People v. Tengco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On August 7, 1902, municipal policemen, including Jose Tengco, were escorting Toribio Macapinlac, who had been arrested for theft. While crossing an estero, Tengco struck Macapinlac, who was tied and unable to defend himself, with the butt of his gun for refusing to confess guilt. The blows were inflicted on the abdomen and back. Macapinlac died less than half an hour later due to internal hemorrhages and a ruptured spleen. Procedural History: The accused, Jose Tengco, pleaded not guilty. He testified that he struck the deceased by order of Corporal Antonio Mariano, but this was denied by the corporal. The trial court found the defendant guilty of murder. The Petition: The defendant appealed the decision of the trial court.
Issue(s)
Whether the crime committed is Murder qualified by treachery (alevosia). Whether the accused can be exempt from criminal liability by virtue of acting under the orders of a superior officer. Whether the mitigating circumstances of lack of intent to kill and the accused's nativity/ignorance should be applied to reduce the penalty.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Jose Tengco for murder, imposing a penalty of fourteen years of cadena temporal in its medium period, with accessory penalties, civil indemnity to the heirs of the deceased, and costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that the killing constitutes murder because the attack was treacherous. The victim, Macapinlac, was tied elbow-to-elbow at the time Tengco struck him with the gun butt, making it impossible for him to ward off the blows or defend himself. Even though the victim was not tied specifically for the purpose of killing him—but rather for transport as a prisoner—the aggressor nevertheless acted with safety to himself by exploiting the victim's helpless state. Under Article 403 of the Penal Code, this employment of means that ensures execution without risk from self-defense defines alevosia. Consequently, the violent death is classified as murder rather than homicide. On Issue 2: The Court held that the defense of obedience to a superior order is untenable in this case. For such a defense to be valid, it is indispensable that the order given by the superior be lawful and that the act performed by the subordinate also be lawful. An order to physically abuse a prisoner to extract a confession is patently illegal and violates the law. Because the law prohibits the commission of acts contrary to its precepts, no subordinate is required to obey an unlawful order. Therefore, Tengco remains criminally liable for his actions regardless of whether Cpl. Mariano gave the order or not. On Issue 3: The Court found that two mitigating circumstances were present: lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong (Article 9, No. 3) and the 'nativity' or ignorance of the accused (Article 11). The evidence suggests Tengco did not initially intend to kill the victim but only to beat him as punishment for lying. His ignorance led him to erroneously believe he had the right to physically punish a prisoner. Under Article 81, paragraph 5, the presence of these two mitigating circumstances without any aggravating circumstances (as the court found no special abuse of public position necessary for the act) requires the imposition of the penalty immediately inferior to that prescribed for murder. Thus, the penalty was set at the medium period of cadena temporal.
Main Doctrine
An unlawful act ordered by a superior does not exempt the subordinate from criminal liability, as obedience is only due to lawful orders. Furthermore, an act done with treachery, even if motivated by a mistaken belief of a right to punish, constitutes murder.