United States vs. Dasal

A killing committed pursuant to a conspiracy formed hours beforehand is murder qualified by evident premeditation, and participants who render mediate, indirect aid under common agreement without direct participation are liable only as accomplices under Article 14 of the Penal Code.

The Dos Hermanos was an American steamer, license No. 72 dated January 11, 1900, registered for coastwise trade in the Philippine Islands, with a crew of 41 under Captain Miguel Morales. Section 1 of Act No. 400, passed May 16, 1902, amending Act No. 136, vested jurisdiction over crimes committed aboard Philippine-licensed vessels in the Court of First Instance of the port where the vessel puts in after the commission of the crime.

Shortly after 8 o'clock on the evening of August 13, 1902, the steamer Dos Hermanos lay at anchor in the harbor of Virac, Catanduanes Islands, some 40 yards from the beach, bow toward shore and stern made fast to the beach. Captain Miguel Morales, First Mate Juan Zabala, five passengers, and guest Don Joaquin Romero sat around the table on the poop deck after supper, while First Engineer Antonio Agudo and Second Engineer Fabian Rendon conversed amidships on the port side outside the officers' staterooms. Suddenly many men rushed from the bow; the first engineer's voice shouted "Quartermaster," and Rendon ran toward the captain pursued by Quartermaster Pantaleon Cajilig and several crewmen armed with knives, daggers, and iron bars.

In the ensuing attack Rendon was wounded in the back, Captain Morales was stabbed in the groin and cut on the head when he tried to reach the pantry, and Mate Zabala was attacked with a knife by calker Elpidio Andrade, nearly thrown overboard, and struck on the head with an iron bar by seaman Rufino de Jesus before escaping into the pantry with Morales and Rendon. Five mutineers locked the pantry door from outside and thrust daggers through the portholes, while passenger Faustino Tremoya was wounded in the arm and also took refuge there. Chief Engineer Agudo was assailed by several mutineers and wounded in ten places; his body was later found in his stateroom. Steward Vicente Amellategui jumped overboard after being struck with an iron hook and disappeared, as did Chinese carpenter Tan Chuen.

During the attack the mutineers lowered the side awnings, extinguished the lights, raised three boats, cut the stern cable, hauled up the accommodation ladder, raised the anchor with the donkey engine, started the engines, and put the vessel in motion. At about 8:30 First Lieutenant Fletcher of the Constabulary, hearing shouting from barracks ashore, rowed toward the steamer with two soldiers, picked up the swimming Damaso Sopgang who could gasp only "fight," was met with a lump of coal from the bridge, fired, boarded by a hanging stage at the stern, ordered the engines stopped, fired on men at the stern, and captured three men while others jumped overboard. The steamer ran aground near the mouth of the harbor about 150 yards from its anchorage; Zabala and Rendon swam ashore. The next morning daggers, knives, hatchets, blood-spattered iron bars, piles of coal prepared as missiles, the captain's swordstick, and, hidden in a grease box, one of his revolvers were found on deck. Twenty-six named crewmen were arrested aboard, Benigno Parra was apprehended ashore the next day, and Telesforo Dasal was captured several days later, while Cajilig escaped and Andrade and his companion were killed by the Constabulary. According to Carlos Septimo, on the afternoon of the crime he heard Cajilig say to Andrade and helmsman Dasal in a boat going ashore, without naming the victim, "Where shall we kill him?"; according to Rendon and Jorge Orlano, Dasal, armed with a knife, aided in the attacks on Agudo and Rendon, helped raise the ladder and a boat, and accompanied Cajilig to order the engines started.

The trial court found all accused guilty as authors, but the record showed no participation whatever by many crew members, some of whom merely concealed themselves aboard without jumping overboard as Sopgang did or fleeing as the ringleaders did.

• Jurisdiction: Whether the Court of First Instance of Manila had sole jurisdiction over a murder committed aboard the Dos Hermanos off Virac, Catanduanes, to the exclusion of all other courts.
• Qualification — Premeditation: Whether the killing of Antonio Agudo was murder qualified by evident premeditation.
• Qualification — Treachery: Whether the qualifying circumstance of alevosia attended the killing of Agudo.
• Participation — Principal vs. Accomplice vs. Acquittal: Whether each defendant was liable as principal by direct participation, as accomplice by mediate aid, or not liable at all.
• Aggravating Circumstances and Penalty: Whether abuse of superior strength, nocturnity, and, as to Dasal, abuse of confidence attended the crime so as to require the maximum penalty with no mitigating circumstances.

• Jurisdiction: Yes. Jurisdiction lay solely in the Court of First Instance of Manila, the port where the Philippine-licensed steamer put in on September 2, 1902, pursuant to Section 1 of Act No. 400.
• Qualification — Premeditation: Yes. Evident premeditation in a marked degree was present, shown by prior concert and planning, bringing the killing within Article 403 of the Penal Code as murder.
• Qualification — Treachery: No. Alevosia was not established, the manner of commencement of the attack and the position of the deceased not having been proved with the certainty required.
• Participation — Principal vs. Accomplice vs. Acquittal: Telesforo Dasal was liable as coprincipal by direct participation; Rufino de Jesus, Benigno Parra, Pablo Concepcion, Gregorio Almondia, Pedro Rodriguez, and Emilio Lebiga were liable only as accomplices; all other surviving defendants, including Juan Briguela, were acquitted for lack of even circumstantial proof.
• Aggravating Circumstances and Penalty: Yes. Abuse of superior strength and nocturnity attended as to all convicted defendants, plus abuse of confidence as to Dasal, with no mitigation, requiring the maximum grade.

• Jurisdiction: The information charged murder aboard a merchant steamer registered as a coasting vessel and anchored in Philippine navigable waters less than one mile off Virac, which entered Manila on September 2, 1902. Under Section 1 of Act No. 400 modifying Act No. 136, that putting-in fixed sole jurisdiction in the Manila Court of First Instance to the exclusion of all other Archipelago courts.
• Qualification — Premeditation: Without careful prior planning the coordinated mutiny could not have occurred, and the afternoon conversation among Cajilig, Andrade, and Dasal discussing where to kill someone, taken with the subsequent violent death of Agudo, proved reflection and conspiracy beforehand. That prior agreement determined the classification as murder under Article 403.
• Qualification — Treachery: The details of the attack on Agudo were undetermined; Rendon, seated nearby, perceived the approach and seized an iron bar to defend himself. Because the deceased may likewise have noticed his assailants, treachery affording no opportunity for defense was not proved and could not be inferred or presumed.
• Participation — Principal vs. Accomplice vs. Acquittal: Dasal's guilt as coprincipal was established by the prior conversation, his knife-armed participation in the attacks on Agudo and Rendon, and his acts raising the ladder and boat and ordering steam, corroborated by Zabala, Rendon, Orlano, Parra, Briguela, Concepcion, and Lebiga. The six accomplices performed no indispensable act of execution or inducement under Article 13, but rendered mediate aid under Article 14 by moving about the deck during the mutiny, hauling up the boat and ladder to prevent boarding, assaulting Zabala, and, as to Parra, withholding the captain's revolver later found in his possession; their presence and obedience to Cajilig's orders showed common agreement for the same criminal end. As to the remaining twenty-three, including Briguela, whom the majority found to have started the engine under Cajilig's revolver threat of death, not even circumstantial proof of participation in the mutiny or murder appeared, and mere membership in the 41-man crew could not make all co-principals where only ten to fourteen mutineers were shown to have acted.
• Aggravating Circumstances and Penalty: Superior strength was inferred from ten wounds inflicted by simultaneous attackers preventing defense; nocturnity from deliberate use of nighttime darkness when officers were off guard; and abuse of confidence from Dasal's position as helmsman using influence over seamen to lead the mutiny treacherously. With no mitigating circumstances, the penalty was imposed in the maximum grade, with death for the principal under Article 101 as the crime predated Act No. 451, and seventeen years of cadena temporal for accomplices.

• Evident premeditation as qualifying circumstance of murder — Premeditation is present where prior conversation and concert show reflection upon the killing before execution; taken with the subsequent violent death, it qualifies the killing as murder under Article 403 of the Penal Code. Applied here to sustain murder on the basis of the afternoon discussion among the ringleaders and the coordinated nighttime attack.
• Distinction between principals and accomplices — Under Article 13 of the Penal Code, principals induce, directly execute, or cooperate by indispensable acts; under Article 14, accomplices merely render mediate, indirect moral or physical aid prior to or simultaneous with commission under common agreement for the same criminal end, though by distinct means. Applied to hold Dasal a coprincipal and the six assistants mere accomplices.
• Proof of alevosia — Treachery must be proved with the same certainty as the crime itself and cannot be inferred or presumed; absence of proof of defenselessness precludes the circumstance. Applied to reject alevosia where the onset of the attack on Agudo was undisclosed.
• Jurisdiction over crimes aboard Philippine-licensed vessels — The Court of First Instance of the port where, after the crime, a Philippine-licensed ship puts in has sole jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts under Section 1 of Act No. 400. Applied to sustain Manila jurisdiction over a murder off Catanduanes where the Dos Hermanos later entered Manila.
• Aggravating circumstances of superior strength, nocturnity, and abuse of confidence — Number of simultaneous assailants preventing defense establishes abuse of superior strength; deliberate use of nighttime and off-guard conditions establishes nocturnity; leadership of a mutiny by a trusted helmsman establishes abuse of confidence. Applied to impose the maximum penalty.

• "Where shall we kill him?" — The overheard remark among Cajilig, Andrade, and Dasal hours before the mutiny, relied upon as proof of prior conspiracy and evident premeditation.
• "The cooperation in the commission of a crime which results in fixing upon the guilty agent the responsibility of an accomplice requires acts either prior to or simultaneous with the commission of the crime which constitute an aid and protection to the person or persons guilty of the actual commission of the crime; that is, perpetration of acts of moral or physical aid given mediately by indirect means in such a way as to make it clearly appear that the principal and the accomplices acted upon a common agreement for the purpose of effecting some criminal act, although the means employed by each may have been distinct and separate." — The canonical definition of complicity under Article 14 applied to reduce six defendants from principals to accomplices.
• "The facts constituting this circumstance must be proven with same degree of certainty as the crime itself and can not be inferred or presumed." — The rule invoked to reject alevosia for lack of proof of how Agudo was first attacked.
• "The steamer Dos Hermanos having, after the commission of the crime, put into this city, it is incontrovertible that the Court of First Instance thereof has sole jurisdiction, to the exclusion of all other courts of the Archipelago, for the trial of the case." — The jurisdictional holding under Act No. 400.

• Judgments of the Supreme Court of Spain of April 25, 1877, January 22, 1884, April 2, 1886, and June 7, 1886 — Cited as controlling authority for the definition of complicity requiring prior or simultaneous mediate aid under common agreement, applied to classify the six assistants as accomplices under Article 14.

• Article 403, Penal Code — Defines and punishes murder as qualified by circumstances including evident premeditation; applied to classify Agudo's preconcerted killing as murder.
• Articles 13 and 14, Penal Code — Distinguish principals, who induce, execute, or indispensably cooperate, from accomplices, who give mediate aid; applied to convict Dasal as coprincipal and six others as accomplices while acquitting mere nonparticipants.
• Article 101, Penal Code — Prescribes the manner of execution of death within prison walls; applied to Dasal's death sentence because the crime predated Act No. 451 of the Civil Commission.
• Section 1, Act No. 400, amending Act No. 136 — Confers jurisdiction over shipboard crimes on the court of the port of entry after the crime; applied to sustain exclusive Manila jurisdiction.

Arellano, C.J., Mapa and McDonough, JJ., concurred. Johnson, J., did not sit. Willard, J., filed a separate concurring opinion agreeing as to the acquittals and as to Dasal but maintaining that the six convicted as accomplices were coprincipals and should bear the corresponding penalty.