Saturday, March 17, 2012

US vs. Manalinde (14 Phil 77)

Facts: The accused, Manalinde, who pleaded guilty confessed that his wife died about one hundred days before; that he was directed by Datto Mupuck to go huramentado and to kill the two persons he would meet in the town; that if he was successful in the matter, Mupuck would give him a pretty woman on his return; that in order to carry out his intention to kill two persons in the town of Cotobato, he provided himself with a kris, which he concealed in banana leaves; that he traveled for a day and a night from his home; that upon reaching the town, he attacked from behind a Spaniard named Igual, and immediately after, he attacked a Chinaman named Choa, who was close by; and that he had no quarrel with the assaulted persons. Both victims died as a result.

Issue: Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation is established by the facts.

Held: YES. Those facts establish the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation.

The three requisites of evident premeditation are illustrated by the facts:

First requisite: On a certain date, Manalinde accepted the proposition that he would turn hurmentado and kill the first two persons he would meet in the market place. On said date, the offender is said to have determined the crime.

Second requisite: He undertook the journey to comply therewith and provided himself with a weapon. The journey and the carrying of the weapon are acts manifestly indicating that the offender clung to his determination to commit the crime.

Third requisite: After the journey for a day and a night, he killed the victims. One day and one night constitute a sufficient lapse of time for the offender to realize the consequences of his contemplated act.

Digg Google Bookmarks reddit Mixx StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Buzz DesignFloat Delicious BlinkList Furl

0 comments: on "US vs. Manalinde (14 Phil 77)"

Post a Comment