People v. Asaad
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Prior to July 1929, trouble brewed between Moro Angkaya and Moro Japal Alli. Angkaya, resenting Japal Alli, conspired with relatives and retainers, including his son Asaad (a municipal councilor), his daughter Nahula, Mawagi's brother Saladi, and Councilor Asaad's policeman Salim, to murder Japal Alli. The consensus was also to kill Japal Alli's wife, Nurkisa. Sampang and Suhaili were enlisted for the deed. They visited Japal Alli's house twice for reconnaissance. On the third visit, July 11, 1929, Sampang and Suhaili killed Japal Alli and, treacherously, his wife Nurkisa, who was unaware of the danger. Procedural History: Sampang and Suhaili were initially arrested and charged. The information was later amended to include Angkaya, Asaad, Mawagi, Salim, Sarahaji, Saladi, and Nahula. The case was dismissed against Angkaya (due to death) and Sarahaji (lack of evidence). The trial court sentenced Asaad, Mawaji, Salim, Saladi, Sampang, and Suhaili to life imprisonment for each murder, not exceeding 40 years, and Nahula to 20 years of cadena temporal. All were ordered to pay P2,000 jointly and severally to the heirs and costs. The Petition: The accused Sampang, Suhaili, Asaad, Mawaji, Salim, Saladi, and Nahula appealed the decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused Mawaji, Salim, Saladi, and Nahula can be considered authors by inducement or accomplices. Whether the conspiracy to commit murder is punishable under the Penal Code. Whether the accused Sampang, Suhaili, and Asaad are guilty of double murder.
Ruling
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed with respect to the defendants and appellants Sampang, Suhaili, and Asaad, who are found guilty of double murder. The judgment is reversed with respect to the defendants and appellants Mawaji, Salim, Saladi, and Nahula, who are acquitted of the charges. The penalties and costs are adjusted accordingly.
Ratio Decidendi
On the guilt of Sampang, Suhaili, and Asaad: The Court found the guilt of Sampang and Suhaili, as direct perpetrators, overwhelmingly proven by the testimony of Sahibil, corroborated by witnesses Daima and Tabalong who were present during the murders. Asaad was also found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. While Angkaya was the head of the conspiracy, Asaad was his principal lieutenant. Meetings were held at Asaad's house, he promised Sampang and Suhaili P200 for the crimes, and he insisted on the murder of Japal Alli's wife. His participation was established by evidence beyond reasonable doubt. On the guilt of Mawaji, Salim, Saladi, and Nahula: The Court held that these four accused could neither be considered authors by inducement nor accomplices. Their attendance at conferences and assent to the scheme, out of respect and fear, and their participation in a post-murder feast by custom, did not constitute effective inducement. It was not shown that they cooperated in the execution of the crimes by previous or simultaneous acts. Merely assenting or attending a feast does not make one an author by inducement or an accomplice under the Penal Code. The Court cited Viada's commentary on Article 13, paragraph 2 of the Penal Code, emphasizing that inducement must be as direct and efficacious as physical or moral coercion. On the punishability of conspiracy: The Court noted that while the four accused joined in a conspiracy, the Penal Code, in Article 4, does not punish a conspiracy as such. Therefore, their participation in the conspiracy alone, without overt acts in its execution, did not make them liable for the crimes committed.
Main Doctrine
Mere assent out of respect or fear, and attendance at a feast by custom, do not constitute effective inducement for authorship by inducement or complicity as an accomplice. Conspiracy, as a concept, is not punishable per se under the Penal Code.