United States v.

Manalinde

G.R. No. L-5292

August 28, 1909

DOCTRINE: Aggravating Circumstances; treachery, promise of reward, evident premeditation

FACTS:

On January 19, 1909 Manalinde, a Moro, attacked Spanirad Juan Igual with a kris from behind
inside Sousa’s store and a Chinaman named Choa who was standing infront of the store, unloading his
stuff before he could enter. Manalinde ran away after injuring the two men, with Choa dying within the
hour.

On February 05, Manalinde was charged with murder and sentenced him to death, as well as
indemnifying the heirs of Choa with P1,000. The Court also ruled that from the events that transpired,
seeing that Choa had no means nor time to protect himself from the wound inflicted, the crime
committed by Manalinde was consummated with deceit and treachery (alevosia). Manalinde pleaded
guilty to the crime and had confessed that his actions for committing said crime is because the datto in
his hometown, Datu Rajamudah Mupuck, ordered him to kill the two for revenge and in exchange for
this, he would be given a pretty woman, since Manalinde’s wife passed away recently (100 days ago).
From this, Manalinde reasons out that he should not be punished out of his performance of merely
being obedient to his superior and that he had no malicious intent or evil motive towards the Spaniard
and the Chinaman and only killed them out of compliance.

ISSUES:

WON Manalinde should not be punished for compliance to his superior

RULING:

No. The Court further ruled that there were two aggravating circumstances present in the
commission of the crime. First, is the commission of the act for promise of reward and second, is
premeditation, which are held as generic since the crime has already been qualified to be committed
with treachery.

Compliance with the order, along with knowing that what he was tasked to do is to inflict
irreparable and serious harm towards others, entails Manalinde’s exercise of his free will and
voluntariness for the unlawful act, given that he was induced or motivated with the promise of acquiring
a pretty woman. The accused knew full well the consequences of his action but nevertheless, continued
to do so. His defense of obedience shall not be granted nor appreciated by the Court.

Evident premeditation is concrete in his execution of said crime since he took a journey for one
and a half day, hid the weapon to be used or the kris, in banana leaves, for the sole purpose of killing the
two strangers. So, while there was no relationship with the deceased and the injured Spaniard, it does
not alter the nature of the crime because he still had firm intention and motivation to carry out Datto
Mupuck’s orders.
 The Court AFFIRMS the lower court’s judgment but that the penalty imposed on the culprit shall
be executed in accordance with the provisions of Acts. Nos. 451 and 1577, and that in the event of a
pardon being granted he shall likewise be sentenced to suffer the accessory penalties imposed by article
53 of the Penal Code.