Title
People vs. Malasugui
Case
G.R. No. 44335
Decision Date
Jul 30, 1936
A Chinese merchant, Tan Why, was fatally attacked in Cotabato in 1935. Kagui Malasugui, identified as the assailant, was convicted of robbery with homicide based on evidence, including stolen items and matching footprints. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, affirming the lawfulness of the search and sufficiency of evidence.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 171750)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Homicide of Tan Why
    • On March 5, 1935, at about 5:30 AM, Chinese merchant Tan Why was found on a path to Barrio Carcar, Cotabato, within Yu Enching Sero’s property, suffering a fatal cranial fracture inflicted by a head wound.
    • He was taken to Cotabato Hospital but died shortly thereafter.
  • Identification and Arrest of Kagui Malasugui
    • Witness Moro Alamada reported that Tan Why, before dying, named “Kagui” as his attacker. The appellant, known locally as Kagui Malasugui, was arrested around 8:00 AM by Lt. A. Jacaria of the Constabulary.
    • Upon request, the appellant voluntarily surrendered two pairs of bracelets (Exhibit A). A subsequent search (without protest) yielded a pocketbook (Exhibit B) containing P92 in bills (Exhibit C), Tan Why’s identification card, and a handwritten memorandum of amounts in Chinese (Exhibit D).
  • Circumstantial Evidence at the Crime Scene
    • A bloodstained club (Exhibit M) was recovered near Tan Why’s body.
    • Fresh footprints matching the appellant’s foot size were found under coconut tree leaves, suggesting an ambush position.
    • Kaw Tin of the Mindanao Rice Industrial Company testified that he had given Tan Why P150 the previous afternoon to purchase palay, in addition to P80 already in the pocketbook.
  • Appellant’s Account and Defense
    • Appellant alleged that Lt. Jacaria and Sgt. Urangut forcibly took Exhibits A–D, fabricated the identification card data, and inserted the memorandum.
    • No corroborating evidence supported these allegations; the government witnesses uniformly testified to lawful arrest, voluntary surrender of evidence, and absence of protest.

Issues:

  • Whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant the appellant 24 hours to prepare his defense.
  • Whether the trial court erred in denying the return of articles seized from the appellant in a warrantless search.
  • Whether the trial court erred in admitting Exhibits A, B, C, D, F, L, and L-1 into evidence.
  • Whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant’s motion to dismiss for lack of evidence.
  • Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant of robbery with homicide instead of acquitting him.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.