Case Digest (G.R. No. 147863)
Facts:
This case involves the People of the Philippine Islands as plaintiff and appellants Dayug and Bannaisan, both belonging to the Igorrote Kalingas tribe, as defendants. The case was decided by the Supreme Court on September 30, 1926. The case originated from the Court of First Instance of the Mountain Province, which found the defendants guilty of double murder. The defendants had received a life imprisonment sentence, qualified by evident premeditation, and aggravated by the treachery surrounding the crime, which was committed in an uninhabited area. The relatives of the deceased were allegedly murdered by previous culprits, Abauag and Gumpad, to whom the defendants were related. An act of revenge against two individuals, Daupan and Panabang, took place on January 5, 1926, following the suggestion of an Igorrote woman named Banayan.
On that day, Dayug and Bannaisan had waited in ambush after seeing their victims pass by. The attack was premeditated as they had traveled ahead wit
Case Digest (G.R. No. 147863)
Facts:
- Background and Motive
- The accused, Igorrotes Kalingas Dayug and Bannaisan, are relatives of Suguian, whose family was previously slain by Abauag and Gumpad.
- Their motive stemmed from a desire to avenge the death of a relative’s family, which they could not address earlier due to the imprisonment of Abauag and Gumpad.
- They acted in conformity with their tribal customs and the urge for revenge fostered by their indigenous traditions.
- Planning and Preparation
- Upon learning that relatives of the victims, namely Kalinga Daupan and Kalinga Panabang, were traveling toward the barrio of Laya, the accused received timely information from an Igorrote woman, Banayan.
- They coordinated to intercept the travelers by setting out ahead on the same route, demonstrating a concert of mind and unity of purpose.
- They strategically waited in ambush at the barrio of Pakik to maximize the element of surprise.
- Commission of the Double Murder
- On January 5, 1926, at about noon:
- The accused trailed the victims from a distance of approximately 80 yards, ensuring they were not seen.
- At a point known as Belen, they overtook the victims.
- The attack sequence was as follows:
- Dayug attacked Panabang:
- Initially wounded Panabang on the right shoulder, then inflicted a wound on his back.
- In a subsequent encounter, after Panabang attempted to flee, Dayug pursued him; upon catching up, he delivered a third blow—a stab to the abdomen.
- As Panabang once again attempted to escape, Dayug struck his right leg above the knee and then stabbed him in the buttock, resulting in Panabang’s instant death.
- Bannaisan attacked Daupan:
- Inflicted multiple wounds, including a stab wound to the abdomen.
- Additional wounds were inflicted on her right lumbar region, left cheek, and right buttock.
- The aftermath of the murders:
- After Panabang’s death, Dayug inspected his belongings and retrieved P18 (consisting of 10 silver pesos, 4 one-peso bills, and 2 two-peso bills) along with five silver rings wrapped in a handkerchief.
- The spoils were divided between the accused, with Bannaisan taking the P10 in silver and three rings, and Dayug claiming the remainder.
- Confession and Evidence
- The facts of the murder, including the details of the ambush, the attack, the recovery and division of the stolen items, were freely and voluntarily confessed by the accused.
- The evidence demonstrated premeditation as they had arranged to ambush the victims by initiating their pursuit well in advance.
- Consideration of Circumstances
- Qualifying Circumstances:
- Evident premeditation was established by the ambush.
- The crime occurred in an uninhabited place, contributing as an aggravating factor.
- In the case of Bannaisan, the disregard of sex (the victim was a woman) was also emphasized.
- Extenuating Circumstance:
- The special extenuating circumstance provided in Article 11 of the Penal Code was considered, acknowledging that among the non-Christian tribes the retaliatory killing of a relative is deeply embedded in their customs.
Issues:
- Whether the accused, Dayug and Bannaisan, could be held liable for the crime of double murder committed with evident premeditation.
- Determination of the applicability of joint participation in the criminal act.
- Assessment of the voluntary confession and coordinated action among the accused.
- Whether the qualifying and aggravating circumstances, specifically:
- The crime being committed in an uninhabited place.
- The presence (or absence) of treachery and cruelty.
- The disregard of sex in the case of Bannaisan,
- How the special extenuating circumstance mandated by Article 11 of the Penal Code (as amended by Act No. 2142) impacts the imposition of the penalty, considering the tribal customs and traditions of the non-Christian tribes.
- The proper computation and imposition of penalties under:
- Article 88 regarding multiple simultaneous penalties for separate crimes.
- Article 89, ensuring that the cumulative penalty does not exceed the prescribed maximum (i.e., 40 years for cadena perpetua).
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)