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
 

   
February-1950 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-2193 February 1, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO CANIBAS

    085 Phil 469

  • G.R. No. 1595 February 7, 1950 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ANTONIO CORASO

    085 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. L-2760 February 11, 1950 - SIMPLICIO DURAN ET AL. v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    085 Phil 476

  • G.R. No. L-1508 February 16, 1950 - FEDELITY AND SURETY CO. OF THE PHILS. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    085 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. L-1747 February 16, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANAUL KOMAYOG

    085 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. L-1896 February 16, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. . v. RAFAEL C. BALMORES

    085 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. L-1979 February 16, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MOROS UDAY, ET AL.

    085 Phil 498

  • G.R. No. 48090 February 16, 1950 - DOLORES PACHECO v. SANTIAGO ARRO, ET AL.

    085 Phil 505

  • G.R. Nos. L-2391 & L-2392 February 22, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO DIZON Y GUEVARRA ET AL.

    085 Phil 515

  • G.R. No. L-2320 February 22, 1950 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. GERARDO VILLANUEVA

    085 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-2406 February 22, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO NAPILI

    085 Phil 521

  • G.R. No. L-2707 February 22, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. YAKANS PAWIN, ET AL

    085 Phil 528

  • G.R. No. L-1778 February 23, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. . v. LEONORA TALLEDO, ET AL.

    085 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. L-975 February 27, 1950 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. MACARIO O. MACAYA

    085 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. L-2278 February 27, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRINEO BONDOC

    085 Phil 545

  • G.R. No. L-2348 February 27, 1950 - GREGORIO PERFECTO v. BIBIANO L. MEER

    085 Phil 552

  • G.R. No. L-2620 February 27, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PERFECTO CRUZ ET AL.

    085 Phil 577

  • G.R. No. L-2688 February 27, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRIMITIVO OSI

    085 Phil 592

  • G.R. No. L-2725 February 27, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO Y. SEBASTIAN, ET AL

    085 Phil 601

  • G.R. No. L-2730 February 27, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO AQUINO

    085 Phil 604

  • G.R. No. L-3592 February 27, 1950 - ANNE B. BACHRACH v. RAFAEL AMPARO, ET AL

    085 Phil 609

  • G.R. No. L-2043 February 28, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO Y. CARILLO, ET AL.

    085 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. L-2228 February 28, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRUCTUOSO RABANDABAN

    085 Phil 636

  • G.R. No. L-2621 February 28, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS GUANCO

    085 Phil 639

  • G.R. No. L-2622 February 28, 1950 - IRINEO FACUNDO v. VALENTIN R. LIM, ET AL.

    085 Phil 641

  • G.R. No. L-2857 February 28, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MORO ISNAIN

    085 Phil 648

  • G.R. No. L-2873 February 28, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO Y. GARCIA

    085 Phil 651

  • G.R. No. L-2929 February 28, 1950 - CITY OF MANILA v. ARELLANO LAW COLLEGES, INC.

    085 Phil 663

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-1747   February 16, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANAUL KOMAYOG<br /><br />085 Phil 489

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-1747. February 16, 1950.]

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MANAUL KOMAYOG, Defendant-Appellant.

    Ignacio Fernandez, for Appellant.

    First Assistant Solicitor General Roberto A. Gianzon and Solicitor Ramon L. Avanceña for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. CRIMINAL LAW; MURDER; EVIDENCE; SUFFICIENCY OF PROOFS AS TO IDENTITY OF THE ACCUSED. — The three principal government witnesses’ testimony is cogent and convincing in its details. The crime was committed in broad daylight and no question of mistaken identity or improper motive is involved. Neither of the two eye-witnesses for the government had any reason to pin the blame on the father of the herein appellant instead of on his son if the latter was really the author of the crime. Ignacio Fernandez, for Appellant.


    D E C I S I O N


    TUASON, J.:


    Manaul Komayog was prosecuted in the Court of First Instance of Lanao, charged with murder together with Mama Manaul, his son, who was acquitted. The court found against Manaul Komayog and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P2,000, and to pay one-half of the costs

    Kasan Bongcarawan was shot in the stomach as he was busy working on his farm, and died from the effects of the wound. The prosecution says Manaul Komayog killed the now deceased; the defense says Mama Manaul did

    Sambatara Malomalo, a school teacher, testifies that on June 22, 1946, as he was walking to the market in Alog he heard "a firing" ; he thinks he heard two shots. When he turned his head in the direction where the shots came from, he saw Manaul Komayog eject empty shells from his rifle, and flee with his companions, who were Mama Manaul, Pindugar Atoy, Malican Pagalad and another man whose name he could not remember. They ran towards barrio Calantai where there was a kota. When Kasan Bongcarawan was shot, Manaul Komayog was less than 200 meters from him (witness), and the distance between him and Kasan Bongcarawan was less than 200 meters. He hurried towards the injured man to help him and found a big wound on the right side of the stomach. When he reached the place where Kasan fell, two men, he thinks, were already there, Arimao Tugaso and Dimanang Dida-ogon.

    Arimao Tugaso testifies that between 7 and 8 o’clock in the morning he was on his farm planting rice. He saw Mama Manaul and Manaul Komayog walking along the river bank followed by three other persons. When they reached the creek, Komayog fired twice at Kasan Bongcarawan. He, witness, was about seven brazas from Manaul Komayog when the latter opened fire, while the distance separating him and Kasan was more than ten brazas. He did not see anybody else shoot. Mama Manaul, who was also carrying a firearm, was beside his father but the witness did not see Mama use his gun. After shooting Kasan Bongcarawan, Manaul Komayog shouted, "Let us run away. I hit," and Komayog and his companions sped away towards Calantai where there was a kota. Witness and three others carried Kasan to his house.

    Pitted against the preceding testimony is the following evidence for the defense:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Pendugar Ontong, mentioned by Malomalo as one of the men who was in the company of the defendants and who was discharged on motion of the prosecution in the Justice of the peace court, said that on the morning of June 22, 1946, he was in Kilausan, in the house of Vice-Mayor Mendir, where he lived. Asked what happened on that date, he answered, "The one who went to the scene said that Kasan was killed by Mama Manaul.

    Maulod Bongo, another of the men said to have been with the defendants, was put on the stand but was withdrawn when the fiscal admitted what the witness was going to say, namely, that the complaint against him had been dismissed by the justice of the peace on motion of the prosecuting officer.

    Macapangkat Pasaulan testifies that he knew Manaul Komayog; that on June 22, 1946, in the morning, he was in the market at Alog in company with Manaul Komayog, who, he said, had met him on the way and told him, Macapangkat, wait for me!" ; that at the market, he and Komayog bought "carabao" and tobacco; that when they were bargaining for carabao "a certain fellow arrived and shouted that Mama Manaul, son of Manaul Komayog, killed somebody" ; that upon hearing the news, he and Manaul Komayog, upon his suggestion, went home and "saw a group of people near our home. So, we thought that perhaps it was true that Mama had killed someone."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Anter Anderike testifies that he was a tobacco dealer; that on Saturday, June 22, 1946, in the market at Alog, he sold tobacco to Komayog and Macapangkat and heard people say that Mama had shot Kasan.

    Mama Manaul, 14 years old, testifies that he killed Kasan Bongcarawan with a revolver because Bongcarawan approached him when he was working on the land of his father telling him, "You get out, boy, from our land. Don’t work there" ; that Bongcarawan also said, "Are you not going to vacate our land, or I will kill you?" ; that he did not heed Bongcarawan’s threat and the deceased fired at him with a revolver; that he was not hit and he drew his own revolver and returned the fire; that he did not know where he hit Pongcarawan because he ran away after firing at the deceased; that when he ran he threw the revolver away because he was afraid; that Manaul Komayog was not with him, having gone to the market at Alog.

    Manaul Komayog testifies that Mama Manaul shot and killed Kasan Bongcarawan; that he was in the market at Alog when that incident happened, having heard of it only in the market.

    We are satisfied beyond doubt that Manaul Komayog was the killer. The three principal government witnesses’ testimony is Gogent and convincing in its details. The crime was committed in broad daylight and no question of mistaken identity or improper motive is involved. Neither of the two eye-witnesses for the government had any reason to pin the blame on the father instead of on his son if the latter was really the author of the crime.

    The cause of the trouble was the fact that Kasan was tilling the land Komayog claimed to be his property. Barely 13 years old and single handed, Mama Manaul would not likely have challenged or defied the deceased. It is admitted that the latter was peacefully working on his farm and did not seek the fight. Furthermore, no firearm appears to have been found on Kasan’s person or near him after he was shot, and no question was asked the prosecution witnesses by the defense counsel about such matter. The reason why Mama Manaul assumed full responsibility to the exclusion of his father is easy to imagine. Being below 14 when the crime was committed, he could claim exemption from criminal liability if pronounced to have acted without discernment. The alternative was confinement in a reformatory school. This, Mama Manaul admitted in court, he understood.

    The judgment of the lower court is affirmed with costs Of this instance.

    Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Paras, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes and Torres, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. L-1747   February 16, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANAUL KOMAYOG<br /><br />085 Phil 489


    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