THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MAHARAJA ALIM, LAHAMAN, MUNAGIL, AND SALATUNG, DEFENDANTS. MAHARAJA ALIM, AND SALATUNG, APPELLANTS.

“That in or about the month of March, 1917, and prior to the said month, in
the settlement of Daap, barrio of Bolong, in the municipality and Province of
Zamboanga, Department of Mindanao and Sulu, P. I., the said accused Maharaja
Alim, being a person who had influence and exercised authority over his
coaccused, the Moros, Lahaman, Munagil, and Salatung, did, willfully, unlawfully
and criminally conspire with and induce his coaccused, through the means of pay
and promise of reward to kill the Moro Tantung; that, in view of the said
inducement, the said coaccused did conspire among themselves and, acting
mutually, on the night of March 16, 1917, on the sea within the jurisdictional
limits of the municipality and Province of Zamboanga, Department of Mindanao and
Sulu, P. I., did, willfully, unlawfully, and criminally, with treachery and
premeditation, taking advantage of the darkness of the night, and one of them
being armed with a lance, and the others with bolos, attack and assault with
said weapons the said Moro Tantung, inflicting upon him several fatal wounds, as
a result of which said Moro Tantung immediately died; which acts were all
committed in violation of law.”

Upon motion of the prosecuting attorney, separate proceedings were instituted
against Munagil and Lahaman on the one hand, and Maharaja Alim and Salatung, on
the other. Munagil and Lahaman pleaded guilty and were sentenced by the trial
court, for the crime of murder, each being condemned to the penalty of death and
to pay an indemnity of P500 to the family of the deceased. Upon the hearing of
the evidence against Maharaja Alim and Salatung, the court also found them
guilty of the crime of murder and sentenced each of them to 20 years of
reclusion temporal and to pay an indemnity of P500 to the family of the
deceased. As Munagil and Lahaman pleaded guilty, it is not necessary to discuss
the evidence given with respect to them.

As regards Maharaja Alim and Salatung, the evidence consisted of the
testimony of Munagil and Lahaman who succinctly related in full detail how the
crime was committed. The Moro Panglima Salani was the chief of the settlement to
which the deceased and the defendants belonged, and Maharaja Alim was his
assistant. Salatung is married to a niece of Maharaja Alim. Tantung and his wife
Baa are Salatung’s nephew and niece, respectively. Munagil is married to
Cubulan, a sister of Baa; and Lahaman is the husband of another of Baa’s
sisters. About a year prior to the commission of the crime, Maharaja Alim had
proposed to Munagil, Lahaman, and Salatung to kill Tantung and later, about one
month prior to its commission, Maharaja Alim again made to them the same
proposal, offered them P100, and advanced on that same occasion P10, which sum
was received by Munagil. Said proposal was accepted by all three of them. On the
morning of March 16, 1917, while Munagil, Lahaman, and Salatung were on a piece
of land belonging to the first of them, Maharaja Alim appeared, again spoke to
them of the proposal to kill Tantung, and advised them that the latter would go
fishing on the afternoon of that day. At noon, all the defendants separated from
each other and withdrew to their respective homes. That afternoon, Maharaja Alim
again saw Lahaman, in the latter’s house, for the purpose of again talking to
him about the killing of Tantung. On that same afternoon, Salatung saw Munagil
in a coconut grove and told him that they should hasten to go because Maharaja
Alim had told Salatung that Tantung was already out on the sea. On that same
afternoon, Salatung also went to see Lahaman to tell him that at nightfall they
would go in search of Tantung. When night came, Munagil, Lahaman, and Salatung
met on the seashore; Salatung was carrying a lance belonging to Maharaja Alim,
which he had taken from the house of Pancalan. Munagil, Lahaman, and Salatung
then embarked in a vinta and went out to sea in the direction of the
vinta in which Tantung was engaged in fishing. On the way, Salatung
suggested that, on their drawing up alongside Tantung’s vinta, he would
ask the latter for some bait and when Tantung was in the act of giving it to
them Munagil should thrust him with the lance. Salatung steered the
vinta. When they had drawn up alongside of Tantung’s vinta,
Salatung took hold of the edge of the vinta to keep the two boats
together, and asked for the bait; and when Tantung stretched out his arm to give
the bait, Munagil pierced him with the lance below the armpit, after which
Lahaman took the same lance and gave the wounded man another thrust in the
breast. Tantung fell into the water. Salatung then rowed towards the place where
Tantung was and when the latter was near the vinta Munagil struck him
on the back with a bolo, and Tantung disappeared. Munagil, Lahaman, and Salatung
returned to the shore and, after disembarking, dispersed, whereupon Munagil went
to seek Maharaja Alim in order to report to him that they had already killed
Tantung. After Maharaja Alim had learned of the killing, he looked for and found
Lahaman that same night and they both went out to sea in search of Tantung’s
body, for the purpose, as Maharaja Alim testified, of preventing the discovery
of the crime. Later, Tantung’s body, bearing several wounds, having been found
floating on the water the authorities proceeded to investigate the cause of his
death. They were aided by the Moro Barahama, to whom Munagil and Lahaman had
confessed that they, accompanied by Salatung and acting under Maharaja Alim’s
orders, had killed Tantung.

Although the evidence against Maharaja Alim and Salatung consists solely of
the testimony of their accomplices Munagil and Lahaman, we are nevertheless of
the opinion that it establishes the facts charged beyond all reasonable doubt.
In the case of The United States vs. Ocampo (5 Phil. Rep., 339), this
court has said that if the uncorroborated testimony of a confederate or
accomplice satisfies the court as to the guilt of the accused beyond a
reasonable doubt, it is sufficient. As regards Maharaja Alim this testimony has
not in any way been controverted. With respect to Salatung, the only evidence
presented in his defense was his own testimony denying his participation in the
crime. But he admits that on the morning of the day in question he was on
Munagil’s land working in company with the latter, together with Lahaman and
Maharaja Alim, and that in the evening he accompanied those men when they killed
Tantung. He states, however, that he had been invited only to fish, and that he
was entirely ignorant of their purpose to kill Tantung, until he saw that he had
been assaulted by them. Nevertheless, it is repugnant to sound judgment to
suppose that Salatung was taken along by Munagil and Lahaman without his being
associated with them in the plan to kill Tantung. Munagil and Lahaman must have
thought that Salatung would be a witness who could reveal the commission of the
crime. Since the time of the first proposal made to those men by Maharaja Alim
to kill Tantung, they had expressed to Alim their fear that the crime might
afterwards be discovered, and, for this reason, at first declined the
invitation, and did not accept it until Alim had assured them that in any event
he would take care of them; all of which makes it appear unlikely that, for the
killing of Tantung, the defendants mentioned would have taken Salatung with
them, if he had npt been involved both in the responsibility to be incurred and
in the interest to avoid punishment. Moreover, Salatung is a relative of the
deceased, Tantung, and could have taken up the latter’s defense.

The foregoing facts determine Maharaja Alim’s liability as the author of the
crime by inducement, and this inducement was completely efficacious, not so much
on account of the influence of the authority he exercised over his codefendants,
as it was of the assurances he made to them that he would take care of them,
should the crime be discovered, and, above all, because of the price that he
promised and delivered to them and which caused them to decide upon the killing
of their victim. They were relatives of the deceased, and, as for themselves,
had no reason whatever to kill the latter. They killed him only because they had
been induced to do so by Maharaja Alim.

The liability of Munagil and Lahaman as principals, being the actual
perpetrators of the crime, is evident.

As regards Salatung, although he did not assault the deceased, he is equally
liable as principal. He plotted the commission of the crime with his
codefendants; he carried the glance with which the deceased was to be wounded;
he suggested the treacherous manner in which the assault was to be effected; he
steered the vinta in which he and his companions were embarked to the
place where the boat of the deceased was, in accordance with the plan suggested
by him; he asked the deceased for the bait, in order that the latter might be
assaulted ,when he (the latter) should stretch out his arm to give the bait;
when the deceased, after being struck twice with the lance, fell into the water
and was swimming, this defendant Salatung steered the vinta to him,
thus enabling Munagil to strike him on the back with the bolo, causing him to
disappear. All those acts tended directly to the execution of the crime, were as
effective as the assault itself, and, it may properly be said that they formed
an integral part of the assault.

As a price and reward were offered by Maharaja Alim to the other defendants,
this circumstance classifies the crime as murder. As all the defendants
contributed toward the attendance of this circumstance, it should affect each
and all of them.

Premeditation, as an aggravating circumstance, should be held to have
attended the commission of the crime, and it likewise should affect all the
defendants.

As the crime was committed at sea, there is the additional aggravating
circumstances of despoblado. (U. S. vs. Angeles, 6 Phil. Rep.,
480.) This circumstance should affect not only the actual perpetrators Munagil,
Lahaman, and Salatung, but also the inducer Maharaja Alim, because as the latter
was the one who had advised in the morning that the deceased intended to fish in
the sea that afternoon, he virtually induced the commission of the crime
precisely at that place.

Nocturnity should also be considered as an aggravating circumstance. The
advice which Munagil, Lahaman, and Salatung received was that in the afternoon
of that day the deceased intended to fish in the sea; those defendants, however,
awaited the coming of the night for the commission of the crime, and this
indicates that they precisely chose night time that they might commit it with a
better chance of the success of the execution and with less danger of
punishment. But, as the record does not show that Maharaja Alim shared in the
determination to kill the deceased precisely at night, nor that he had knowledge
thereof, this circumstance of the crime should not affect him. (Article 79, par.
2, Penal Code.)

Finally, the aggravating circumstance of treachery should be counted against
Munagil, Lahaman, and Salatung, considering the evidently treacherous manner
employed in the commission of the crime. This circumstance should not affect
Maharaja Alim, inasmuch as it was not shown that he induced the commission of
the crime in that particular way, nor that he was even present at its
commission.

The only extenuating circumstance that may be considered in favor of the
defendants is that of article 11 of the Penal Code, as amended by Act No. 2142.
This circumstance, however, has not always been taken into account by this court
in similar cases. It was not taken into consideration in the case of U. S.
vs. Panglima Indanan (24 Phil. Rep., 203), wherein the defendant, as in
the case at bar, was also a Moro. And although it be taken into account, it is
not of such special importance as to counter-balance the weight of the two
aggravating circumstances against Maharaja Alim, and the four against the other
defendants, all of which are very clear and well defined. Maharaja Alim is the
second chief of the settlement, and this fact implies that, relatively speaking,
he was fairly intelligent. Although the other defendants are of a lower
intellectual level, yet their scant intelligence can not be considered as
sufficient to show that they were mere unconscious instruments in the hands of
Maharaja Alim, whose will they could not resist. The proposal to kill the
deceased had been made to them about a year before, yet they had refrained from
committing the deed and finally decided to do it only when Maharaja Alim had
assured them that he would take care of them in case that the crime would be
discovered, and after he offered them the reward and advanced them P10 in
partial payment of it. In several cases prosecuted against moros and members of
non-Christian tribes, this court did not hold this circumstance as compensated
by more than one aggravating circumstance. (U. S. vs. Ancheta, 15 Phil.
Rep., 470; U. S. vs. Laoyan Dolinen, 14 Phil. Rep., 747; and U. S.
vs. Liwakas [Manobo,] 17 Phil. Rep., 234).

It is hereby held that the defendants Maharaja Alim, Munagil, Lahaman, and
Salatung are guilty of the crime of murder, with the qualifying circumstances
above mentioned. Although we are of the opinion that it would be proper to
impose the death penalty upon all the defendants, yet, inasmuch as the court has
not arrived at a unanimous decision in respect to the imposition of this
penalty, that of cadena perpetua should be imposed, in accordance with
the provisions of Act No. 2726. Therefore, modifying the judgment appealed from
and submitted to us for review, we hereby sentence each one of the defendants
Maharaja Alim, Munagil, Lahaman, and Salatung to the penalty of cadena
perpetua, and in all other respects affirm the said judgment, with the
costs against the appellants. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Johnson, Carson, Street, and Fisher,
JJ., concur.

DISSENTING OPINION

MALCOLM, J., dissenting:

I dissent because I am of the opinion that Maharaja Alim should be acquitted
and Salatung should receive the penalty of life imprisonment.

DISSENTING AND CONCURRING OPINION

ARAULLO, J., dissenting in part and concurring in
part:

I concur with Justice Malcolm in that Maharaja Alim should be acquitted. As
to the rest, I agree with the majority.