GR 1175; (August, 1903) (Digest)
G.R. No. 1175 : August 27, 1903
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. TOMAS HINTO SANTOS, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
FACTS:
On June 1, 1902, a band of about twenty-five armed men captured five American cavalry soldiers and two civilians, Agapito Nicolas and Deogracias Paynon, in Rizal Province. The prisoners were taken to Mount Aduas. The accused, Tomas Hinto Santos, was identified by the civilian witnesses as a member of the armed band, carrying a revolver. The witnesses testified that the five American prisoners were held for over a week. On the final night, the accused and four other armed men led the bound Americans away from the house. The Americans were killed while bound and defenseless, and their bodies were later found. During the trial, the accused admitted the truth of the prosecution’s witnesses and claimed he initially objected to the killing, suggesting an exchange of prisoners instead, but was overruled by force.
ISSUE:
Whether the accused, Tomas Hinto Santos, is liable as a principal for the murder of the five American prisoners, and what circumstances attended the commission of the crime.
RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, imposing the death penalty. The Court ruled that the accused is liable as a principal by direct participation in the crime of murder. His presence at the scene, armed with a revolver, augmented the band’s strength and aided in the execution of the crime, regardless of his initial objection or that he did not personally strike the fatal blows. The qualifying circumstance of alevosia (treachery) was present because the victims were bound and unable to defend themselves. The aggravating circumstance of known premeditation was also present, as the band deliberated for over a week before taking the prisoners at midnight to kill them in the woods, indicating sufficient reflection. The penalty of death was thus proper under the Penal Code.
Separate Opinion:
Justice Mapa dissented in part, agreeing with the classification of the crime and the accused’s guilt but opining that the aggravating circumstance of deliberate premeditation did not exist. He believed the proper penalty should have been life imprisonment (cadena perpetua).