United States vs. Ilongots Palidat, et al.

A murder conviction may be reduced in penalty where the victim’s immediately preceding act of forcibly attempting to remove the accused’s tribal chief is an extenuating circumstance under article 9, subdivision 4 of the Penal Code, and where the accused’s uncivilized condition warrants the benefit of article 11 of the Penal Code.

The accused, Palidat and others, were Igorots belonging to the tribe known as Ilongotes, living in the mountain districts of northern Luzon. Dr. William Jones was a naturalist and scientist engaged in original research in the district inhabited by the Ilongotes, and during his stay he received their constant aid and such consideration as their simple and primitive condition could afford. The prosecution was brought by the United States, and the case reached the Supreme Court en consulta under the Penal Code provisions invoked by the Court, particularly article 9, subdivision 4, and article 11.

The accused, Palidat and other Ilongotes, were charged with murdering Dr. William Jones on March 29, 1909, in the Province of Nueva Vizcaya. Dr. Jones was a naturalist and scientist engaged in original research in the district inhabited by the Ilongotes; during his stay he had received their constant aid and every consideration their simple and primitive condition could afford. No ill feeling had existed between the Ilongotes and the doctor before the assault; on the contrary, a species of friendship apparently subsisted between them down to the moment of the attack.

According to the only witness for the prosecution, Doctor Jones called the captain of the Ilongotes at the sitio of Pinapagan and ordered him to bring the balsas (rafts). The captain answered that he would bring them, but that his polistas were still looking for some and were not all prepared. The doctor asked why he had not prepared the balsas as ordered many days beforehand, and told the captain that he would have to sleep there with them and get the balsas the following day.

The next morning, Doctor Jones and the captain went to the river. Because the balsas had not arrived, the doctor said they would all go to Pung-gu and wait for the captain’s people to bring the balsas. They went to Pung-gu—the doctor, the witness, and the captain—and waited half a day. At about 1 o’clock, the Ilongotes arrived with only four balsas. They prepared chow for Doctor Jones, and he ate. After the witness ate, he told the doctor it would be better to return to Dumabato, but the doctor said they would wait a little longer for the other balsas. When the other balsas did not arrive, the doctor said they would all leave for Dumabato and would have to take the captain along. He told the Ilongotes there that they would wait for the other balsas in Dumabato.

They went to the place where the balsas were with another Ilongote who had been their companion on the trip to Pung-gu. Doctor Jones took hold of the captain’s arm and said he would have to come along to Dumabato to make sure the people brought the other balsas. He carried the captain to the river bank and tried to force him onto the balsa, but the captain did not want to go and resisted. The doctor then told the other Ilongotes to take the balsas and leave. At that point, Palidat came near the doctor as though to tell him good-by and promising to bring the other balsas the following day; all at once he drew his bolo and hit the doctor in the head. The other Ilongotes arose, took their bolos from their sheaths, and began to attack the doctor. Gacad and Maguen were nearest to Doctor Jones and attacked him after Palidat; Gacad struck the doctor in the stomach with his lance. The witness ran toward the doctor and saw another Ilongote who wished to strike him also. After Magueng hit the doctor, the witness picked him up, placed him on the bank, received the doctor’s revolver, discharged it at the Ilongotes, and drove them away. They then went to Dumabato.

The prosecution’s evidence consisted of the testimony of the witness quoted above and the confessions of the defendants, who freely and voluntarily and without attempt at concealment told exactly what happened. In their confessions, the dominant feature was that “we attacked the doctor because he was guilty.” It was not evident from the proofs what the doctor was guilty of, unless it was the protection of their chief, whom the doctor had seized and was attempting forcibly to abduct. The attack occurred just about the time the doctor was struggling with the chief, who was vigorously resisting the attempt to remove him from the midst of his tribe. The record before the Supreme Court thus consisted of the lone prosecution witness’s account and the defendants’ voluntary confessions.

• Murder Conviction: Whether the defendants were properly convicted of murder for the killing of Dr. William Jones.
• Extenuating Circumstance: Whether Dr. Jones’s act of seizing and attempting forcibly to abduct the Ilongot chief immediately before the attack should be considered in the defendants’ favor to extenuate punishment under article 9, subdivision 4 of the Penal Code.
• Application of Article 11: Whether the defendants, as members of an uncivilized tribe reared in ignorance of law and order and without adequate conception of the value of human life, were entitled to the benefit of article 11 of the Penal Code.
• Penalty: Whether the death penalty imposed by the trial court should be modified.

• Murder Conviction: Yes. The conviction for murder was not set aside; the Supreme Court modified only the penalty and indemnity.
• Extenuating Circumstance: Yes. The victim’s act of seizing and attempting forcibly to abduct the chief, though not warranting the killing, was used in the defendants’ behalf to extenuate punishment under article 9, subdivision 4 of the Penal Code.
• Application of Article 11: Yes. Justice and humanity required application of article 11 of the Penal Code to the prisoners because they were members of an uncivilized tribe, reared in absolute ignorance of law and order, impregnated with degrading superstitions, and without adequate conception of the value of human life.
• Penalty: Modified. The death sentence was replaced with seventeen years four months and one day of cadena temporal, and the indemnity was reduced from P3,000 to P1,000.

• Murder Conviction: The defendants had been convicted of murder by the Court of First Instance of Nueva Vizcaya, and the case came before the Supreme Court en consulta. The evidence for conviction was the testimony of the only prosecution witness and the defendants’ own free and voluntary confessions, in which they told exactly what happened. The Court did not disturb the murder conviction; it held only that the doctor’s act did not warrant the defendants in killing him. Thus the conviction stood, but the penalty and indemnity were modified.

• Extenuating Circumstance: The Court found no prior ill feeling between the Ilongotes and Doctor Jones; a species of friendship apparently subsisted until the attack. The proofs did not show what the doctor was “guilty” of except the protection of their chief, whom the doctor had seized and was attempting forcibly to abduct. The attack occurred just as the doctor struggled with the chief, who vigorously resisted removal from his tribe. Although this act of the doctor did not warrant killing him, justice required that it be used in the defendants’ behalf in extenuating the punishment under article 9, subdivision 4 of the Penal Code.

• Application of Article 11: The Court was convinced that justice and humanity required applying article 11 of the Penal Code to the prisoners. They were all members of an uncivilized tribe, reared in absolute ignorance of law and order, impregnated with superstitions of degrading character under whose influence it frequently became the duty of one to take another’s life, and had not a single element of civilization as generally understood and no adequate conception of the value of human life. The evidence indicated that, if the facts in their favor had been fully brought out below, it might have been possible to demonstrate that the doctor’s attempt forcibly to remove their chief aroused the highest form of resentment and required the most vigorous action on their part; laboring under such strong provocation and excitement, they committed the fatal act from what was to them a high sense of duty and obligation—the protection of their chief—and not from cruelty and malice. For these reasons, the accused were given the benefit of article 11.

• Penalty: Because of the extenuating circumstance under article 9(4) and the application of article 11, the judgment below was modified. The defendants were sentenced to seventeen years four months and one day of cadena temporal, ordered to indemnify the heirs of Doctor Jones in the sum of P1,000, and to pay the costs of the instance.

• Article 9, subdivision 4, Penal Code — extenuating circumstance — The Court treated the victim’s act of seizing and attempting forcibly to abduct the Ilongot chief immediately before the killing as an extenuating circumstance in the defendants’ favor, even though the act did not warrant the killing. It reduced the punishment accordingly.

• Application of article 11 of the Penal Code to uncivilized offenders — Where the accused were members of an uncivilized tribe, reared in absolute ignorance of law and order, impregnated with degrading superstitions, and lacking adequate conception of the value of human life, justice and humanity required extending to them the benefit of article 11 of the Penal Code. The Court also considered that the killing arose from strong provocation and excitement and from what the accused regarded as a high duty to protect their chief, not from cruelty and malice.

• Primitive condition as factor in criminal punishment — The Court considered the accused’s primitive condition and lack of civilization in mitigating the penalty, while still maintaining the murder conviction because the victim’s act did not warrant the killing.

• "It is significant to note that, in the confessions which they made of the acts committed in accomplishing the death of the doctor, the dominant feature appears to be that "we attacked the doctor because he was guilty."" — The passage identifies the stated motive in the defendants’ confessions and frames the Court’s inquiry into whether the killing was actuated by malice or by a perceived duty to protect their chief.

• "While this act of the doctor did not warrant the defendants in killing him, we are of the opinion that justice requires that it be used in their behalf in extenuating the punishment which should be imposed, as provided in article 9, subdivision 4 of the Penal Code." — This states the ratio for treating Dr. Jones’s attempt forcibly to remove the chief as an extenuating circumstance while preserving the murder conviction.

• "We are convinced, upon the whole case, that justice and humanity require the application of article 11 of the Penal Code to the prisoners at bar." — This is the Court’s canonical formulation for extending the benefit of article 11 to the accused based on their uncivilized condition and lack of adequate conception of the value of human life.

• "The judgment of the court below is, therefore, modified and the defendants are hereby sentenced to seventeen years four months and one day of cadena temporal, to indemnify the heirs of Doctor Jones in the sum of P1,000, and to pay the costs of this instance." — This is the dispositive portion, showing the precise penalty and civil liability imposed after the mitigating provisions were applied.

• Article 9, subdivision 4, Penal Code — Cited as the provision allowing the victim’s act of seizing and attempting forcibly to abduct the chief to be used in the defendants’ behalf in extenuating punishment.
• Article 11, Penal Code — Applied to the defendants because they were members of an uncivilized tribe, reared in absolute ignorance of law and order, impregnated with degrading superstitions, and without adequate conception of the value of human life, resulting in the modification of the penalty.

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