EN BANC
[G.R. No. 12607. September 27, 1917. ]
THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RUFINO PARRO, Defendant-Appellant.
Jose A. Clarin for Appellant.
Acting Attorney-General Paredes for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. CRIMINAL LAW; MURDER BY INDUCEMENT. — P. procured an ignorant man, C., to kill the brother and grandniece of P. for a reward for P60 and other promises. C., following the instructions of P., at night waylaid the brother and niece in an uninhabited place and killed them. Held: To constitute murder by inducement for a price. The death penalty imposed.
D E C I S I O N
MALCOLM, J.:
The defendant and appellant had had trouble with his brother Silverio Parro regarding family property by reason of which personal enmity had been engendered between them. With this as the motive, the defendant procured an ignorant man by the name of Gabino Calindatas to kill the brother and grandniece of the defendant for a reward of P60 and a promise to maintain the family of Calindatas if he was arrested, with a further statement that Calindatas could not be prosecuted after the expiration of three years. Calindatas, following the instructions of the defendant, on the night of April 16, 1913, waylaid the brother Silverio Parro and the small girl Paciencia Sendencia in an uninhabited place on the seashore and killed them with a dagger. Calindatas then reported to the defendant that his orders had been executed, whereupon the defendant sent men to bury the bodies in the sea.
These facts constitute murder by inducement for a price and make the defendant guilty as principal in the commission of the crime. (Art. 13, No. 2, Penal Code, and U. S. v. Gamao [1912], 23 Phil., 81 — in connection with art. 403, No. 2, Penal Code and U. S. v. Indanan ([1913], 24 Phil., 203. See also as corroborative authority by the United States Supreme Court.) There also concur the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, relationship, and commission in the night time and in an uninhabited place (and possibly others), offset by no mitigating circumstance. The trial court sentenced the defendant and appellant to cadena perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Silverio Parro and Paciencia Sendencia each in the amount of P500, and to pay the costs. Agreeable to the recommendation of the Attorney-General and following the mandatory precepts of the law, we are forced to eliminate from this judgment so much as provides for life imprisonment and in lieu thereof to sentence the defendant and appellant Rufino Parro to be hanged until dead in accordance with law, with the costs of this instance. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Carson, Araullo and Street, JJ., concur.
These facts constitute murder by inducement for a price and make the defendant guilty as principal in the commission of the crime. (Art. 13, No. 2, Penal Code, and U. S. v. Gamao [1912], 23 Phil., 81 — in connection with art. 403, No. 2, Penal Code and U. S. v. Indanan ([1913], 24 Phil., 203. See also as corroborative authority by the United States Supreme Court.) There also concur the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, relationship, and commission in the night time and in an uninhabited place (and possibly others), offset by no mitigating circumstance. The trial court sentenced the defendant and appellant to cadena perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Silverio Parro and Paciencia Sendencia each in the amount of P500, and to pay the costs. Agreeable to the recommendation of the Attorney-General and following the mandatory precepts of the law, we are forced to eliminate from this judgment so much as provides for life imprisonment and in lieu thereof to sentence the defendant and appellant Rufino Parro to be hanged until dead in accordance with law, with the costs of this instance. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Carson, Araullo and Street, JJ., concur.
