Case Digest (G.R. No. 13052)
Facts:
The United States v. Alabot (alias) Paguinaguina, G.R. No. 13052, October 04, 1918, the Supreme Court, Street, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff-appellee was the United States; the defendant-appellant was Alabot (alias) Paguinaguina.Sometime shortly before September 14, 1915, a party of about eight armed Moros, organized and led by a man named Rumaub and including Alabot, Kao, and Makarimpong (and two future witnesses, Kalaku and Kuruao), went to a locality in the Lanao country to secure subsistence by begging or stealing. After obtaining some palay they passed the house of Sultan Sarip (which some entered), then rested in a cotta. Early on September 14 Rumaub fired a shot at an American passing nearby; this produced confusion, and while some members (Kalaku and Kuruao) ran away they later saw Alabot slashing the American with a kris. Alabot did not flee at the shot but ran to join the assault.
After the attack the party went to Adam’s house. There Rumaub and Alabot separately recounted their roles; Alabot stated he had slashed the American, taken the man’s revolver and money, and was then in possession of those items until Rumaub took them, giving the revolver to Adam and dividing the money among the party. The dead body of an American later identified as Charles H. Mills was brought to the Dansalan hospital and examined; it showed two bullet wounds through the abdomen, a neck wound nearly severing the head, and multiple wounds caused by cutting instruments.
Procedurally, Alabot was first charged in the justice of the peace court at Dansalan on October 20, 1916, with brigandage, arraigned, pleaded not guilty, and waived preliminary investigation. The case was transmitted to the Court of First Instance of the Province of Lanao where, on March 13, 1917, a prosecution was instituted charging “robbery with homicide” (more properly brigandage as alleged in the original complaint). On March 14 an amended information was filed expressly charging the complex crime of robbery with homicide but initially omitted the words “con animo de lucro” (intent to gain); on March 15 Alabot was arraigned on the amended information and pleaded not guilty.
At trial the court permitted the prosecuting attorney to amend the information by inserting the words “con animo de lucro” after defense objection. The record also shows that Adam, Kalaku, and Kuruao wer...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the identity of the slain person as Charles H. Mills sufficiently established for prosecution?
- Did the Court of First Instance lack territorial jurisdiction because it was not shown that the barrio of Tuluan was within the Province of Lanao?
- Was the discharge of Adam, Kalaku, and Kuruao so as to permit them to testify against Alabot reversible error?
- Was the trial court’s allowance of an amendment inserting “con animo de lucro” into the information, after arraignment, prejudicial and reversible?
- Was the conviction and death sentence for robbery with homicide supported by law and t...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)