1954] CRIMINAL LAW 343

Effect of Bases Agreement on sovereignty and jurisdiction

of the Republic over the bases of the U. S. Government in the
CRIMINAL LAW Philippines.
Granting that the court-martial had jurisdiction over the
accused and his crimes under the terms of the Bases Agreement,
APPLICABILITY OF PENAL PROVISIONS the CFI of Quezon City properly and legally took cognizance of
the cases.
By the Agreement, the Philippine Government merely con-
A court-martial reporter for the U. S. Army who is a piece- sents that the United States exercise jurisdiction in certain
worker cannot be considered as serving with the Army. Par. cases. This consent was given purely as a matter of comity,
(a), Sec. 1, Art. XIII, Bases Agreement, applied. courtesy, or expediency. The Philippine Government has not
FAcTs: Accused was employed by the U. S. Army in Camp abdicated its sovereignty over the bases as part of the Philip-
Rizal as court-martial reporter on piece-work arrangement. As pme territory or divested itself competely of jurisdiction over
piece-worker, he was paid for so much work of reporting and offenses committed therein. Under the terms of the treaty,
transcribing as he performed. It was when working in this the U.S. Government has p1ior or preferential but not exclusive
capacity that he was said to have made false claims and re- · jurisdiction over such offenses. The Philippine Government
ceived compensation for services not rendered. Charged with retains not only jurisdictional rights not granted, but also all
violation of the 94th Article of War, he was tried by a general · such ceded rights as the U. S. Military authorities for reasons
court-martial convened by the Commanding General. He was of their own decline to make use of.
found guilty and sentenced to hard labor. However, the Com- The carrying out of the provisions of the Bases Agreement
manding General as reviewing authority disapproved the verdict is the concern of the contracting parties· alone. The rights
and sentence on the sole ground that the accused "was not granted to the United States by the treaty inure solely to that
subject to military law." country and cannot be raised by the offender. (PEOPLE us.
Consequently, he was brought before the City Fiscal of ACIERTO, supra.)
Quezon City, who filed one case for falsification and six cases Paragraph 3, Article XIII, Bases Agreement merely direc-
for estafa against him with the CFI. On this appeal, accused tory.
raised the questions of (1) former jeopardy and (2) want of
jurisdiction of the court a quo. He contends that he .was an The ten-day requirement in Par. 3 of Art. XIII of the
employee of the Army of the United States, and was properly Bases Agreement is of directory character relating to procedure,
and legally tried by a duly constituted military court. inserted me1'ely for the convenience of the Philippine Govern-
ment, and failure on the part of the United States to turn the
HELD: Defendant worked as he pleased and was not amen- offender over to the Philippine auth01ities within the ten days
able to daily control and· discipline of the Army. He was not does not work as a forfeiture of the Philippine Govenunent's
under any obligation to the U. S. Army to act as reporter. He jurisdiction. .(PEOPLE us. ACIERTO, supra.)
was remunerated for so much of his work of reporting and
transcribing as he volunteered to make. He was privileged to
remain in his home except for the purpose of bringing his FELONIES
finished report to the office. Under the circumstances, he
could not be considered as serving with the Army. (PEOPLE Mistake of fact; No crime where shooting was effected under
vs. AciERTO, G. R. Nos. L-2708 and L-3355-60, Jan. 30, 1953.) an honest mistake.
FAcTs: In 1949 Bulalakao reported to the Constabulary
officers stationed in Cotabato the presence of bandits in barrio
342
6
344 ATENEO LAW JOURNAL 1954] CRIMINAL LAW 345

Sapalan. Evidently, the officers believed and accepted to commit it." The agreement ·need not be in writing or ex-
lakao's report, for that very· afternoon, a Constabulary ' pressly manifested; it is sufficient if it can be implied from acts
headed by Lt. Cabelin, was dispatched to "disperse or tending to show a common design ·to commit the crime. Pre-
or annihilate the bandita." Two days later the patrol vious acquaintance among the conspirators is not necessary nor
upon a group of three houses. Bulalakao told Cabelin that ; is it required that each take·part in every act or that all shall
those were the houses the bandits were in.. The· patrol know the •exact part to be performed by the others. The only
fired upon these houses, killing four innocent civilians. thing required is that there be a common purpose or design
to commit the act; ·the means employed or the acts executed
HELD: Bulalakao and one of the victims of the killirig, Datu .·
by each are immaterial. (PEOPLE us. GING SAMET AL., G. R.
Benito, belonged to different warring factions. Evidently, to No. L-4287, Dec. 29, 1953.) ·
eliminate the faction of Datu Benito and obtain undisputed
authority and influence in the locality, Bulalakao conceived and Proof of conspiracy.
perfected a diabolical scheme. He persuaded, convinced and Conspiracy ·is shown by 'the fact that Arquilao invited his
induced the .Constabulary officers, not only Cabelin but also companions to fight Victor, and the circumstance that the four
his superior officers, to send the patrol and later to assault the appellants, simultaneously helping each other, assailed Victor
three houses. Bulalakao also took a direct part in the assault. with their fists, a knife, clubs and a bamboo post, Victo:r being
He is clearly guilty of quadruple murder as principal, not only unarmed and alone. These simultaneous acts of aggression
by induction, but also by direct participation. . plus the previous invitation by Arquilao to find and attack
As to Cabelin, the question is whether he incurred in neg- Victor, show beyond a doubt that there was conspiracy among
ligence or reckless imprudence in ordering his ·men to fire upon the defendants. (PEOPLE vs. AGUINALDO ET AL., G. R. No.
the houses. Even assuming that the patrol had not been 'first L-5346, Jan. 30, 1953.)
fired upon, and that Cabelin and his sergeant had not shouted
or called out to the inmates· of the houses in order to identify _ Illegal possession of firearms-Effect of R. A. No. 482
himself and his. inen, still the shooting was justified for having thereon; Homicide proved from nature of WOlfnds.
been done by an honest mistake. FACTS: Ortega and Castillo were charged with the crime
Lt. Cabelin should be judged not by the facts as they later of robbery with homicide. In a separate action, Ortega was
turned out to be, but, by what· he at ·the tilne of the also charged in the same court with the illegal possession of
shooting thought and believed to be the facts, and the condi- a firearm. Upon arraignment, Ortega pleaded not guilty to
tions obtaining at that time. Conditions of peace and. order illegal possession of firearm; to robbery with homicide, Ortega
in Cotabato, particularly in Sapalan, were . verY' bad. There and Castillo pleaded not guilty. The two cases were tried
were several hundred loose firearms in the district. He was. in jointly.
Moroland, dealing with what he believed to be well-armed. After trial, the court in a single decision found Ortega
bandits. Moro ·bandits do not follow orthodox ways of fighting guilty of illegal possession of firearm, and Ortega and Castillo
and dealing with Government armed forces, and so Cabelin may guilty of robbery with homicide. From this judgment both
have felt justified in utilizing unorthodox methods--a dawn accused appealed.
surprise attack-in dealing with the inmates of the houses, whom HELD: (1) As to illegal possession of firearm: the Solicitor-
he believed to. be anned bandits. (PEOPLE · vs. BuLALAKAO - General recommended, in the light of the evidence presented
MAMASALAYA ET AL., G. R. No. L-4911, Feb. 10, 1953.) by prosecution, the acquittal of Ortega on the strength of R. A.
No. 482. Under said Act, a person who possesses a firearm
· Conspiracy.· may surrender same ·within a period of one year, Without
A conspiracy exists "when two or more pers"ons ·come to incurring any liability, -except when he makes use of it or
an agreement concerning the commission of-a felony and decide carries it on his person. Considering that the firearm in ques-
346 ATENEO LAW JOURNAL .1954] CRIMINAL LAW 347
tion was found in the accused's house before the nothing improper in what they did. They merely laid a trap
of the above-mentioned period, the recommendation to snare those who were violating the law. An entrapment,
Solicitor-General is well taken. as distinguished from an inducement, cannot offer a valid excuse
(2) As to robbery with homicide: the accused to defeat prosecution. (PEOPLE vs. HILARIO ET AL., G. R.
having kille? the deceased, but tried to the killing by '· No. L-5085, June 27, 1953.)
an explanatiOn too absurd to deserve consideration, and belied:
by the nature of the wounds found in the body of the deceased..
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
(PEOPLE vs. ORTEGA ET AL., G. R. Nos. L-5511 and L-5512
March 25, 1953.)
•
Passion and Obfuscation.
JUSTIFYING CffiCUMSTANCES There could have been no mitigating circumstance of passion
and obfuscation arising from the knifing of Alfredo by the
Circumstances belying claim of self-defense.
deceased Victor, because Alfredo was wounded several hours
The findings of Dr. Madlangbayan, who performed the before and Victor was even trying to lay him on a mat and
autopsy, regarding the nature and number of wounds found call a Sanitary Inspector to treat him. Victor was already on
in the body of the victim, belie defendant's claim of self-defense. good terms with Alfredo. Even if passion and obfuscation had
If it be true that the shooting was preceded by a hand-to- been felt by the defendants, they had time to cool off, especially
hand struggle between the assailant and the victim and that when they saw Victor trying to take care of Alfredo. . (PEOPLE
both were armed With pistols, why then did the accused not vs. AGUINALDO ET AL., G. R. No. L-5346, Jan. 30, 1953.)
receive any wound whereas the deceased suffered many serious
wounds which caused instantaneous death? According to the
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
accused, he fired the fatal shots while locked in struggle with
the deceased for ·possession of the latter's gun... This is also
belied by Dr:.Madlangbayan's testimony that no powder burns Evident Premeditation.
were found on the victim's body. The accused, therefore, must Evident premeditation existed, for on Sept. 11, accused had
have been at quite a distance when he triggered the fatal shots. already threatened to kill M and A, and on Sept. 13, he carried
In the commission of the crime, the aggravating cin."'Wll- out his threat with regard to M and attempted to carry it out
stance of dwelling is offset by the mitigating circumstance of with regard t.o A, but the latter hid from him and he was not
passion and obfuscation. (PEOPLE vs. VISAGAR, G. R. No. able to fire at her. The accused had three days' time to
L-5384, June 12, 1953;) meditate upon the crime which he intended to commit and was
not prompted by the impulse of the moment. (PEOPLE vs.
Mere entrapment no defense in criminal prosecution.
LAsAFIN, G. R. No. L-5874, Feb. 11, 1953.)
FAcTs: Defendants were charged with violating the Price
Control Law. They filed a motion to dismiss, allegilig, among Treachery.
other grounds, that they were not merely entrapped; they Treachery was present, for M raised his hands sidewise as
were induced to commit the crime imputed to them. This ordered by the accused and notwithstanding that, the accused
latter allegation, if true, constitutes a defense in cases of this fired ten shots at him without any risk to the accused. (PEOPLE
nature. When the trial court sustained the motion, the Soli- vs. LAsAFIN, supra.)
citor-General appealed.
It is true that the wounds inflicted on Felicitas show that
HELD: The only thing the agents did was present them- · she was standing face to face with her aggressor; from that it
selves in the defandants' store and indicate their ·intention to cannot be necessarily inferred that she was free to defend her-
buy some articles. They did no other overt act. There was self, because D held her by the · neck while P attacked her
348 ATENEO LAW JOURNAL ·. i954] CRIMINAL LAW 349

with a fan knife. Ip. such a situation Felicitas was in no death was not obtained.) (PEOPLE vs. FAJARDO, G. R. No.
dition to present any defense. She was left to the mercy March 23; 1953.)
aggressor from whom she could not defend herself or offer
sistance. The accused deprived her of her life. with treacher PENALTIES
(PEOPLE vs. GoNZALES ET AL., G. R No. L-53()5, Feb. 23,
Penalty applicable. when accused has reached eighteen at
Treachery and evident premeditation. titne of trial; Art. 80, as amended, R.P.C., contrued.
FAcTs: T and M were charged with murder. T was Though the accused committed a crime at fifteen, since
victed of the crime charged with the aggravating circumstances however his trial took place at nineteen, he was no longer
of evident premeditation and treachery, and sentenced to life entitled to the benefits of Art. 80 as amended by R.A. No. 47,
imprisortment-the mediUill of the penalty prescribed for the and therefore should not be placed under the custody of a
M. was acquitted fm lack of evidence. T appealed. charitable or correctional institution. (PEOPLE vs. LINGCUAN
HELD: 'I' was guilty of murder with the aggravating circiun.:. ; ET AL., G. R No. L-3772, May 13, 1953.)
stance of treachery · only. There was no evidence · to show .
premeditation on his part, or that he had planned and reflected Indeterminate Sentence Law; What is the penalty next
on killing the deceased. Although T had a grudge against the _lower in degree to prision mayor in its maximum degree?
deceased due to a quarrel the previous evening and in which For the 'purpose of applying the law on Indeterminate
he was on the losing end, his. consequent resentment might Sentence, while some of the Justices believe that the penalty
spontaneously have flared up only· upon meeting the deceased next lower in degree· to prisi6n mayor in its maximum degree
the following day. Then and there, he probably decided to shoUld be · prisi6n mayor in its medium degree, the majority
kill. Penalty imposed is therefore lowered one degree. holds that, following' the doctrine laid down in People vs. Gon-
(PEOPLE us. ToRRECAMPO, G. R No. L-5161, Sept. 7, 1953.) 73 Phil. 549, the penalty next lower in degree is and
should be prisi6n correccional in its maximum (PEOPLE
Treachery· and Night-time. . vs. DosAL, G. R. Nos. L-4215 and Apfil i 7, 1953.)
FACTS: Fajardo, prosecuted in the CFI for murder, was
found guilty of homicide instead, and given said crime's maxi- EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY.
mum penalty. Fajardo appealed. During appeal, the Soli-
citor-General argued that the crime committed was murder Prescriptive period for crime of attempted bribery is ten
because it was qualified by treachery and aggravated by the years; Arts. 90 and 25, R. P. C. applied.
circumstance of night-time, with no mitigating circumstance
·FAcTs: Panilo was charged before the Mimicipal Court of
to offset it. · Manila with the crime of attempted bribery upon ·a member
HE,:.D: The crime committed was murder, not homicide. of the Manila Police Department. The trial ·judge ordered
Fajardo and six companions, armed with deadly weapons, as- Panilo to plead to the ·information, but instead of interposing
saulted and killed a defenseless man and his daughter. Fajardo a plea, the latter moved to quash the information. on the ground
employed means, methods and forms which directly and speci.,. that the criminal action had prescribed, since more than two
fically tended to insure execution of his criminal designs with years had elapsed from the time the offense was committed
little or no risk to himself. Since the aggravating circumstance . in 1950. AccordiD.g to· Panilo, the i>ertalty imposable for at-
of night-time was present and offset by no mitigating .cir-. tempted bribery was arresto menor in its minimum and medium
cumstance, the proper penaity for appellant should, therefore, periods, that consequently, the offense prescribed in two
be death. (However, the penalty next lower in· degree was months. The judge denied the motion to quash on the ground
here ·imposed because the !)ecessary number· of votes to that the period for prescription was five years..
350 A TEN EO LAW JOURNAL [Vol.

HELD: In line With the ruling made in the cases of 1954] CRIMINAL LAW 351
Chia Hua vs. Dinglasan, G. R. No. L-2709, and People vs.
Santos, G. R. No. L-3582, Nov. 29, 1950, the prescriptive P1,100.00 upon agreement that he would dismiss the charges
riod for the offense of attempted bribery,-a crime penalized against the latter's son. The information was quashed on the
with destierro,-is ten years according to the provisions ground that the facts alleged therein did not sufficiently sup-
Art. 90, Rev. Penal Code, for the reason that destierro is clas- port the crime charged. The Solicitor-General appealed.
sified as a correctional penalty under Art. 25, R.P.C. (PANILO HELD: The trial court erred in dismissing the information,
vs. GERONIMO,. G. R. No. L-5969, April 29, 1953.) which, although defective under Art. 210, nevertheless was a
sufficient indictment for indirect bribery under Art. 211. Un-
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST der the first paragraph of Art. 210, the act which a public
officer agrees to perform must be criminal. The agreement to
Essential elements of crime of falsification; Art. 172, R.P.C, dismiss a criminal complaint does not necessarily constitute a
applied. criminal act (People vs. Gacutan, 28 Phil. 100). The second
FACTS: Quasha was charged with falsification of a public, paragraph distinguishes between executed and executory acts.
commercial document under Art. 172, Par. 1, in connection The information did not say whether it was either for one or
with Art. 171, Par. 4, R.P.C. The falsification imputed to the other; it· was therefore defective on that count. But
the accused consisted in not disclosing in the Articles of Incor- since it; is the allegation of a fact rather than the denomination
poration of the Pacific Airways Corporation that Baylon was of an offense which determines the crime charged, said infor-
a mere dununy of his American co-incorporators. Such non- mation may be sustained under Art. 211. (PEOPLE vs. ABE-
.disclosure was, in the opinion of the trial court, a malicious SAMIS, G. R. No. L-5284, Sept. 11, 1953.)
perversion of truth. Found guilty, the accused appealed.
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
HELD: A perversion of truth in the narration of facts must
be made with. wrongful intent to injure a third person (U. S. Robbery with homicide.
vs. Reyes, 1 Phil. 341), and even if such wrongful intent is
proven, still the untruthful statement would not constitute FAcTs: One of the appellants, having failed to draw money
the crime of falsification if there is no obligation on the part from the deceased, shot him in the back, killing him. They
of the narrator to disclose the truth (U. S. vs. Lopez, 15 Phil. ransacked his house, snatched P400.00, and set the house on
fire. Libre admitted appellants' part in the robbery, but
515).
In the formation .of the corporation, such revelation was pointed to himself as the one who had shot the deceased.
not essential. The Constitution does not prohibit the forma- HELD: When a homicide is committed on the occasion of
tion of a public utility corporation without the required pro- .. ·• a robbery, all who took part as principals in the robbery's
portion .of Filipino capital; hence, the accused could not be perpetration will also be held guilty as principals to the com-
charged with having wrongfully intended to circumvent the plex crime of robbery with homicide, although they did not
fundamental law. (PEOPLE vs. QuASHA, G. R. No. L-6055, actually take part in the homicide and unless it appears that
June 12, 1953.) they endeavored to prevent the killing. When there is a direct
and intimate connection between the robbery and the death of
Bribery; Direct and indirect; Articles 210 and 211, R.P.C. the owner of the property taken, and the killing sprang from
construed. the idea of, and preceded the robbery, the misdeeds cannot be
FACTS: Accused, a justice of the peace, was charged with separated into two distinct crimes, viz., robbery and homicide or
the crime of direct bribery in the CFI. The iri.formittion recited murder. (PEOPLE vs. LIBRE ET AL., G. R. N. L-5195, May 4,
that he had demanded and received from MS the sum of 1953.)