People v. Sarihul

G.R. No. L-2738 · 1905-09-01 · J. JOHNSON, J.: · Primary: Criminal; Secondary: Ethics
REITERATION

Facts

The Antecedents: The accused, Moro Sarihul, a member of the Philippines Constabulary, was charged with assassination for killing Captain T. R. Hayson. The incident occurred at approximately 1 o'clock a.m. on May 11, 1905, in Siasi, Moro Province. Sarihul, acting as a sentinel near Captain Hayson's quarters, entered Hayson's sleeping room armed with a rifle and shot him in the back while he was sleeping, causing instantaneous death. Procedural History: The complaint was filed on May 20, 1905. The Court of First Instance of the Moro Province found the defendant guilty of assassination and sentenced him to death. The defendant did not appeal the decision, and the case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review (en consulta) under Act No. 194. The Petition: The case was brought before the Supreme Court en consulta. The defendant's counsel admitted guilt but urged the application of Article 11 of the Penal Code to reduce the sentence to life imprisonment. The prosecution argued for the affirmation of the death penalty.

Issue(s)

Whether the killing of Captain T. R. Hayson by the accused, Moro Sarihul, constitutes the crime of assassination. Whether the aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were present. Whether Article 11 of the Penal Code should be applied to mitigate the penalty.

Ruling

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance, sentencing the defendant, Moro Sarihul, to death. The Court ordered that the execution be carried out in the manner provided by Act No. 451 of the United States Philippine Commission.

Ratio Decidendi

On Issue 1: The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for assassination. The evidence presented during the trial proved beyond peradventure of doubt that the accused, Moro Sarihul, a member of the Philippines Constabulary, intentionally killed Captain T. R. Hayson. The act was committed while the accused was on duty as a sentinel, entering the victim's sleeping quarters and shooting him with a rifle. The Court found that the circumstances surrounding the killing met the definition of assassination as defined and punished under Article 403 of the Penal Code. On Issue 2: The Court found that both treachery and evident premeditation were present and sufficiently proven. Treachery was established by the fact that the victim was shot in the back while he was sleeping, a mode of execution that directly tended to ensure the commission of the crime without risk to the assailant from any defense the victim might have mounted. Evident premeditation was proven by the testimony and admissions of the accused, indicating that he and another individual had agreed two days prior to kill Captain Hayson at the earliest opportunity. This prior agreement and the subsequent execution of the plan demonstrated a fixed resolution to commit the crime. On Issue 3: The Supreme Court ruled that Article 11 of the Penal Code was not applicable to mitigate the penalty. The Court reasoned that the accused possessed sufficient intelligence to understand the gravity of his actions and responsibilities, particularly as a member of the Philippines Constabulary, whose duty included maintaining law and order. His capacity to serve in such a capacity implied an understanding of the consequences of his acts, thus precluding the application of provisions intended for those with diminished mental capacity or understanding.

Main Doctrine

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for assassination, holding that the killing of Captain T. R. Hayson while sleeping, by a member of the Constabulary acting as a sentinel, constituted assassination due to the presence of treachery and evident premeditation. Treachery was evident as the victim was shot in the back while asleep, and evident premeditation was proven by the prior agreement between the accused and another individual to kill the victim. The Court also ruled that Article 11 of the Penal Code was not applicable to mitigate the penalty, given the accused's intelligence and his duty as a member of the Constabulary.

Access audio review, related cases, codal links, and more.

Open LexMatePH →