Case Summary (G.R. No. 44335)
Facts of the Crime
– At approximately 5:30 a.m. on March 5, 1935, Tan Why was discovered on a path in barrio Carcar with a fatal head wound that fractured his skull.
– He named “Kagui” as his assailant before dying in Cotabato Hospital.
– A bloodstained club (Exhibit M) was found nearby, and footprints matching the respondent’s shoe size were observed at an ambush site.
Arrest and Discovery of Evidence
– Around 8:00 a.m. the same day, Lieutenant A. Jacaria of the Constabulary, informed that the respondent had just redeemed two pairs of bracelets and was carrying cash, ordered his arrest without a judicial warrant.
– The respondent voluntarily produced the bracelets (Exhibit A). A subsequent search yielded:
• Pocketbook (Exhibit B) containing P92.68 in bills (Exhibit C)
• Victim’s identification card and a Chinese‐character memorandum (Exhibit D)
Procedural Assignments of Error
- Denial of a 24-hour preparation period per General Orders No. 58, Section 30.
- Refusal to return seized articles absent a judicial warrant.
- Admission into evidence of Exhibits A, B, C, D, F, L, L-1.
- Denial of motion to dismiss for insufficiency of evidence.
- Conviction for robbery with homicide instead of acquittal.
Defense’s Claims on Search, Seizure and Preparation Time
– Respondent alleged that Officers Jacaria and Urangut used intimidation to seize bracelets, money, and documents without a warrant.
– He further claimed denial of 24 hours to prepare his defense, as required by General Orders No. 58, Section 30.
Court’s Analysis on Arrest and Search
– Under the 1935 Constitution, Article III, Section 1(3) (mirroring the U.S. Fourth Amendment), only “unreasonable” searches and seizures are prohibited.
– Revised Administrative Code authorizes warrantless arrest when an officer has reasonable ground to suspect a crime and the person’s involvement.
– The respondent voluntarily submitted to the search and made no protest; his consent precludes a later claim of illegality.
– Search incidental to a lawful arrest is reasonable and valid; seized items are admissible as evidence.
Admissibility of Exhibits and Waiver of Rights
– By placing Exhibit A on the table and allowing a body search without objection, the respondent impliedly waived any challenge to the legality of the seizure.
– Exhibits A, B, C, D are relevant to prove both the corpus delicti and the theft of the victim’s property.
– The trial court correctly refused to return the exhibits and admitted them into evidence.
Credibility of Conflicting Evidence
– Defense witnesses (relatives) testified that they had previously given the respondent various sums of money, but:
• Those funds were provided days prior to the crime and did not explain the victim’s pocketbook or remaining bills.
• No plausible reason existed for redeeming pawned bracelets on the crime morning if he already had ample funds.
– Unexplained possession of the victim’s belongings strongly supports the inference of the respondent’s guilt.
Denial of 24-Hour Preparation Period
– The right to a preparation period under General Orders No. 58 must be expressly requested; the respondent made no such request
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 44335)
Facts of the Case
- On March 5, 1935 at about 5:30 a.m., Tan Why, a Chinese merchant residing in Cotabato, was discovered on a path leading to Barrio Carcar within Yu Enching Sero’s property, lying with multiple head wounds.
- A fractured-skull wound on his forehead proved fatal; he died shortly after arrival at the Cotabato Hospital.
- Before losing consciousness, Tan Why uttered “Kagui” when asked by Moro Alamada who attacked him. “Kagui” was the known alias of the appellant, Kagui Malasugui.
- Lieutenant A. Jacaria of the Constabulary ordered the appellant’s arrest. At 8 a.m., officers apprehended him and he was brought to Lieutenant Jacaria.
Lower Court Decision and Sentence
- Appellant was charged with robbery with homicide.
- He was convicted and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
- He was ordered to return ₱150 to the Mindanao Rice Industrial Company and to indemnify Tan Why’s heirs in the sum of ₱1,000, with costs.
Assignments of Error on Appeal
- Denial of a 24-hour period to prepare his defense.
- Denial of his petition for return of articles seized from him without judicial warrant.
- Admission into evidence of Exhibits A (bracelets), B (pocketbook), C (money), D (memorandum), F, L and L-1.
- Denial of his motion to dismiss for lack of evidence immediately after the fiscal rested.
- Erroneous conviction for robbery with homicide instead of acquittal.
Prosecution Evidence
- Witness Alamada testified that Tan Why named “Kagui” as his aggressor and that he saw the appellant carrying a club (Exhibit M) near Tan Why’s house. The bloodstained club was recovered near the wound site.
- Chua Sian, Tan Why’s employee, identified Exhibit B as the pocketbook the deceased habitually carried on purchase trips, and confirmed it was full of bills on the morning of the crime.
- Kaw Tin, cashier of the Mindanao Rice Industrial Company, testified that he had delivered ₱150 to Tan Why the afternoon before to purchase palay, in addition to ₱80 previously entrusted.
- Lieut