Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

131 People V Kiichi Omine

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1

PEOPLE v.

KIICHI OMINE
61 Phil 609 (1935)

FACTS:

Defendants Eduardo Autor, Luis Ladion and Agapito Cortesano were working
under co-defendant Kiichi Omine, the overseer or manager of the hemp
plantation owned by Angel Pulido. The 4 defendants lived together in a house
on the plantation. Kiichi Omine asked Angel Pulido for permission to open a
new road through the plantation. According to Omine, Pulido did give his
permission so he began working on the new road. But according to Pulido, he
refused to grant this request because there was already an unfinished road.
As Pulido and his son along with 2 others were returning home from a cockpit,
they noticed that a considerable number of hemp plants destroyed by the
construction of the new road. There is a sharp conflict in the evidence as to
what followed. The witnesses for the prosecution contend that while the
offended party was talking with Omine, Eduardo Autor attempted to intervene,
but was prevented by Hilario Pulido; that Eduardo Autor attacked Hilario Pulido
with a bolo, but did not wound him except on the left thumb; that Luis Ladion
and Agapito Cortesano then held Angel Pulido by the arms, and when Eduardo
Autor approached, Omine shouted to him "pegale y matale", and Autor struck
Angel Pulido in the breast with his bolo.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Kiichi Omine is a principal by induction

HELD:

No. Although it is alleged that Kiichi Omine uttered words of inducement to


Eduardo Autor, it would be insufficient to make him a principal by induction.
Eduardo Autor, though working under the direction of Omine was still being
paid by Pulido. Moreover, it is necessary that inducement be made directly w/
the intention of procuring the commission of the crime and that such
inducement be the determining cause of the commission of the crime. It must
precede the act induced and must be so influential in producing the criminal
act that without it the act wouldn‘t have been performed. Moreover, as words of
direct inducement, it is essential that such advice or words have great
dominance and great influence over the person who acts, that they be as direct,
as efficacious, as powerful as physical or moral coercion or as violence itself.
on Angel Pulido.

You might also like