Case Digest (G.R. No. L-2681)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Dario Margen et al., G.R. No. L-2681. March 30, 1950, the Supreme Court En Banc, Reyes, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff-appellee was the People of the Philippines; the defendants included Dario Margen, Julian Tarrayo, Domingo Ramos, and Andres Midoranda — the latter being the defendant-appellant in this appeal.Sometime before March 11, 1944, the deceased Diego Testor was sent by one Ponting to a constabulary detachment in barrio Trinidad, Calbayog, Samar, commanded by Sergeant Dario Margen. Testor traded fish for camote; when summoned by Sgt. Margen to explain the transaction, Testor brought a different kind of fish (kalapion). According to eyewitnesses, Margen struck Testor, threw fish in his face, bound his hands, and ordered him beaten. Three soldiers — Julian Tarrayo, Domingo Ramos, and Andres Midoranda — participated: they struck Testor, forced him to eat two raw kalapions (with Tarrayo shoving the fish into his mouth and Midoranda holding the rope binding Testor), and otherwise maltreated him.
Testor was taken to Calbayog; despite medical attention he died on March 12, 1944. The autopsy showed contusions and an internal hemorrhage caused by perforation of the intestines by stiff fish bones. Margen, Tarrayo, and Midoranda were charged with murder, but only Midoranda was tried because the other two escaped. The Court of First Instance of Samar convicted Midoranda of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment with perpetual absolute disqualification, ordered indemnity of P2,000 to the heirs, and awarded costs. Midoranda appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court.
At trial and on appeal, appellant contended he merely obeyed a superior’s orders and did not conspire or actively participate; the prosecutio...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether obedience to a superior’s order exempts Andres Midoranda from criminal liability for the acts that caused Diego Testor’s death.
- Whether Andres Midoranda may be held criminally liable as a co-principal in the absence of...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)