People v. Alabot
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: A party of about eight armed Moros, including the accused Alabot, went to procure subsistence. On their way back, they encountered an American in the roadway. The leader, Rumaub, shot the American. While confusion ensued and some members fled, the accused Alabot ran to the American and slashed him with his kris. Subsequently, Alabot admitted to slashing the American who had been shot by Rumaub and claimed to have taken his revolver and money. These items were later taken by Rumaub, who gave the revolver to Adam as dowry and divided the money among the party members. Procedural History: The deceased American was identified as Charles H. Mills. The body exhibited wounds consistent with being shot and slashed with a cutting instrument. The accused Alabot was convicted of robbery with homicide by the Court of First Instance of Lanao and sentenced to death. The case was transmitted for review. The Petition: The defendant-appellant, Alabot, raised several contentions, including issues of jurisdiction, the dismissal of cases against co-accused to testify, and the validity of an amended information.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the case, specifically regarding the location of the crime. Whether the amendment of the information to include "con animo de lucro" constituted reversible error. Whether the accused could have been convicted of robbery with homicide upon the information as it stood prior to the amendment. Whether the aggravating circumstance of committing the offense in an uninhabited place was present. Whether the lack of instruction and education of the accused should be considered a mitigating circumstance.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, sentencing the accused to death. The Court found no reversible error in the proceedings and upheld the conviction for robbery with homicide, considering the aggravating circumstance of the commission of the offense in an uninhabited place.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction: The Court held that the trial court had jurisdiction. While no witness directly testified that the barrio of Tuluan was in the Province of Lanao, a leading question asked without objection presupposed this fact, and the answer confirmed it. Furthermore, courts can take judicial notice of the territorial jurisdiction of municipalities and barrios within their domain. On the amendment of the information: The Court ruled that the amendment of the information to include "con animo de lucro" (with intent of gain) after the accused had pleaded and the first witness was called did not constitute reversible error. The Court reasoned that intent to gain is an essential element of robbery, but it is an internal mental purpose. The external acts described in the information, such as taking property by violence and against the owner's will, sufficiently identified the act and implied the intent to gain. The amendment merely clarified an idea already deducible from the original information, particularly the phrase "con el fin de apoderarse de los efectos mencionados" (with the aim of appropriating the mentioned effects), and thus was a formal, non-prejudicial amendment. On conviction prior to amendment: The Court opined that the accused could have been convicted of robbery upon the information as it stood prior to the amendment. Citing United States vs. San Pedro, the Court stated that when all other facts constituting robbery are established, the intent to gain is presumed, especially when property is taken with force and violence from the possession of another. The natural motive for such an act is gain, and this presumption can only be overcome by facts showing no such intent. On the aggravating circumstance of an uninhabited place: The Court agreed with the Attorney-General that the accused was not clearly shown to have attacked the deceased treacherously. However, it found that the aggravating circumstance of committing the offense in an uninhabited place was present, as the crime occurred in a place remote from human habitation. This circumstance, coupled with robbery and homicide, made the offense punishable under Article 503, subsection 1 of the Penal Code. On lack of instruction and education as a mitigating circumstance: The Court declined to consider the lack of instruction and education of the accused as a mitigating circumstance. It noted that it is not customary for the court to recognize such lack as an mitigating circumstance in offenses against property.
Main Doctrine
The amendment of an information to include the phrase "con animo de lucro" (with intent of gain) after the accused has pleaded and the first witness has been called is a formal, non-prejudicial amendment that does not constitute reversible error, as the intent to gain is deducible from the facts alleged and the act of appropriating property by violence implies such intent.