON v. PERCY M. MOIR, ET AL.

    036 Phil 759

  • G.R. No. 12536 August 18, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. S. MIYAMOTO

    036 Phil 762

  • G.R. No. 12827 August 22, 1917 - ALIPIO BERMUDEZ v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

    036 Phil 774

  • G.R. No. 12321 August 23, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. SEE CHO

    036 Phil 779

  • G.R. No. 12400 August 25, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. WENCESLAO DACQUEL

    036 Phil 781

  • G.R. No. 12546 August 25, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. MARIANO SOLITO

    036 Phil 785

  • G.R. No. 12661 August 25, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. ZACARIAS TEGRADO

    036 Phil 789

  • G.R. No. 12743 August 25, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. DOMINGO REYES

    036 Phil 791

  • G.R. No. 12146 August 27, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO EUGENIO

    036 Phil 794

  • G.R. No. 12510 August 27, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. CESAREO DURBAN

    036 Phil 797

  • G.R. No. 12362 August 29, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO ABEJO

    036 Phil 800

  • G.R. No. 12599 August 29, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. LUIS ALVIAR

    036 Phil 804

  • G.R. No. 12722 August 29, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. CARLOS VILLA ABRILLE

    036 Phil 807

  • G.R. No. 7440 August 30, 1917 - ANTONIO FLOR MATA v. FAUSTINO LICHAUCO, ET AL.

    036 Phil 809

  • G.R. No. 10033 August 30, 1917 - CITY OF MANILA v. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA, ET AL.

    036 Phil 815

  • G.R. No. 12057 August 30, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. CLEMENTE GAMPOÑA, ET AL.

    036 Phil 817

  • G.R. No. 12597 August 30, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO MALONG

    036 Phil 821

  • G.R. No. 12666 August 30, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE DELGADO

    036 Phil 824