Case Digest (G.R. No. 5381)
Facts:
The United States v. Rufino Ancheta, G.R. No. 5381. March 18, 1910. The Supreme Court En Banc. Moreland, J., writing for the Court.The defendant, Rufino Ancheta (appellant), was separately tried for robo con homicidio por induccion (robbery with homicide by inducement) for the killing of Tiburcio Ancheta on August 26, 1908, in the township of Cervantes, Mountain Province. Four Igorots — Laoyan (Dolinen, alias Quibatay), Guay, Dalocdoc, and Udcusan (Toog, alias Udcusan) — committed the killing; they confessed, were tried, convicted and sentenced to death, and their convictions were affirmed in this Court (No. 5136, 14 Phil. Rep. 747). The present defendant was, after a separate trial, found guilty as charged by the trial court and sentenced under paragraph 1 of article 503 of the Penal Code to cadena perpetua, ordered to indemnify the heirs of Tiburcio in the sum of P500, and to pay costs.
On appeal to this Court the defendant assigned errors attacking the sufficiency of the warrant and information and contending the evidence was insufficient to convict him of the crime as charged. The prosecution relied principally on the testimony of Igorot witnesses Laoyan and Guay and on circumstances corroborative of their account. Their testimony depicted how they went to the defendant’s house asking for work, were induced by the defendant (called “Pinong” in the record) to kill Tiburcio in return for P40 and a carabao, were hidden and fed by defendant’s wife Petra, and executed the plan on the defendant’s instructions and promise to be away when the murder occurred.
The trial court credited the prosecution and convicted; on appeal this Court revie...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Were procedural objections to the warrant, querella/information, and form of process preserved for review, or were they waived?
- Did the evidence suffice to convict Rufino Ancheta as a principal for robo con homicidio por induccion?
- Were aggravating circumstances present (nocturnity and premeditation) that would justify imposing the ma...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)