Under art. 403, Philippine Penal Code, a person can be guilty of
murder with alevosia (treachery) although there may have been no
specific intent to kill, and so
held that one who had his
victim bound and then caused him to be violently beaten with an
instrument likely to cause death was guilty of murder with alevosia
even though he did not specifically intend that death should
result.
Under the Philippine Penal Code, as at common law, men are
presumed to intend the natural consequences of their acts.
An objection that a complaint charging murder with alevosia by
beating a person to death is defective because it did not allege
all the details proved as to the fact that the victim had been
bound so as
Page 228 U. S. 226
to make defense impossible should be made in the lower court
where amendment are possible. It come too late when made in this
Court for the first time.
The conviction by the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands
for murder with alevosia of one who had caused his victim to be
bound and then beaten with an instrument likely to cause death, and
a sentence of 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of cadena temporal and
the accessories, and an indemnity to the heir of his victim of
1,000 pesos, being a modification of the sentence of the Court of
First Instance of cadena temporal for life and accessories and
indemnity, sustained by this Court as being in accordance with the
evidence, without error of law, and not in any manner depriving the
defendant of his liberty without due process of law.
15 Phil. 549 affirmed.
The facts, which involve the validity of a conviction and
sentence for murder in the Philippine Islands, are stated in the
opinion.
Page 228 U. S. 228
MR. JUSTICE LAMAR delivered the opinion of the Court.
Juan Pico, claiming the right as Patrol to arrest suspicious
persons in the Hacienda of Maluno, within the municipality of
Ilagan, Province of Isabela, Philippine Islands, on March 1, 1909,
entered the house of Eugenio Castellanes in the nighttime, and
inquired if there was anyone else on the premises. He was told that
there was a Chinaman asleep in the next room, and, going there with
several attendants, ordered him to get up. Receiving no answer,
Pico struck him with a gun. The Chinaman arose and seized the gun
as Pico again attempted to strike him. After some altercation, he
was overpowered, and Pico ordered his attendants to bind him. This
they did, putting a rope around his neck, tying his arms behind
Page 228 U. S. 229
his back, and, in this condition, he was ordered out of the
house for the purpose or being taken to the nearby Hacienda, of
which Pico was manager. Whether through unwillingness or physical
inability resulting from the blow previously inflicted does not
clearly appear, but the Chinaman refused to walk, and Pico again
struck him several times with the gun. Partly dragged and partly
carried, the Chinaman was in a state of collapse when he reached
the Hacienda, where, a few hours later, he died. The next morning
at 8 o'clock he was buried, a medical employee on the estate giving
a certificate that he had died of heart failure. The suspicion of
the authorities having been aroused, the body was disinterred, and,
as it exhibited signs of external violence, Pico and two of his
attendants were arrested, Pico being charged
"with the crime of murder, with the qualifying circumstances of
alevosia (treachery), as defined and penalized in § 403 of the
Penal Code, [
Footnote 1] in
that"
". . . he feloniously ordered his two servants to seize and tie
the Chinaman, Go-Siengco, and thus tied and unable to defend
himself, the said Pico, with the intention of killing the said
Chinaman, struck him several blows with a shotgun, as the result of
which blows the Chinaman subsequently died. "
Page 228 U. S. 230
The evidence for the government was direct and positive, and
left no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant unless
the witnesses for the prosecution were unworthy of belief. Their
credibility, though attacked, was sustained by the trial judge, who
found the defendant guilty and sentenced him to cadena temporal, to
be confined in the Bilibid Prison for the term of his natural life,
with accessories named in Art. 54 of the Code, and to pay the heirs
of the Chinaman 1,000 pesos. A motion for a new trial was
overruled, and on appeal the supreme court stated that only a
question of fact was involved, and that the testimony for the
government, being direct and without elements of untruth, fully
supported the findings of the trial court:
"We have only one criticism of the judgment below. We are
convinced that the court, in imposing the penalty, should have
taken into consideration in favor of the accused the extenuating
circumstance described in Article 9, subdivision 3, of the Penal
Code, namely, that 'the delinquent had no intention of committing
so grave an injury as that which he inflicted.' There not having
been present any aggravating circumstance, the penalty should have
been imposed in its minimum degree."
15 Phil. 549.
1. It is claimed that this finding was in legal effect an
acquittal, and several decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain are
cited to support the argument that there can be no "murder with
alevosia" unless there was a specific intent to kill the person
bound. We cannot so construe the Philippine Code. Under it, the
killing of a human being is parricide, murder, or homicide,
depending not always on the intent, but upon the relation of the
parties and the circumstances under which and the means by which
life was taken. On the trial of a charge of "murder with
premeditation," there might be call for proof of a specific intent,
but even then that could usually
Page 228 U. S. 231
be established only by external circumstances capable of proof.
But, in the case of murder with cruelty or with alevosia, the
intent would be immaterial, although the accused might claim that
he thought that the cruelty would not cause death or that the
beating would punish, and not destroy, the person who was bound.
Under the Penal Code of the Philippines, as at common law, men are
presumed to intend the natural consequences of their act, and
cannot escape punishment for taking life on the claim that they had
not intended or expected that such consequence would result from
what they purposely did.
In this case, Pico was not charged with "murder with evident
premeditation." As the Chinaman was, at the time, bound and
defenseless, Pico was guilty of "murder with the aggravating
circumstances of alevosia," punishable by the minimum, medium, or
maximum penalty, depending on the presence or absence of mitigating
or aggravating circumstances, as defined by the Code, [
Footnote 2] which permitted effect to
be given to the absence of a specific intent by a mitigation of the
punishment. This we understand to be the effect of the decision of
the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands, and not, as claimed,
an acquittal of the charge on which Pico was tried.
United
States v. Brobst, 14 Phil. 310;
United States v.
Candelaria, 2 Phil. 104.
The decisions cited by plaintiff in error do not require a
reversal, for none of them relates to a case like this, where the
accused, having himself ordered his victim to be bound,
consciously, intentionally, and repeatedly beat him with an
instrument likely to produce death.
2. It was also contended that the complaint was defective in
failing to allege that the Chinaman had been tied
Page 228 U. S. 232
for the purpose of making defense impossible, and so that he
might be killed without risk to the accused. This objection comes
too late. It was not made in the supreme court nor in the trial
court, where amendments could have been made even if necessary
under the liberal system of criminal pleading authorized by §§ 6,
8, 9, and 10 of the Appendix to the Penal Code of the Philippine
Islands.
3. Pico was sentenced by the supreme court to seventeen years,
four months, and 1 day of cadena temporal, to the accessories
provided by law, and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased by the
payment of 1,000 pesos. In the record, there is an assignment of
error that this was cruel and unusual punishment (
Weems v.
United States, 217 U. S. 349),
but, on the argument, the contention was abandoned in open court,
and the point will therefore not be considered. In other
assignments, complaint was made that Pico was deprived of his
liberty without due process of law because the evidence was
insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Chinaman
died as a result of the blows inflicted by Pico, because the
supreme court refused to pass upon the credibility of witnesses in
the trial court, because he was refused a new trial on the ground
of newly discovered evidence, and because one of the witnesses
admitted to have given false testimony. We find no error of law.
The evidence fully sustained the conviction, and the judgment
is
Affirmed.
[
Footnote 1]
"Art. 403. The crime of murder is committed by any person who,
not falling within the terms of the next preceding article
[relating to parricide], shall kill another under any of the
following circumstances:"
"1. With alevosia."
"2. For a price or promise of reward."
"3. By means of inundation, fire, or poison."
"4. With evident premeditation."
"5. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly increasing the
suffering of the offended party."
"Art. 10, § 2. There is treachery (alevosia) when the offender
commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means,
methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and
specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising
from the defense which the offended party might make."
[
Footnote 2]
"Art. 78. Aggravating circumstances which, in themselves,
constitute a crime specially punishable by law, or which are
included by the law in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty
therefor, shall not be taken into account for the purpose of
increasing the penalty."