THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MAXIMO MELAD, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This appeal is taken by the accused Maximo
Melad from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Cagayan,
sentencing him, under article 404 of the Penal Code, to seventeen years
four months and one day of reclusion temporal, with the
accessories provided by law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased
Marcelina Mape in the sum of P500 and to pay the costs.

The crime charged is homicide committed by the accused upon the
person of Marcelina Mape on March 8, 1919, in the municipality of
Penablanca, Cagayan.

The only contention made by the defense in this court is that the
-evidence adduced by the prosecution is insufficient to convict.

The Honorable Federico Olbes, Judge, who tried this cause, in
examining the evidence adduced at the trial, says the following in his
decision:

“The prosecution presented the following witnesses:

“Santiago Gatering, 60 years old, who declared that one morning in the
month of March of last year, while in the company of Pedro Anam, he saw
Maximo Melad carrying Marcelina Mape who, he thought, was ill; that in
the afternoon when he returned from the place where he and Pedro Anam
had gone he found, in the southern part of the road, the corpse of
Marcelina Mape which they then examined and recognized.

“This witness also declared that the only houses in that place were
those of Marcelina Mape and the accused Maximo Melad, which were about
50 meters apart.

“He further declared that on that occasion
Juan Taguiam, his wife, and the daughter of Marcelina Mapa were away
from the house where Marcelina was.

“Pedro Anam completely
corroborates the testimony of the witness Santiago Gatering. His
declaration differs from that of the preceding witness only in this
respect, that according to Anam the incident was investigated by the
Constabulary soldiers nine days afterwards, that is, the next day after
a brother of the deceased Marcelina Mape was notified of the fact. The
witness Gatering denies this fact.

“The third witness of the
prosecution was Mariano Hernandez, son of Agustina Manuel, who is the
paramour of the accused Maximo Melad. This witness, a young man of 18
years, testified that at daybreak on a certain Saturday, Maximo Melad
awakened him and ordered him to take care of the beans; that at that
time he saw Maximo Melad leave the house and proceed eastward, carrying
with him a stick; that sometime afterwards, while answering a call of
nature, he heard a cry somewhere in the east and he returned to their
house where he saw Maximo Melad who had a roll of bank bills. This
witness also declared that prior to that date he lived in the house of
Federico Suyo, but that on that occasion he was in the house of Maximo
Melad who lived with his mother Agustina Manuel. He also stated that on
the morning following that Saturday Maximo Melad and his paramour
Agustina Manuel moved to the house of Federico Suyo.

“The
fourth witness of the prosecution is Juan Taguiam, who is married to a
niece of the deceased Marcelina Mape. This witness declared that he
lived with Marcelina Mape, her daughter and his own wife, a piece of
Marcelina; that several days previously the daughter of Marcelina Mape
had moved to another place and barrio to take care of certain plants;
that on Friday immediately preceding the act in question, he went with
his wife to the place where the daughter of Marcelina Mape was, and
there he, his wife and the daughter of the deceased Marcelina Mape
slept together in the sitio of Dodan; that he had gone to Dodan to take
care of the beans he had planted; that about noon of Saturday, upon
returning to the house where they left Marcelina Mape, they found out
that she was not there and after waiting for her in vain for some time,
he gave the alarm to the municipal president of Penablanca. He also
declared that Marcelina Mape had some money and that she used to carry
it around her waist.

“The defense is based upon the declarations of the witnesses Federico Suyo, Agustina Manuel and Maximo Melad, the accused.

“Federico Suyo declared that one day, while in the company of the
accused Maximo Melad, he saw at a place in the road near the house of
the deceased Marcelina Mape the remains of a person; that then he
called Juan Taguiam to examine it, and the latter stated that it is the
corpse of Marcelina Mape; that Juan Taguiam then transferred the
remains to the interior of a forest at the base of a tree in order that
other persons might not see it.

“Agustina Manuel declared
that the night preceding the day of the crime, she was not at the house
of Maximo Melad, and that his son, Mariano Hernandez, lived long before
that date in the house of Federico Suyo.

“The only testimony
of the accused Maximo Melad is his denial of the facts that he had been
seen by the witnesses Catering and Anam and that the witness Hernandez,
son of his paramour, was at his house on that Saturday.

“This is all the evidence adduced by both parties.

“The principal argument of the accused is that the first accusation was
presented against Juan Taguiam, who was acquitted by this court, as is
shown by Exhibit A which was admitted in evidence. The defense contends
that if Maximo Melad was really the author of the death of Marcelina
Mape there is no reason why the first prosecution was against Juan
Taguiam.

“This circumstance was taken into consideration by
this court, for if the evidence against Maximo Melad is true, it must
have existed prior to the filing of the first information against Juan
Taguiam, and, apparently, the motive which induced the prosecution to
file the first charge against Juan Taguiam, instead of against the
present accused, Maximo Melad, is not shown.

“But the judge who renders this judgment is the same judge who heard the evidence adduced in the criminal case No. 1795, U. S. vs.
Juan Taguiam, and he saw in said case two affidavits, one signed by
Maximo Melad and the other by Federico Suyo. In the first Maximo Melad
declares that he saw Juan Taguiam kill Marcelina Mape with a stick and
that under the compulsion of Juan Taguiam, he helped him take the
corpse to a place in the road near the house of the deceased Marcelina
Mape. Naturally, with these affidavits, the prosecution filed the
information against Juan Taguiam; but this court after hearing these
two witnesses acquitted Juan Taguiam. This is the reason and motive why
the prosecution filed the first charge against Juan Taguiam and not
against Maximo Melad.

“After examining all the testimony of
the witnesses in this cause against Maximo Melad, this court cannot but
reach the conclusion that said accused Melad was the person who killed
Marcelina Mape and that robbery was the motive of the crime, the facts
proved being therefore the following:

“That in the morning
of March 8, 1919, at the place known as Litto, in the municipality of
Pefiablanca, Province of Cagayan, the accused Maximo Melad, armed with
a stick, entered the house of the deceased Marcelina Mape and then and
there killed her and took all the money which she had.

“The
court cannot convict Maximo Melad of the complex crime of robbery with
homicide because the information charges him only of homicide.
Nevertheless, aggravating circumstance No. 20, of article 10 of the
Penal Code, should be applied against the accused, because the deceased
was a woman and furthermore the accused committed the act in the
dwelling of the deceased.

“The circumstance of lack of instruction cannot be applied in favor of the accused Maximo Melad.”

We have carefully examined the evidence before us and we are of the
opinion, and so hold, that the findings of fact of the trial court are
in accordance with the merits of the case. The appellant’s brief raises
no question of law which this court should determine, and the judgment
appealed from being in accordance with law, it is affirmed, with costs
against the appellant. So ordered.

Mapa, C. J., Araullo, Street, and Malcolm, JJ., concur.