THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. DINULON AND BIMUSAO, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

This is one of a very few cases which have come to the Supreme Court
showing the legendary and historical customs of the so-called
head-hunting tribes. The custom to which reference is made is that
which demands in their inter-tribal relations “a head for a life.” In
the background of the present cases and which apparently was the real
cause of the present alleged murders, the following facts appear. All
of the parties concerned in the present actions belonged to
non-Christian tribes in the mountains of northern Luzon. All the
defendants belonged to the Balangao tribe. The deceased Palaad and his
son Bonhaon belonged to the Mayaoyao tribe. For sometime there existed
a standing feud or enmity between the two tribes. Before the murder
complained of in the complaint of Palaad took place, one Balengua who
belonged to the tribe of the defendants—the Balangao tribe,—had been
killed. Balengua, it appears, was an uncle or near relative of the
defendant Dinulon. It also appears that Balengua had been murdered by
members of the Mayaoyao tribe, or the tribe to which Palaad and his son
Bonhaon belonged.

The record also discloses the fact that at
the suggestion or initiative of the defendant Dinulon, he and the other
defendants entered into an agreement, on behalf of their tribe, to
avenge the death of Balengua. Accordingly, in the month of April, 1924,
Dinulon and his companions set out on a head-hunting expedition. When
they arrived at a sitio called Mangayan in the subprovince of Ifugao,
they lay in ambush along a path or road and waited for their victims.
Sometime thereafter, and the record does not show how long, Palaad, the
deceased, and his son Bonhaon appeared and were suddenly attacked by
the defendants. As a result of that sudden attack Palaad was killed.
His head was severed from his body and carried away. The son, Bonhaon,
who was able to escape unhurt, reported the death of his father to the
authorities, which resulted in an investigation and the presentation of
the complaints in the present cases.

Thereafter and on the
5th day of May, 1924, complaints were presented against said
defendants, charging them with murder and attempted murder,
respectively, in two separate complaints in the court of the justice of
the peace of the municipality of Kiangan, subprovince of Ifugao,
Mountain Province. After a preliminary examination in both causes the
justice of the peace found that there was reasonable ground to believe
that the defendants committed the crimes charged, and held them for
trial in the Court of First Instance of said province. On the 21st day
of May, 1924, the prosecuting attorney filed two separate informations.
In the cause for murder against Dinulon and Bimusao, R. G. No. 23417,
the information alleged:

“Que en o hacia el
dia 20 de abril de 1924, en el Distrito Municipal de Mayaoyao,
Subprovincia de Ifugao, Provincia Montanosa, Islas Filipinas, los
referidos acusados, conspirando entre si y obrando juntos y
confederados, voluntaria, ilegal y criminalmente y con premeditacion
conocida, alevosia y ensanamiento, mataron con lanzas de caña bojo y
bolos a Palaad (igorrote), habiendole inferido varias heridas graves y
mortales de necesidad en diferentes partes de su cuerpo que causaron su
muerte instantanea, y una vez muerto cortaron la cabeza de dicho Palaad.

“Hecho cometido con infraccion de la Ley.”

In the cause for attempted murder against Daoyan and Taeg, R. G. No. 23418, the information alleged:

“Que
en o hacia el dia 20 de abril de 1924, en el Distrito Municipal de
Mayaoyao, Subprovincia de Ifugao, Provincia Montañosa, Islas Filipinas,
los referidos acusados, previa conspiracion y confabulacion entre si,
voluntaria, ilegal y criminalmente, con premeditacion conocida y
alevosia, intentaron matar con sus lanzas y bolos a Bonhaon (igorrote)
mientras este estaba caminando, habiendo dado principio a la ejecucion
del delito directamente por hechos exteriores, persiguiendo con dichos
bolos desenvainados y lanzas a dicho Bonhaon mientras este corria para
escaparse de silos, le tiraron dichas lanzas contra su espalda para
conseguir su proposito de matarle, no habiendo practicado dichos
acusados todos los actos de ejecucion que debieran producir el delito
de asesinato por haber podido escaparse de ellos.

“Hecho cometido con infraccion de la Ley.”

On the 5th day of November, 1924, the prosecuting attorney filed an
amended information in R. G. No. 23417, charging the original
defendants therein with the same crime of murder, and included Baoyan
and Taeg as additional defendants therein. However, the amended
information was withdrawn for the sake of expediency.

The
two causes were tried together by agreement of the parties. At the
conclusion of the trial and after a detailed and thorough study of the
evidence, pro and con, the Honorable Anastasio R. Teodoro, in a very
interesting and illuminated opinion, found the defendants Dinulon and
Bimusao in cause R. G. No. 23417, guilty of the crime of murder with
the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation and with the
aggravating circumstances of treachery and cruelty and the mitigating
circumstance of article 11 of the Penal Code, and sentenced them to
life imprisonment, with the accessory penalties of the law, to
indemnify the heirs of Palaad in the sum of P500 and to pay the costs.
In cause R. G. No. 23418 the judge also found the defendants Daoyan and
Taeg guilty of the crime of attempted murder, with the qualifying
circumstance of evident premeditation, and with the aggravating
circumstance of treachery and the mitigating circumstance of article 11
of the Penal Code, and sentenced them each to suffer six years and one
day of presidio mayor, with the accessory penalties of the law, to indemnify the offended party Bonhaon in the sum of P250 and to pay the costs.

The defendants in both causes appealed from the sentence of the lower court, and now raise a question of fact only.

It appears from the record that sometime in the month of April, 1924,
while Bonhaon and his father Palaad were passing along a road or path
in the sitio of Mangayan, municipal district of Mayaoyao, subprovince
of Ifugao, Mountain Province, they were suddenly attacked by four
persons; that those persons were Dinulon, Bimusao, Baoyan and Taeg, the
defendants in the above-entitled causes; that Palaad, who was walking
behind his son, was hit with a bamboo spear thrown by Dinulon; that
Palaad fell; that Daoyan and Taeg threw their spears at Bonhaon, but
they hit only the basket he was carrying on his back, without touching
his body; that Bonhaon was pursued by Daoyan and Taeg, but he succeeded
in running away from them; that Daoyan and Taeg joined Dinulon and
Bimusao, who were then stabbing Palaad with their bolos, and helped
them kill Palaad; that Palaad’s body received numerous wounds, his head
was cut off and carried away by Dinulon.

The foregoing facts
establish beyond a reasonable doubt the crime of murder with the
qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation, committed by the
defendants Dinulon and Bimusao in cause R. G. No. 23417 upon the person
of Palaad, with the aggravating circumstances of treachery and cruelty.
Said facts also prove conclusively the crime of attempted murder with
the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation, committed by the
defendants Daoyan and Taeg upon the person of Bonhaon, with the
aggravating circumstance of treachery. All of said aggravating
circumstances, however, are offset by the lack of education and
instruction of the defendants.

Counsel for the defense now
insists, in his first assignment of error, that the lower court erred
in fully believing the evidence for the prosecution and in disregarding
entirely the evidence for the defense.

The evidence for the
prosecution consisted of the testimony of Bonhaon, Tanaynay, Cudal, Del
Rosario, Pagulayan, and Bangalen. Bonhaon, one of the offended parties
and the son of the deceased Palaad, was present in the execution of the
criminal acts by the defendants. After escaping from his assailants, he
hid in a thicket in an elevation about 35 meters from the place where
his father fell, and from that thicket he witnessed all of the details
of the commission of the crime. In the course of his testimony he
clearly stated the individual acts perpetrated by each of the
defendants and he fully identified each one of them. The occasional
contradictions noted by counsel for appellants in his testimony have
been cleared and explained by him at the trial when his attention was
called thereto. There is absolutely no ground to doubt the veracity of
this witness.

The other witnesses for the prosecution,
Tinaynay, Cudal, Del Rosario, Pagulayan and Bangalen were all peace
officers of the Government. In substance they testified that, upon
their receiving notice of the murder of Palaad by the Balangao people,
order was issued to the councillors of the municipal district of
Natonin to gather all the men in that district; that the defendants
Dinulon, Daoyan and Taeg were absent from the gathering; that they were
sent for and were brought before the authorities; that they confessed
to the commission of the crimes, explained their conspiracy to commit
the same and the motive behind it, and mentioned the defendant Bimusao
as their companion; that after their confession, and when already under
arrest, they requested permission from the proper authorities to hold
their tribal feast called “cañao” in order to celebrate the murder of
Palaad; that the same night of their arrest the defendants together
with the people of the district celebrated the “cañao” under the
vigilance of the Constabulary soldiers; that the defendants reiterated
their confessions before Lieutenant Pagulayan, of the Constabulary, who
took them down in writing as Exhibits E, F, G and H; that said exhibits
were read to them in their own dialect, and were ratified and
authenticated by them with their thumbmarks in the presence of the
justice of the peace.

The evidence for the defense consisted
in the testimony of the defendants and their witnesses Labaddan,
Daoagan and Matalem. The defendants testified that they did not take
any participation in the commission of the crime, and that their
confessions were extorted from them by sergeant Del Rosario, of the
Constabulary, through force, violence and torture, publicly inflicted
upon them. Witnesses Labaddan, Daoagan and Matalem also testified that
the defendants were tortured by sergeant Del Rosario in an open public
place, in full view of the people of; the district of Natonin and the
councillors thereof, who were all present at the place on that
occasion; and that Del Rosario boxed and kicked them continually till
they confessed to the commission of the crimes.

The evidence for the defense can hardly be believed. It is inherently improbable. Torturing a suspected person in public,
in the presence of many people, especially councillors of the district,
as in the present case, in order to extort confession of guilt to be
used for his conviction in court, is contrary to common sense and
common experience. It is believed that if torture would ever be
resorted to by Constabulary soldiers as a means to secure confession,
that they would inflict the same with reasonable privacy in order to
forestall any attempt to thereafter attack said confession as having
been secured by means of force, violence and torture. They would not do
it publicly, as alleged in the present case, because the very
publicity of the torture would easily render the confession
inadmissible against the accused.

Furthermore, there is
another feature of the evidence for the defense which throws suspicion
on the veracity of the witnesses. Daoagan and Matalem testified that
they went to Bontoc (seat of the court) for the purpose of buying salt
only, and that they did not know that they would be required to appear
in court as witnesses. This pretended ignorance; reflect very much on
their credibility. The testimony of the witness Labaddan conflicts in
one essential point with that of the defendants. He declared that when
he placed his thumbmark on the confessions of the defendants as a
witness, the defendants were not present and he did not see them place
their thumbmarks thereon. On the other hand, the defendants Bimusao and
Dinulon testified that Labaddan was present when they placed their
thumbmarks on their confessions and that they were also present when
Labaddan put his thumbmark, as witness to said confessions.

The foregoing critical analysis, of the evidence for both the
prosecution and the defense shows that the trial court was justified in
giving full credit to the evidence for the prosecution and in
disregarding entirely the evidence for the defense. It also shows that
the first error assigned” by counsel for appellants has no any
foundation whatsoever.

In his second assignment of error
counsel contends that the lower court erred in admitting in evidence
Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H, He contends that Exhibits A, B, C,
and D have not been satisfactorily identified.

Exhibit A is
the spear of Dinulon which he left sticking into the breast of the
victim Palaad. Bonhaon, son of Palaad, pulled it out and presented it
to the Constabulary soldiers. Said exhibit was identified at the trial
by Bonhaon and sergeant Tinaynay. Exhibits B and C are the bolos used
by Bimusao and Dinulon in the commission of the crime. They voluntarily
surrendered them to the Constabulary soldiers. Sergeant Tinaynay
identified them at the trial. Exhibit D consists of a bunch of human
hairs found by the soldiers scattered about, the place where Dinulon
had left the head of Palaad. Even granting that those hairs were not
those of Palaad, that fact will not affect the guilt of the accused.
The crimes committed by them have been proven independently of this
Exhibit D. As to Exhibits E, F, G, and H, which are the confessions of
the defendants before Lieutenant Pagulayan, counsel contends that said
confessions are not voluntary, but extorted from them through force and
violence, and that they placed their thumbmarks on said exhibits
without knowledge of the contents thereof. The merits of said exhibits
as evidence against the defendants have been fully demonstrated in the
discussion of the credibility of the witnesses for the prosecution and
the defense. The contention of counsel as to their admissibility is
untenable.

Therefore, the sentence of the lower court is hereby affirmed in each case, with costs. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Street, Malcolm, Villamor, and Johns, JJ., concur.