SECOND
DIVISION
THE
UNITED STATES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.
R.
No. 11314
July
28,
1916
-versus-
THE MOROS
LUKES
[ALIAS PAKIRA DATU],
MANIGCAN,
SANDO
AND AMANI BULU,
Defendants-Appellants.
D
E C I S I
O N
JOHNSON,
J:
It appears from the record
that on the 31st of May 1915, a Complaint was presented in the Court of
the Justice of the Peace of the Municipal District of the Province of
Cotabato,
accusing said defendants of the crime of homicide. A preliminary
examination
was held by said Justice of the Peace on the 1st of June, 1915. After
said
hearing, the Justice of the Peace found that there was reasonable
ground
for believing that the said four defendants were probably guilty of the
crime charged in the complaint, and ordered them held for trial in the
Court of First Instance.
On the 1st of September
1915, the Assistant Prosecuting Attorney for the Province of Cotabato
presented
a Complaint in the Court of First Instance, charging said defendants
with
the crime of homicide. The Complaint alleged:
"That on or about the
31st of May, 1915, in the sitio of Bakung, Municipal District of
Nuling,
Province of Cotabato, Department of Mindanao and Sulu, P. I., the said
accused, armed with various kinds of cutting weapons called krises,
bolos,
and kampilanes, willfully, intentionally, illegally, and feloniously
struck
therewith one Mainding, inflicting upon him serious wounds in various
parts
of his body, to wit; on the shoulder, near the left breast, which
affected
the heart, on the head and on the rump, in consequence of which
injuries
said Mainding died on the spot. Act committed in violation of law."
The defendants were duly
arraigned upon said Complaint, each pleaded not guilty, and the cause
proceeded
to trial. After hearing the evidence, the Honorable George N. Hurd,
Judge,
found that each of the defendants was guilty of the crime of homicide
as
described in the Complaint and sentenced the said Lukes, alias Pakira
Datu, to be imprisoned for a period of 10 years of prision mayor;
the defendants Manigan and Sando each to be imprisoned for a period of
4 years of prision correccional, and Amani Bulu to be
imprisoned
for a period of 6 years of prision correccional. The said
defendants
were further sentenced to indemnify the heirs of the deceased,
Mainding,
in the sum of P1,000 and the defendants, Amani Bulu, Manigcan, and
Sando,
in case of insolvency, to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in accordance
with the provisions of the law, together with the accessory penalties
mentioned
in Article 61 of the Penal Code and each to pay one-third part of the
costs.
From that sentence, each of the defendants appealed to this Court. In
this
Court, an attorney de officio was appointed to represent them.
The attorney for the
appellants in this Court, after a careful examination of the record,
reached
the conclusion that there was nothing in the same upon which he could
base
a plea for a modification of the sentence imposed in the trial court,
in
favor of the defendants.
That Moro Mainding
mentioned in the Complaint was killed by the defendants is not only
fully
proved by the record, but is admitted by them. The defendants not only
admit that they killed the said Mainding, but each of them, in a more
or
less degree, describes the manner in which he was killed and the method
employed by them for that purpose. There is an effort on the part of
the
defendants to show that they killed the said Mainding in self defense;
that they had been attacked by the said Mainding and that in their
effort
to repulse the attack they killed him. The record shows that a quarrel
arose between the said Mainding and the defendants over a certain farm
implement called a ligis. It appears from that record that the
said
ligis was in the possession of Mainding; that the defendants attempted
to take possession of it; that Mainding objected; that a fight ensued;
that all of the defendants joined together in attacking Mainding, each
one of them inflicting one or more wounds upon him as a result of which
Mainding died immediately. While the most serious blow seems to have
been
inflicted by the Moro Lukes, alias Pakira Datu, the record
shows
that each of the defendants took a direct part in the commission of the
crime charged, and that they were, so far as the record shows, equally
guilty of the intent to commit the crime which they actually did
commit.
While there may have been some quarrel between the defendants and the
deceased
concerning the possession of the said ligis, the record discloses no
sufficient
reason for the commission of the crime which the defendants committed.
If the defendants were entitled to the possession of the said
implement,
the law into their own hands. One of the purposes for which governments
are organized is to settle differences between its people, such as
existed
in the present case. When differences exist, such as the defendants
allege
existed in the present case, they should quietly and peaceably refer
the
same to the authorities constituted for the purpose of settling such
question.
By referring such question to the constituted authorities, public order
is maintained and crimes such as the present are avoided.
The sentence of the
lower court contains no reason for imposing the penalties which were
imposed.
Neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances are mentioned as a
cause
or reason for imposing different sentences upon the defendants. We have
examined the record and there is no reason to find any mitigating
circumstance
or circumstances justifying the conclusions of the lower court with
reference
to the sentences imposed. Evidently, the penalty was imposed in the
minimum
degree by virtue of the provisions of Article 11 of the Penal Code as
amended
by Act No. 2142.
The penalty provided
for the crime of homicide is reclusion temporal. Taking into
consideration
the fact that there were neither aggravating nor mitigating
circumstances,
the ignorance of the defendants, and the provisions of Article 11, as
amended,
We are of the opinion that the defendants should be sentenced in the
minimum
degree of reclusion temporal. Therefore, the sentence of the
lower
court is hereby modified and it is hereby ordered and decreed that a
judgment
be entered in which each of the defendants shall be sentenced to be
imprisoned
for a period of twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal
with
the accessory penalties of Article 59 of the Penal Code, and each to
pay
one-fourth part of the costs. So ordered.
Torres, Moreland,
Trent,
and Araullo, JJ. concur. |