(CD) US Vs Manalinde - G.R. No. 5292 - AZapanta

THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF, VS. THE MORO MANALINDE, DEFENDANT.
G.R. No. 5292

August 28, 1909
TORRES, J.:
FACTS
Between 2 and 3 o'clock on the afternoon of the 19th of January, 1909, while Juan Igual, a
Spaniard, was seated on a chair in the doorway of Sousa's store in Cotabato, Moro Province, he
suddenly received a wound on the head delivered from behind and inflicted with a kris. Ricardo
Doroteo, a clerk in the said store, who was standing behind the counter, upon hearing the noise
and the cry of the wounded man, ran to his assistance and found him lying on the ground.
Meanwhile the aggressor, the Moro Manalinde, approached a Chinaman named Choa, who was
passing along the street, and just as the latter was putting down his load in front of the door of a
store and was about to enter, attacked him with the same weapon, inflicting a severe wound in
the left shoulder, on account of which he fell to the ground. The Moro, who came from the
rancheria of Dupit and had entered the town carrying his weapon wrapped up in banana leaves,
in the meantime escaped by running away from the town. Both wounded men, the Chinaman
and the Spaniard, were taken to the hospital, where the former died within an hour, the record not
stating the result of the wound inflicted on the Spaniard Juan Igual.
In view of the above a complaint was filed by the provincial fiscal with the district court
charging Manalinde with the crime of murder, and proceedings having been instituted, the trial
judge, in view of the evidence adduced, rendered judgment on the 5th of February of said year,
sentencing the accused to the penalty of death, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum
of Pl,000, and to pay the costs. The case has been submitted to this court for review.
ISSUE
Whether or not evident premeditation can be appreciated? (YES)
RULING
In the commission of the crime of murder the presence of aggravating circumstances 3 and 7 of
article 10 of the Penal Code should be taken into consideration in that promise of reward and
premeditation are present, which in the present case are held to be generic, since the crime" has
already been qualified as committed with treachery, because the accused confessed that he
voluntarily obeyed the order given him by Datto Mupuck to go juramentado and kill some one in
the town of Cotabato, with the promise that if he escaped punishment he would be rewarded with
a pretty woman. Upon complying with the order the accused undoubtedly acted of his own
volition and with the knowledge that he would inflict irreparable injury on some of his fellow-
beings, depriving them of life without any reason whatever, well knowing that he was about to
commit a most serious deed which the laws in force in this country and the constituted
authorities could by no means permit. Datto Mupuck, who ordered and induced him to commit
the crimes, as well as the accused knew perfectly well that he might be caught and punished in
the act of committing them.
As to the other circumstance it is also unquestionable that the accused, upon accepting the order
and undertaking the journey in order to comply therewith, deliberately considered and carefully
and thoughtfully meditated over the nature and the consequences of the acts which, under orders
received from the said datto, he was about to carry out, and to that end provided himself with a
weapon, concealing it by wrapping it up, and started on a journey of a day and a night for the
sole purpose of taking the life of two unfortunate persons whom he did not know, and with
whom he had never had any trouble,; nor did there exist any reason which, to a certain extent,
might warrant his perverse deed. The fact that the arrangement between the instigator and the
tool considered the killing of unknown persons, the first encountered, does not bar the
consideration of the circumstance of premeditation. The nature and the circumstances which
characterize the crime, the perversity of the culprit, and the material and moral injury are the
same, and the fact that the victim was not predetermined does not affect nor alter the nature of
the crime. The person having been deprived of his life by deeds executed with deliberate intent,
the crime is considered a premeditated one as the firm and persistent intention of the accused
from the moment, before said death, when he received the order until the crime was committed is
manifestly evident. Even though in a crime committed upon offer of money, reward or promise,
premeditation is sometimes present, the latter not being inherent in the former, and there existing
no incompatibility between the two, premeditation can not necessarily be considered as included
merely because an offer of money, reward or promise was made, for the latter might have existed
without the former, the one being independent of the other. In the present case there can be no
doubt that after the crime was agreed upon by means of a promise of reward, the criminal by his
subsequent conduct showed a persistency and firm intent in his plan to carry out the crime which
he intentionally agreed to execute, it being immaterial whether Datto Mupuck did or did not
conceive the crime, once Manalinde obeyed the inducement and voluntarily executed it.

(CD) US Vs Manalinde - G.R. No. 5292 - AZapanta

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(CD) US Vs Manalinde - G.R. No. 5292 - AZapanta

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(CD) US Vs Manalinde - G.R. No. 5292 - AZapanta

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF, VS. THE MORO MANALINDE, DEFENDANT.

G.R. No. 5292

You might also like