United States vs. Gamao, et al.

A person who directly induces another to commit a crime is a principal by induction under Article 13(2) of the Penal Code only when the inducement is direct, efficacious, and powerful, exerted by one with great control and influence over the actor, and not mere counsel or words at the time of execution; the killing is qualified as assassination by alevosia as to the actual assailant and by known premeditation as to the inducer.

Gil Gamao was a local political leader in Escalante, Occidental Negros, with numerous relatives in municipal offices and many dependents, including his nephew Mauricio Gamao, a poor and ignorant fisherman. In 1904, litigation arose between the Roman Catholic Church and the municipality of Escalante over certain properties; Gil, then a member of the Aglipayan Church and a municipal councilman, took a prominent part in contesting the Catholic Church's claim. The Supreme Court later held that the property belonged to the Catholic Church, and Gil developed a hatred toward that church, its priests, representatives, and the friar orders. Father Victor Baltanas was the Spanish Roman Catholic parish priest of Escalante from October 1907 to May 15, 1909, a person of peaceful disposition who took no part in local political and factional troubles.

Father Victor Baltanas served as parish priest of the Roman Catholic Church in Escalante, Occidental Negros, from October 1907 to May 15, 1909. He was a person of peaceful disposition, devoted to religious duties, took no part in political and factional troubles, and had created no enemies by personal action or omission. Gil Gamao was a local political leader in Escalante, with influence over many people, including his nephew Mauricio Gamao, a poor and ignorant fisherman who was more or less dependent on him for subsistence. In 1904, litigation arose between the Roman Catholic Church and the municipality of Escalante over certain properties; Gil, then a member of the Aglipayan Church and a councilman, took a prominent part in contesting the Catholic Church's claim. The Supreme Court held that the property belonged to the Catholic Church, and the judgment was returned to the municipality for execution; on the forenoon of May 15, 1909, the judgment was read at a session of the municipal council. Gil had acquired a hatred toward the Catholic Church, its priests, representatives, and the friar orders.

About 8 o'clock on the night of May 15, 1909, Father Baltanas was in the house of Gregorio Pudanca, a short distance diagonally across the plaza from the convent. As was customary, the church bell rang at 8 o'clock, and the priest left Pudanca's house and returned to the convent. While in the space between the door and the stairs leading to the upper portion of the building, someone struck him with a bolo or sharp cutting instrument. The blow cut through his priestly cap and inflicted an eight-inch wound on his head, extending from the left eye to beyond the ear on the same side, fracturing the skull the entire length of the cut. The priest managed to make his way upstairs to his room. His clerk and servant gave the alarm by calling for the police about fifteen or twenty minutes after he had left Pudanca's house. Several persons went to the convent and remained with him until his death at about 5 o'clock the next morning, May 16, as a direct result of the wound. These facts stood undisputed.

On May 20, five days after the murder, the Constabulary officer investigating the case found circumstances pointing to Mauricio Gamao as the author, but not sufficient evidence to charge him with murder; he caused Mauricio's arrest on a charge of carrying concealed weapons. On May 24, Mauricio was bound over to the Court of First Instance on that charge. On May 26, he was transferred from the municipal jail at Escalante to the custody of the Constabulary. The next day, May 27, Mauricio made a formal statement implicating his uncle Gil Gamao and others in the murder but exculpating himself; this sworn statement led to the arrest of his codefendants, who were remanded on May 31 to the Court of First Instance for trial. After Mauricio was transferred to Bacolod, the provincial fiscal filed a complaint before the justice of the peace of the capital charging him also with murder, and he was bound over to answer the same charge he had made against his codefendants. The prosecution alleged that the fatal blow was struck by Mauricio Gamao, instigated by his codefendants and carrying out directions given in pursuance of an agreement entered into by all the defendants jointly at Gil Gamao's house a few hours before the killing.

According to the prosecution, a meeting was held at Gil Gamao's house on the afternoon of May 15, 1909. Dolores Labida, a widow who resided with Mauricio as his querida, testified that about noon Mauricio told her he was going to town because Manong Gil had work for him; she accompanied him to Gil's house to get corn. From the doorstep near the camarin, she overheard portions of a conversation among Gil Gamao and six defendants seated at a long table in the kitchen, one of whom was Mauricio. She heard Gil say that the way things were going they would never escape from the Romans, on whose account the revolution had started; Pineda and the Aglipayan padre responded that whatever Gil desired they would conform to. Gil proposed that Mauricio make away with the priest, offering to release Mauricio from all his indebtedness and give him "fifty more." Mauricio expressed fear, but Gil reassured him: "I am here to answer for you." Other witnesses placed Mauricio and several defendants at Gil's house that afternoon. Felicidad Mijares, Dolores's fifteen-year-old daughter, testified that between five and six o'clock that afternoon Mauricio came to their house, sharpened a long bolo he customarily carried when fishing, and left with it, wearing gray knee trousers, a white undershirt, and a salacot; the bolo was later found in Mauricio's house and identified. Domingo Jaime, one of Gil's buzos, testified that between eight and nine o'clock that night, while transferring corn near the steps at the side of Gil's house, he heard Gil's voice ask, "What of you, Mauricio?" and Mauricio reply, "The thing is done. The padre is dead."

The prosecution also presented evidence of Gil's prior efforts and animosity: Juan Batolinao, a former employee, testified that Gil had tried to induce him to kill the then priest; Carlos Cabus, Gil's brother-in-law, testified that in March 1909 Rufino Pineda, on Gil's behalf, asked him to contribute one hundred pesos to hire Mauricio to kill Father Baltanas; Jose Patpat testified that in March 1909 Gil offered him fifty pesos to kill the priest; and Miguel Gamao, Gil's nephew and municipal president, testified that he heard Gil say an anarchistic society had been formed to kill the friars and that municipal authorities who prosecuted them would also be assassinated. Pedro Amante, the justice of the peace, testified about the church suit, the reading of the Supreme Court decree at the municipal council on May 15, and persons seen entering or leaving Gil's house that day. The defense was alibi for all defendants except Gil, who admitted he was at home that afternoon but claimed he was confined to bed by paralysis and that no meeting was held. Mauricio claimed he spent the afternoon at the beach repairing fishnets and stayed at the camarin that night; Rufino Caporas corroborated him, but Caporas's testimony was impeached by prior inconsistent statements and by his wife's testimony. Inez Bais, Patricia Tenebroso, Francisco Flores, and Pelagia Majinay testified that Gil was paralyzed or bedridden or that no meeting occurred, but their testimony was likewise contradicted by prior statements or other evidence.

The trial court found that the deed was committed by Mauricio Gamao upon the procurement of his uncle Gil; that five codefendants were present in Gil's house on the afternoon of May 15 when Gil persuaded Mauricio to do the deed; and that all defendants except Gil and Mauricio were acquitted because Gil was the only one who actually influenced Mauricio to murder the priest, the court not being convinced that the other five, though present and consenting, were factors in persuading the murderer. The trial court weighed the witnesses' credibility, considering their surrounding circumstances, motives, prior statements, and former testimony, and concluded that the evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that Mauricio murdered Father Baltanas and was directly induced to do so by Gil. The trial court classified the crime as assassination, with alevosia as to Mauricio and known premeditation as to Gil, and found no aggravating or extenuating circumstances except known premeditation on Mauricio's part.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Appellants strongly urged that the prosecution failed to establish their guilt with such a degree of certainty as to justify a conviction.
• Principal by Induction: Counsel for appellants insisted that the court erred in finding Gil Gamao guilty as a principal by induction.
• Classification as Assassination: Counsel for appellants insisted that the court erred in classifying the crime as assassination.
• Alibi and No Meeting: The defense in the court below was an alibi for all defendants save Gil Gamao, who admitted he was at home on the afternoon in question but claimed he was confined to his bed by paralysis and that no meeting was held as alleged by the prosecution.
• Incompatible Guilt of Crispulo Pavilona: It was insisted on appeal that the guilt of both Crispulo Pavilona and the appellants was incompatible, because if Pavilona murdered the priest, Mauricio Gamao did not.

• Prosecution Theory: The prosecution claimed that the blow causing the death of Father Baltanas was struck by Mauricio Gamao, and that in committing the deed he was instigated by his codefendants and was carrying out directions given to him by them in pursuance of an agreement entered into by all the defendants jointly at the house of Gil Gamao a few hours prior to the commission of the deed.
• Aggravating Circumstances: The Attorney-General insisted that as to Mauricio Gamao, there were present not only the qualifying circumstance of alevosia, but also the aggravating circumstances of known premeditation and hire or reward, and that as to Gil Gamao, there was present, aside from the qualifying circumstance of known premeditation, the aggravating circumstance of having induced the commission of the crime by hire or reward.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.
• Principal by Induction: Whether Gil Gamao was correctly found guilty as a principal by induction under Article 13(2) of the Penal Code for directly inducing Mauricio Gamao to kill Father Baltanas.
• Alevosia as to Mauricio: Whether the killing was correctly classified as assassination as to Mauricio Gamao by reason of the qualifying circumstance of alevosia.
• Known Premeditation as to Gil: Whether the killing was correctly classified as assassination as to Gil Gamao by reason of the qualifying circumstance of known premeditation.
• Hire or Reward: Whether the aggravating circumstance of hire or reward should be applied to Gil Gamao for inducing Mauricio Gamao to commit the murder.
• Incompatible Conviction of Crispulo Pavilona: Whether the alleged conviction of Crispulo Pavilona for the same murder rendered the guilt of the appellants incompatible or created reasonable doubt.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Yes. The trial court's findings that Mauricio murdered Father Baltanas and was directly induced by Gil were fully sustained by the record beyond reasonable doubt.
• Principal by Induction: Yes. Gil Gamao was a principal by induction under Article 13(2) of the Penal Code, having exercised such great control and influence over his dependent nephew as to directly and powerfully induce him to commit the murder.
• Alevosia as to Mauricio: Yes. The fatal blow was struck in darkness while the victim was unable to see or resist, and the assailant lay in wait, establishing alevosia.
• Known Premeditation as to Gil: Yes. Gil's determination to kill the priest originated long before the crime, persisted through prior attempts and the May 15 meeting, and allowed him opportunity for meditation and reflection.
• Hire or Reward: No. The record did not show beyond reasonable doubt that Gil actually hired Mauricio by giving money or promising release from indebtedness; the offer was refused and no reward was received.
• Incompatible Conviction of Crispulo Pavilona: No. The alleged Pavilona matter was not established or even attempted to be established on the second trial, so it could not be considered.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: The Court reviewed the voluminous record and found that the trial judge gave appellants every opportunity to present their defense, allowed great latitude in cross-examination, saw and heard the witnesses, and noted their demeanor. The trial court's conclusion, after thorough study, that Mauricio murdered Father Baltanas and was directly induced by Gil was fully sustained by the record. The Court noted Mauricio's admissions to Dolores Labida the morning after the murder, his confessions before the justice of the peace and other witnesses, and his report to Gil: "The thing is done. The padre is dead." It reasoned that if Mauricio were innocent, it was almost inconceivable that he would involve himself and his uncle, upon whom he depended, in a crime that had remained a mystery; if guilty, his impending transfer to Bacolod and his relatives' failure to furnish his bond would induce him to implicate those who had involved him. The Court also considered the trial court's careful weighing of credibility, prior inconsistent statements, and motives.

• Principal by Induction: Article 13(2) of the Penal Code considers as principals those who directly force or induce others to commit a crime. Quoting Viada, the Court explained that inducement must not consist of simple counsel before the crime or simple words at the moment of execution; it must be exerted by one with great control and influence over the actor and must be so direct, efficacious, and powerful as to amount to physical or moral coercion as powerful as violence. The Court found these requisites satisfied: Mauricio was a poor, ignorant fisherman dependent on his uncle; Gil was a man of great influence, a local political leader with relatives in municipal offices and many workers, including Mauricio; Gil harbored bitter hatred toward the Catholic Church and Spanish friars; he called the May 15 meeting, dominated those present, selected Mauricio to commit the crime, and directed him to do it; Mauricio immediately returned and reported the killing. The influence was so great and powerful that Mauricio, through fear, could not resist it.

• Alevosia as to Mauricio: The deceased received the fatal blow in the dark space between the door and the stairs leading to the upper portion of the convent. He was unable to see who struck him and had no opportunity to offer resistance. The murderer took advantage of the darkness and lay in wait for his victim, employing means or methods specially to insure execution without risks to himself arising from the defense the priest might make. These facts clearly established alevosia as to Mauricio.

• Known Premeditation as to Gil: Alevosia could not be used as to Gil because the record did not show that Gil directed or induced Mauricio to adopt the means or methods actually used; Gil only directed and induced Mauricio to commit the murder, leaving details to him. However, known premeditation was present as to Gil. As far back as March 1907, Gil attempted to induce Batolinao to kill the then priest; in March 1909, two months before the murder, Gil offered Jose Patpat fifty pesos to kill the deceased; days before the murder, Miguel Gamao heard Gil say an anarchistic society had been formed to kill friars; and on May 15, Gil presided at the meeting where it was agreed the priest should be killed, deliberately selected his nephew, and directly induced him. The determination originated in Gil's mind long before the crime, was constantly persisted in until successful, and he had full opportunity for meditation and reflection and ample time to allow his conscience to overcome his will. The Court cited U.S. vs. Ricafor and U.S. vs. Gil.

• Hire or Reward: The Attorney-General contended that the aggravating circumstance of hire or reward should apply to Gil. The Court disagreed because the record did not show beyond reasonable doubt that Mauricio was forced or induced to commit the crime in that manner. The only testimony was Ferrer's statement that Mauricio said he had been offered money but refused it; Cabus's statement that Pineda, on Gil's behalf, asked for a contribution of one hundred pesos to hire Mauricio; Patpat's testimony that Gil offered him fifty pesos to kill Baltanas; and Labida's testimony that Gil offered to release Mauricio from indebtedness and give him "fifty more." Accepting Labida's testimony and Mauricio's statement, the evidence showed Gil offered a reward but Mauricio refused it. Cabus and Patpat showed Gil had long attempted to hire someone, but Mauricio flatly denied receiving any money or reward. The Court also reasoned that if Mauricio had received a reward, he would likely have admitted it to secure release. Thus, hire or reward was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court also noted that if aggravating circumstances were present as to Mauricio, the penalty would be the same because it would give him the benefits of Article 11 due to extreme ignorance.

• Incompatible Conviction of Crispulo Pavilona: While the case was pending on appeal, a motion for new trial was made on December 18, 1909, with affidavits, and another motion on October 9, 1910, alleged that Crispulo Pavilona had been sentenced to life imprisonment for the same crime and was serving sentence. The Court granted a new trial on December 17, 1910, and returned the record. On the second trial, the entire former record was introduced, and the only further testimony was by the defense, which placed Miguel Gamao on the stand; he testified that his former testimony was given under compulsion. The trial court again sentenced the appellants to the same penalty, finding the new testimony insufficient to create reasonable doubt. On appeal, it was insisted that the guilt of Pavilona and the appellants was incompatible. The Court held that although it had been suggested Pavilona was arrested, arraigned, pleaded guilty, and sentenced for the murder, the appellants never introduced or attempted to introduce the decision in the Pavilona case, nor made any showing on the question. An affidavit suggested Pavilona stated he operated with both appellants and received money from Gil, but these suggestions were not established or attempted to be established on the second trial, so the Court could not consider them.

• Principal by Induction under Article 13(2) of the Penal Code — One who directly forces or induces another to commit a crime is a principal. The inducement must not be mere counsel before the crime or mere words at the moment of execution; it must be exerted by one with great control and influence over the actor and must be so direct, efficacious, and powerful as to amount to physical or moral coercion as powerful as violence. The Court applied this to Gil Gamao, who dominated his poor, ignorant, dependent nephew Mauricio, selected him at a meeting, directed him to kill Father Baltanas, and received Mauricio's report after the killing.

• Alevosia — Alevosia is a qualifying circumstance when the offender employs means or methods specially to insure the execution of the crime without risk to himself arising from the defense the victim might make. The Court applied it to Mauricio Gamao because the victim received the fatal blow in a dark space, could not see his assailant, had no opportunity to resist, and the murderer lay in wait in the darkness.

• Known Premeditation — Known premeditation exists when the determination to commit the crime originated in the offender's mind long before the crime was actually committed, was constantly persisted in until successful, and the offender had full opportunity for meditation and reflection and ample time to allow his conscience to overcome his will. The Court applied it to Gil Gamao based on his prior attempts to have the priest killed, his statements about an anarchistic society formed to kill friars, and his presiding over the May 15 meeting where he selected and induced Mauricio.

• Hire or Reward as an Aggravating Circumstance — Hire or reward must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. An offer of reward that is refused, without proof that the accused actually received money or other reward, does not establish the aggravating circumstance. The Court refused to apply it to Gil Gamao because Mauricio refused the offered reward and denied receiving any money or reward.

• Trial Court Findings on Credibility — Findings of fact of the trial court, especially on witness credibility, are sustained where fully supported by the record and where the trial judge had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses and note their demeanor. The Court relied on this in affirming the trial court's conclusion that Mauricio murdered Father Baltanas and was directly induced by Gil.

• Incompatible Guilt and New Trial Evidence — Allegations of incompatible guilt based on another person's conviction for the same crime cannot be considered where the appellants never introduced or attempted to introduce the decision in that other case, nor made any showing on the question during the second trial.

• "But it must be borne in mind that these acts of inducement must not consist of simple counsel before the perpetration of the crime, nor of simple words at the moment of its execution. Such counsel or such words constitute without doubt wrongful acts and a reprehensible incentive before the moral law. But in order that they may be considered as a direct inducement according to the code it is necessary that he who gives such counsel or says such words must have a great control and a great influence upon the person who is to act and is necessary that this should be so direct, so efficacious, so powerful, as to make it a physical or moral coercion as powerful as the violence itself." — This passage, quoted from Viada, states the controlling standard for principal by induction under Article 13(2) of the Penal Code and supplies the rationale for holding Gil Gamao liable for directly inducing Mauricio.

• "The deceased received the fatal blow while he was in the dark space between the door and the stairs leading to the upper portion of the convent. He was unable to see by whom the blow was struck. He had no opportunity to offer any resistance whatever. The murderer taking advantage of the darkness was lying in wait for his victim, thereby employing means or methods and specially to insure its execution without risks to himself, arising from the defense which the priest might make. These facts clearly establish the qualifying circumstance of alevosia in so far as Mauricio Gamao is concerned." — This passage defines the factual basis for the qualifying circumstance of alevosia as to Mauricio Gamao.

• "The determination to have the deceased murdered originated in his mind long before the crime was actually committed. This determination was constantly persisted in until he was successful. He had full opportunity for meditation and reflection, and ample time to allow his conscience to overcome the determination of his will had he so desired." — This passage articulates the Court's test for known premeditation and explains why the killing was qualified as assassination as to Gil Gamao.

• "After an examination of the whole record upon this point, we agree with the trial court that it has not been shown beyond a reasonable doubt that Gil Gamao actually hired Mauricio to kill the deceased by giving him money or promising to release him from all his indebtedness." — This passage resolves the Attorney-General's contention on hire or reward and states the Court's reason for not applying that aggravating circumstance to Gil Gamao.

• U.S. vs. Ricafor, 1 Phil. Rep., 173 — Cited by the Court, together with U.S. vs. Gil, to justify the trial court's holding that the crime as to Gil Gamao was committed with known premeditation.
• U.S. vs. Gil, 13 Phil. Rep., 530 — Cited by the Court, together with U.S. vs. Ricafor, to justify the trial court's holding that the crime as to Gil Gamao was committed with known premeditation.

• Article 13, Penal Code — Enumerates the persons considered principals, including those who take a direct part in the commission of the act and those who directly force or induce others to commit it. The Court applied Article 13(2) to Gil Gamao, holding that he directly induced Mauricio Gamao to kill Father Baltanas and was therefore a principal by induction.
• Article 11, Penal Code — Cited in relation to Mauricio Gamao's extreme ignorance. The Court stated that even if one or more aggravating circumstances were present as to Mauricio, the penalty would be the same because it would be compelled to give him the benefits of Article 11.

Arellano, C.J.; Torres, J.; Johnson, J.; and Carson, J.