Case Summary (G.R. No. 156252)
Petitioner
The People of the Philippines, represented by the Provincial Fiscal and Solicitor General
Respondent
Ang Cho Kio, found guilty in two separate criminal complaints
Key Dates
• December 30, 1952 – Date of both charged incidents over Mountain Province
• March 9, 1953 – Trial court pronounced sentences in both cases
• July 29, 1954 – Decision by the Supreme Court
Applicable Law
• 1935 Philippine Constitution – Protection against double jeopardy
• Revised Penal Code
– Article 248 (homicide: mid-range penalty when aggravating and mitigating circumstances cancel each other)
– Article 48 (complex crimes: one act constituting multiple offenses or necessary means to another)
• Rule 118, Section 2 of the Rules of Court – Parties entitled to appeal and the prohibition on prosecution appeals that create double jeopardy
Facts of the First Offense
While en route from Laoag to Aparri aboard Philippine Air Lines PI-C-38 and flying over Mountain Province, the accused, armed with .45 and .38-caliber pistols and acting with treachery and premeditation, shot purser Eduardo Diago, inflicting a fatal gunshot wound.
Facts of the Second Offense
On the same flight, the accused compelled pilot Pedro Perlas against his will to divert the plane’s course to Amoy. When the pilot failed to comply immediately, the accused, again armed and with treachery and premeditation, shot and killed him.
Lower Court Sentencing
• First case (Diago’s death): Minimum twelve years of prision mayor; maximum twenty years of reclusion temporal; indemnity of ₱6,000 to Diago’s heirs; costs.
• Second case (Perlas’s death): Reclusion perpetua; indemnity of ₱6,000 to Perlas’s heirs; costs.
Motions for reconsideration were denied. The Provincial Fiscal appealed, arguing that the first sentence should have been reclusion perpetua and the second should have been the death penalty.
Prosecution’s Grounds for Appeal
- First case: Failure to neutralize the aggravating circumstance of premeditation with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary confession, requiring imposition of the mid-range penalty (reclusion perpetua) under Article 248.
- Second case: Failure to treat the acts as a complex crime of grave coercion with murder, which under Article 48 would mandate the death penalty.
Supreme Court’s Analysis – First Case
The aggravating circumstance of premeditation is fully offset by the mitigating circumstance of spontaneous confession. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, when aggravating and mitigating circumstances cancel each other, the mid-range penalty applies. That penalty is reclusion perpetua.
Supreme Court’s Analysis – Second Case
Article 48 defines a complex crime as one act constituting multiple offenses or one offense being the necessary means to commit another. Here, the accused committed two successive and distinct acts—first coercion frustrated and then murder. Because the homicide was not a necessary means to effect the coercion, the offen
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 156252)
Facts of the Case
- On December 30, 1952, aboard Philippine Air Lines plane PI-C-38 en route from Laoag to Aparri, flying over Mountain Province
- Accused Ang Cho Kio (alias Ki Wa, Lucio Lee, Philip Ang, Mr. Ang, Go Ong, Mr. Ong) was a passenger
- First incident: accused, armed with .45 and .38 caliber pistols, with treachery and premeditation shot purser Eduardo Diago, causing instant death
- Second incident: accused unlawfully compelled pilot Pedro Perlas to alter the flight path toward Amoy; when the pilot refused, accused shot Perlas in multiple parts of the body, causing instant death
Procedural History
- Two separate complaints filed in Baguio City on March 9, 1953 (Criminal Case Nos. 419 and 420)
- Accused, with counsel, pleaded guilty to both charges
- First cause: sentenced to a minimum of twelve years of prision mayor and a maximum of twenty years of reclusion temporal; ordered to pay ₱6,000 to Diago’s heirs and costs
- Second cause: sentenced to reclusion perpetua; ordered to pay ₱6,000 to Perlas’s heirs and costs
- Motions for reconsideration denied; provincial fiscal filed appeal
Issues Presented
- Whether, in the first cause, the aggravating circumstance of premeditation is offset by the mitigating circumstance of spontaneous confession, requiring application of reclusion perpetua instead of the imposed term
- Whether, in the second cause, the offenses of grave coercion and murder constitute a single complex crime warranting the death penalty under Article 48, Revised Pena