SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

G.R. No. L-13251 October 8, 1918
UNITED STATES vs. BUTAG, ET AL. -->

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-13251 October 8, 1918

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BUTAG, EREC, CUSIDON, DUMAUA, BANGAYAN, GURENGAD, GALADI, LEGUE, BEGUING, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

Roberto Moreno for appellants.
Attorney-General Paredes for appellee.

MALCOLM, J.:

A considerable band of Kalingas, out of a head-hunting expedition, set upon and decapitated two women, a man, and a boy. Eighteen persons in all were charged with the crime. Action was suppressed, on motion of the defense during the course of trial, as to seven of the defendants. Three others were acquitted. The remaining eight, named Erec, Cusidon, Dumaua, Bangayan, Gurengad, Galadi, Legue, and Beguing, were found guilty of the crime of murder, and each was sentenced to life imprisonment with accessory penalties of the Penal Code, and to pay one-eighteen part of the costs, while all were jointly and severally made liable to the heirs of the four deceased in the amount of P4,000.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The assignments of error relate in different form to the sufficiency of the evidence. We find on review that the guilt of the defendants is proved beyond a reasonable doubt by their own voluntary confessions and admissions, corroborated by other competent witnesses. The crime is murder because committed by the defendants with evident premeditation. In order that evident premeditation the killing of a particular individual. (U.S. vs. Manalinde [1909], 14 Phil., 77; U.S. vs. Rodriguez [1911], 19 Phil., 150). There also concur the aggravating circumstances that the crime was committed by a band of more than three armed men, and in disregard of the age and sex of the deceased, one being a boy of twelve years of age, and two, women. The trial court found present mitigating circumstances provided by article 11 of the Penal Code, as superseded by Act No. 2142. The penalty imposed by the trial court is accordingly correct.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Judgment is affirmed with one-eighth part of the costs of this instance against each appellant. So ordered.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Torres, Johnson, Street, Avanceña and Fisher, JJ., concur.