United States vs. Ancheta

One who induces others to commit robbery with homicide is a principal thereof upon consummation of the crime by those induced, even without personal intent to gain, and is subject to aggravating circumstances of material execution known to him beforehand. The rule follows article 13 of the Penal Code and article 79 on the communication of circumstances, with premeditation available as an aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide.

Rufino Ancheta and Tiburcio Ancheta were relatives living near Cervantes, Mountain Province, with Tiburcio residing with his Igorot wife Salome and Rufino residing with his wife Petra a short distance away. Their relations involved a house and lot in town sold by Tiburcio, rice fields tilled in common, and a carabao used for work, over the proceeds and use of which Rufino claimed to have been deprived. The governing law was the Penal Code on principals by inducement under article 13, robbery with homicide under articles 502 and 503, communication of aggravating and extenuating circumstances under article 79, and the Code of Criminal Procedure on amendment and effect of defects in complaints and informations.

Tiburcio Ancheta resided with his Igorot wife Salome in a hut near Cervantes, Mountain Province, some 70 yards from the house of Rufino Ancheta, who lived there with his wife Petra. Rufino bore resentment toward Tiburcio over the sale of a house in town for P40, of which Rufino claimed to have received none or very little, over rice fields, and over Tiburcio's refusal to lend his carabao, valued at P150, while expecting to inherit Tiburcio's property.

In the latter part of August 1908, four Igorots from the rancheria of Booyan — Laoyan Dolinen alias Quibatay, Guay, Dalocdoc, and Toog alias Udcusan — passed the night at Lesseb and by evening arrived near Cervantes seeking work. Being unacquainted with Rufino, they went to his house, where he proposed that they kill Tiburcio, telling them Tiburcio had recently sold land or a house for P40 to be found in the house, that they could take his carabao and exchange it for a younger one which he would later purchase, and that as his only relative there would be no complainant. After killing five chickens and reading their galls as favorable, the Igorots agreed. Under the plan Rufino was to leave for Ululing or Cambaguio in the morning to avoid examination, while the Igorots hid in the bushes south of the victim's house, fed by Petra, and struck at night. They spent the day concealed, ate at Rufino's house, proceeded to Tiburcio's hut, but finding him armed with a long bolo withdrew and spent the night in the bushes.

The next morning they followed Rufino to the house of Bacolog near Ululing, where he was breakfasting with Bacolog and an Ilocano named Abot. Apart from the others, Rufino reproached them for eating his chickens without doing as told and said he had gone to Cambaguio expecting the killing to have been done. The Igorots then spent three days clearing four parcels for Bacolog for P2.25 while Rufino and Abot plowed. About noon of the third day Rufino renewed the order to kill Tiburcio that night and to conceal themselves as before, again leaving for Ululing. Returning to Rufino's house they found only Petra, who told them to go to Tiburcio's house on the pretext of cooking rice, and who again brought food to their hiding place.

After dark they entered Tiburcio's house, gained familiarity by appealing to hospitality, cooked and ate rice and supper, then went to the porch where Tiburcio sat in the doorway with Laoyan and Dalocdoc in front, Udcusan to his left and Guay to his right. On signal Guay struck Tiburcio in the face with a club a little less than a meter long and Udcusan struck his legs, killing him as Petra extinguished the light and Salome cried out. They searched for the P40 without success, Salome saying it had been spent for clothing, bolos and rice fields, took clothing which Salome carried, and carried away the carabao as promised reward, leaving pursuant to Rufino's instructions the young pigs, chickens for those who would bury the body, palay, rice, barate, ax, cooking jar, bolos and the black burial shirt said to be in town. Rufino had instructed them to flee if pursued on the road and that Petra would inform him at Ululing so he could later report the matter.

According to the prosecution, the crime was thus suggested, incited and brought about by Rufino for resentment and inheritance. The accused, for his part, denied absolutely the testimony and stated he had never seen the witnesses until they appeared against him in court. The trial court, after review of all evidence, credited the Igorots' story as true, a finding sustained on the ground that their narrative disclosed knowledge of personal matters — the house sale and non-participation in proceeds, common tillage, the black burial shirt, leaving animals for funeral attendants, Rufino's work for Bacolog and presence at Ululing, and his expectancy as heir — obtainable only through intimate relation with the accused.

• Intent to Gain: Petitioner maintained that conviction for robbery with homicide was impossible for absence of intent of gain to himself, an essential element of robbery, as raised by demurrer at the beginning of trial for failure to allege intent of gain or gain to be obtained by Rufino Ancheta.
• Warrant of Arrest: Petitioner argued that the warrant was issued without probable cause, was not supported by oath or affirmation, and was issued without due process of law.
• Verification and Examination of Querella: Petitioner argued that the pretended querella upon which he was tried was not verified or based upon a preliminary examination as provided by law.
• Form of Querella: Petitioner argued that the pretended querella did not conform substantially to the prescribed form.
• Sufficiency of Querella: Petitioner argued that the pretended querella did not state facts sufficient to constitute the crime of robo con homicidio por induccion.

• Inducement and Intent to Gain: Whether one who induces others to commit robbery with homicide may be convicted as principal despite absence of personal intent to gain.
• Credibility and Corroboration: Whether the testimony of the induced Igorots established the accused as instigator and inducer of the crime.
• Aggravating Circumstances: Whether nocturnity and premeditation were imputable to the inducer to raise the penalty to its maximum degree.
• Procedural Regularity and Waiver: Whether alleged defects in warrant, querella, arraignment and trial warranted reversal where no timely objection was made except on intent to gain.

• Inducement and Intent to Gain: Yes. Inducement alone makes the inducer a principal upon consummation by those induced with intent to gain for themselves, personal gain to the inducer being immaterial under article 13.
• Credibility and Corroboration: Yes. The Igorots' account bore badges of truth and was irrefragably corroborated by personal details obtainable only from the accused, notwithstanding his denial.
• Aggravating Circumstances: Yes. Nocturnity, as a circumstance of material execution known and arranged beforehand, and premeditation, available in robbery with homicide, attended the commission with no extenuating circumstance.
• Procedural Regularity and Waiver: No. Unobjected defects not prejudicing substantial rights on the merits were waived and cured under sections 9 and 10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

• Inducement and Intent to Gain: The crime was complete as to the material executors who acted with intent to gain for themselves by taking the carabao and seeking the P40. That instant the accused became a principal by inducement, requiring no further participation, pursuant to article 13 of the Penal Code and Spanish jurisprudence. Whether he intended or expected financial gain was therefore wholly immaterial, defeating the demurrer.
• Credibility and Corroboration: The vivid, consistent narratives of Laoyan and Guay on the proposal, chickens and galls, concealment, aborted first attempt, reproach at Bacolog's, renewed order, manner of killing, search for money, and disposition of effects were credited below. Corroboration lay in the impossibility of their knowing, except from the accused, the house sale and division of proceeds, common tillage, burial shirt, direction to leave animals for funeral attendants, work for Bacolog, stay at Ululing, and heirship, establishing instigation clearly.
• Aggravating Circumstances: The robbery and homicide were planned by the accused with exact instructions, including selection of night to facilitate commission and minimize discovery, carried out in consonance therewith. Under article 79, second paragraph, circumstances of material execution or means employed aggravate those acquainted therewith at commission or cooperation, hence nocturnity was imputable. Premeditation, inherent in simple robbery and thus not aggravating it under United States vs. Castroverde and United States vs. Blanco, remains available in robbery with homicide under articles 502 and 503 per Spanish judgments, and was clearly present, requiring the maximum penalty.
• Procedural Regularity and Waiver: From arrest to termination of trial no objection was made to processes or pleadings except the demurrer on intent to gain, which lacked legal basis. Questions on warrant and querella therefore could not be heard, defects if any being waived. Sections 9 and 10 permit amendment as to form without prejudice and disregard defects of form not prejudicing substantial rights, and no uncured defect of form or substance remained, consistent with United States vs. Wilson.

• Principal by inducement — One who directly induces another to commit a crime is a principal under article 13 of the Penal Code; the crime being consummated by the persons induced acting with the requisite intent, the inducer's liability attaches at that instant without need for further participation or personal gain, as applied to condemn Rufino Ancheta for the robbery with homicide executed by the Igorots for their own gain.
• Communication of circumstances under article 79, Penal Code — Circumstances consisting in moral condition, private relations or other personal cause affect only those to whom they apply; circumstances consisting in material execution or means employed affect only those acquainted therewith at commission or cooperation. Applied to impute nocturnity, arranged by the inducer as the time of execution, while personal circumstances would remain uncommunicated.
• Nocturnity as aggravating circumstance — Night selected to facilitate commission and minimize discovery, known beforehand to the participant, aggravates liability as a means of execution. Applied because the accused expressly arranged night attack and concealment.
• Premeditation in robbery with homicide vs. simple robbery — Premeditation, inherent in robbery, cannot aggravate simple robbery under United States vs. Castroverde and United States vs. Blanco, but may aggravate robbery with homicide under articles 502 and 503. Applied to augment penalty where planning, persistence after first failure, and renewed order were proved.
• Waiver and cure of procedural defects — Objections to warrant, complaint or information not timely raised are waived, and under sections 9 and 10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, defects of form not prejudicing substantial rights on the merits do not affect trial, judgment or proceedings. Applied to reject assignments on warrant and querella raised only on appeal.

• "The mere facts of inducing the commission of the crime makes him a principal." — States the controlling rule on inducement, rendering the inducer's personal intent to gain immaterial once the induced persons consummate the crime with intent to gain for themselves.
• "The circumstances which consist in the material execution of the deed, or in the means employed to accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate or diminish the liability of those person only who were acquainted with them at the moment of the commission of the crime, or of their cooperation therein." — Quotes article 79, second paragraph, the basis for imputing nocturnity to the accused who arranged nighttime execution.
• "No accused person may be heard to challenge any process, pleading, proceeding or decision in the courts of these Islands on account of any defect or irregularity which does not prejudice a substantial right upon the merits." — Defines the limit of procedural challenges, supporting waiver and cure of unobjected defects under sections 9 and 10.
• "We only had the intention to rob the carabao and without induction we would not have killed that man but we killed him because that man instructed us to kill him [indicating the accused, Rufino Ancheta]." — Records Laoyan's direct attribution of inducement, central to the finding of principalship by inducement.

• United States vs. Castroverde, 4 Phil. Rep., 246 — Followed for the rule that premeditation is inherent in robbery and cannot aggravate it, distinguished to allow premeditation as aggravating in robbery with homicide.
• United States vs. Blanco, 10 Phil. Rep., 298 — Followed on the same rule regarding premeditation in robbery, distinguished for robbery with homicide.
• United States vs. Wilson, 4 Phil. Rep., 317 — Followed to dispose of assignments on warrant, complaint and procedural regularity.
• United States vs. Laoyan et al., No. 5136, 14 Phil. Rep., 747 — Prior affirmance of death sentences of the four Igorot material executors who confessed, establishing the consummated robbery with homicide induced in this case.
• Judgments of the Supreme Court of Spain, 20 October 1881; 7 January 1887; 12 January 1899; 22 November 1900 — Cited as authority that the inducer is a principal, that nocturnity known beforehand is imputable, and that premeditation may aggravate robbery with homicide.

• Article 13, Penal Code — Defines principals including those who directly induce others; applied to hold the accused as principal upon execution by the Igorots.
• Articles 502 and 503, Penal Code — Define and punish robbery with homicide; applied to convict and, with aggravation and no mitigation, to impose death under paragraph 1 of article 503.
• Article 79, Penal Code — Governs communication of aggravating and extenuating circumstances, personal versus material; applied to impute nocturnity and to discuss premeditation.
• Article 53, Penal Code — Provides accessories to death penalty; imposed with the death sentence.
• Sections 9 and 10, Code of Criminal Procedure — Allow amendment of information or complaint as to form without prejudice and disregard non-prejudicial defects of form; applied to reject belated procedural objections.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson and Carson, JJ., concur.