Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1912 > March 1912 Decisions > G.R. No. 6859 March 30, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. NICOLAS MATINONG, ET AL.

022 Phil 439:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 6859. March 30, 1912. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NICOLAS MATINONG ET AL., Defendants. NICOLAS MATINONG, Appellant.

Jose Varela y Calderon, for Appellant.

Attorney-General Villamor, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. ROBBERY "EN CUADRILLA;" PRINCIPALS IN CRIME. — A person who induces others to form a band for the commission of crime, accompanies the band to the place of the intended assault, and remains outside on watch, is responsible as principal for any crime committed by the band upon such occasion.


D E C I S I O N


MAPA, J. :


The information in the present cause was as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The undersigned, amending the previous complaint, charges Nicolas Matinong, Francisca Magsipoc, present, and Cornelio Jinaya, Justo Jinaya, Ysaias Martinez, Cirilo N, Fausto N and Basilio N, absent, with the crime of robo en cuadrilla with homicide, committed as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"On or about the night of April 15, 1910, in the barrio of Caticlan, within the municipality of Bumanga of this Province of Capiz, P. I., the accused, having formed a band of more than three malefactors, provided with talibones, did, unlawfully, willfully and criminally, assault the house of Francisco Tolosa and, after having seized, violently and with intent of gain, money and other effects belonging to Francisco Tolosa and his family, which amounted in value to P908.35, did treacherously kill the said Tolosa; in violation of law."cralaw virtua1aw library

The case having been prosecuted against Nicolas Matinong and Francisca Magsipoc only, for the reason that the other accused had not been apprehended, the court acquitted the latter and sentenced the former, Nicolas Matinong, to the penalty of life imprisonment, with the accessories of the law, to, indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P1,000, and to pay an additional sum of P908.36, as an indemnity for the effects robbed, and one-half of the costs of the trial.

The case has come before this court through an appeal by Nicolas Matinong from the foregoing judgment.

The evidence fully demonstrates the appellant’s guilt. As the Attorney-General says in his brief, it has been satisfactorily proven that it was the said appellant who proposed to his companions the assault upon the house of Francisco Tolosa; that, armed with a talibon, he accompanied them during the assault; that, while the assault was being made, he stood watch at the foot of the stairs of the said house so that his companions would not be caught, and that, finally, he accompanied them to the place where the deceased was killed. These facts evidently render him responsible as a principal by direct participation in the crime with which he is charged in the information.

There is to be considered, in the commission of the crime, the attendance of the aggravating circumstance of treachery embracing that of the criminal act having been perpetrated at night in an uninhabited place (as was the place where the deceased was killed) and by a band, as an integral part of the plan formed by the accused for the commission of the crime with security to themselves and without risk.

The Attorney-General suggests that the aggravating circumstance of premeditation should also be taken into account. It is unquestionable that there was premeditation with respect to the robbery, but, as it is inherent in this latter crime, it should not be considered as an aggravating circumstance. There is not sufficient proof that the death of the deceased was premeditated by the accused. It may very well have happened that the resolution to kill Francisco Tolosa arose in the minds of the accused at the last minute as a result of some unforeseen incident which may have occurred during the course of events. We may cite, as an example, the occurrence related in the following words by Luis Dagono, a witness for the prosecution:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"When they (the malefactors) arrived, that man who was holding me asked Asis (the deceased) the question: ’Do you know me?’ Asis answered: ’Yes.’ When Asis answered that he knew him, that man, this party Cornelio, unsheathed his talibon and gave Asis a cut with it on the head."cralaw virtua1aw library

This appears to indicate that the malefactors commenced to wound the deceased as soon as the latter showed that he knew some of them, and that, had not this incident occurred, possibly they might not have taken his life. Be this as it may, the fact remains that, aside from the fact itself of the death of the deceased, there is no conclusive proof in the record that the accused premeditated the taking of their victim’s life, in the legal and technical sense of the word premeditation as a term of law.

After due examination of all the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the trial judge was right in giving the appellant the benefit of the extenuating circumstance of article 11 of the Penal Code, and which must be set off against the aggravating circumstance of alevosia found in this decision to have existed. It is, therefore, proper to impose upon the said appellant the penalty of cadena perpetua, which was done in the judgment appealed from.

The said judgment is affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the Appellant.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, Carson, and Trent, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





March-1912 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 6783 March 1, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. LUIS REOGILON, ET AL

    022 Phil 127

  • G.R. No. 6183 March 2, 1912 - JUAN SAMBRANO v. BALDOMERO AR ZAGA, ET AL

    022 Phil 131

  • G.R. No. 5902 March 7, 1912 - P. P. ANGEL ORTIZ, ET AL v. Chinaman FELIX MELLIZA

    022 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. 6472 March 7, 1912 - MANUELA ROSARIO, ET AL. v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY

    022 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. 6092 March 8, 1912 - TAN CHIONG SIAN v. INCHAUSTI & Co.

    022 Phil 152

  • G.R. No. 6874 March 8, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. CAYETANO RAMAYRAT

    022 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. 6891 March 8, 1912 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL, ET AL.

    022 Phil 192

  • G.R. No. 7350 March 8, 1912 - EUGENIA SAVILLA v. ESTEBAN SABELLANO, ET AL.

    022 Phil 197

  • G.R. No. 5735 March 9, 1912 - ESTATE OF LUIS R. YANGCO v. ANTONINO DE ASIS

    022 Phil 201

  • G.R. No. 7189 March 9, 1912 - ADOLFO RAZLAG v. SANCHO BALANTACBO

    022 Phil 205

  • G.R. No. 6163 March 14, 1912 - SON CUI, ET AL v. ATANASIA M. GUEPANGCO, ET AL

    022 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. 6801 March 14, 1912 - JULIANA BAGTAS v. ISIDORO PAGUIO, ET AL.

    022 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 6962 March 14, 1912 - INES FELICIANO v. ELISA CAMAHORT

    022 Phil 235

  • G.R. No. 7117 March 14, 1912 - AGUSTINA RAFOLS v. EMILIA RAFOLS, ET AL.

    022 Phil 237

  • G.R. No. 6622 March 15, 1912 - PAULA DIRILO v. INOCENCIO ROPERES, ET AL.

    022 Phil 246

  • G.R. No. 7020 March 15, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. DAMIAN SANTA ANA, ET AL

    022 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. 7037 March 15, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE LAUREL, ET AL.

    022 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 6748 March 16, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. AMBROSIO FIGUEROA

    022 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. 6574 March 19, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. AGUSTIN CLEMENTE

    022 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 7027 March 20, 1912 - GEORGE E. WORCESTER v. BUCKNALL STEAMSHIP LINES

    022 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. 5935 March 22, 1912 - STRACHAN & MACMURRAY v. SEGUNDO EMALDI

    022 Phil 295

  • G.R. No. 6585 March 22, 1912 - EULALIO LAGARIZA v. COMMANDING GEN. OF THE DIV. OF THE PHIL.

    022 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. 6809 March 22, 1912 - GREGORIO PEÑALOSA v. DEMETRIO TUASON, ET AL.

    022 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. 7040 March 22, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. MAXIMINO GONZALEZ, ET AL.

    022 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 7203 March 22, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. CHUA PUETE, ET AL

    022 Phil 327

  • G.R. No. 7294 March 22, 1912 - G. URRUTIA & COMPANY v. PASIG STEAMER & LIGHTER CO.

    022 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. 7144 March 23, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. Co CHICUYCO

    022 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 6918 March 25, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. YAP KIN CO

    022 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. 7075 March 25, 1912 - RODRIGO ALBANO v. CORNELIO AGTARAP, ET AL.

    022 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. 7124 March 25, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. MARIA ASUNCION

    022 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. 7474 March 25, 1912 - HENRY ATHOLL EDWARDS v. H. B. McCOY

    022 Phil 598

  • G.R. No. 6286 March 26, 1912 - GAVINA FERNANDEZ v. EULOGIO TRIA

    022 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. 6579 March 26, 1912 - CHIENG AH SUI v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    022 Phil 361

  • G.R. No. 6694 March 26, 1912 - MARIANO NARCIDA, ET AL v. BURTON E. BOWEN

    022 Phil 365

  • G.R. No. 6729 March 26, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. GUILLERMO FIDELDIA

    022 Phil 372

  • G.R. No. 7165 March 26, 1912 - DAMASA LAFORGA, ET AL. v. BRUNO LAFORGA

    022 Phil 374

  • G.R. No. 6651 March 28, 1912 - PAULINO JACINTO v. JULIANA SALVADOR, ET AL.

    022 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 6733 March 28, 1912 - VICTORIANO S. LAZO v. MARIANO N. LAZO, ET AL.

    022 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. 6920 March 28, 1912 - ALEJANDRA IRLANDA v. CATALINA PITARGUE, ET AL.

    022 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. 7289 March 28, 1912 - ANDRES S. TOBIAS, ET AL. v. GABRIEL C. ENRICO, ET AL.

    022 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. 6164 March 29, 1912 - JUAN MARBELLA v. DOMINGO SAMSON, ET AL.

    022 Phil 400

  • G.R. No. 6664 March 29, 1912 - PEDRO GERALDO v. MATEO ARPON

    022 Phil 407

  • G.R. No. 6690 March 29, 1912 - SILVESTRA V. TENORIO v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY

    022 Phil 411

  • G.R. No. 6886 March 29, 1912 - GAUDENCIO TABOTABO v. GREGORIA MOLERO

    022 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. 6958 March 29, 1912 - GABRIELA SANTOS v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    022 Phil 424

  • G.R. No. 7089 March 29, 1912 - JOSE T. PATERNO v. PEDRO AGUILA, ET AL

    022 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. 7094 March 29, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. HILARIO DE LA CRUZ

    022 Phil 429

  • G.R. No. 7688 March 29, 1912 - MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD & LIGHT CO. v. SIMPLICIO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL

    022 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. 6859 March 30, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. NICOLAS MATINONG, ET AL.

    022 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. 6912 March 30, 1912 - JOSE ARGUELLES v. PEDRO SYYAP, ET AL

    022 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. 7386 March 30, 1912 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. PEDRO P. ROXAS

    022 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. 7180 March 30, 1912 - RAFAEL ENRIQUEZ, ET AL. v. A. S. WATSON & CO. LTD.

    022 Phil 623