IFUGAO Murder Case

IFUGAO MURDER CASE
CASE DiGEST 09/15/2021
In the green meadows of what Ifugaos call “The Land of the Brave”, life is simple and villagers are cheerful.
Every one has his neighbor’s back and their labor together was always a get together fun. But on this day, a
festive gathering for a sterling job of town folks in the spirit of communal unity was concluded by a gruesome
murder of one. The town is doomed, saddened, and perplexed by this nefarious act while no one is certain of
what is behind this brutality. The many years of togetherness has, in one day, ended as a life perished in the
hands of his drunk neighbor, his helper and his long time friend. Was one’s bravery in this village taken by
a wine’s spirit to a devil’s jar? -chillRider
People of the Philippines v. Pee Malang

G.R. No. ***********
______ ___, 2020
FACTS:
On July xx, 2012 in Evergreen, Ifugao, Wee Gan called for some neighbors to perform a dang-a,
a customary service for a neighbor or bayanihan to haul lumbers. After hauling, they had their lunch
followed by a drinking session. Some of them left, leaving Wee Gan, Na Teh and herein accused, Pee
Malang. The accused and the victim continued conversing. Meanwhile, Na Teh asked for tobacco which
Wee Gan went to search for inside his house. At this time Pee Malang made his way to the nearby house
of a certain Boo Gan, took a bolo hanging on the wall and walked back to Wee Gan’s house. As the later
was handing the tobacco to Na Teh, Pee Malang suddenly struck Na Teh with the bolo. Wee Gan and
Boo Gan were surprised. Pee Malang attempted to strike Wee Gan when the later tried to stop him from
hacking Na Teh. Wee Gan evaded the attack. Accused-appellant continued hacking Na Teh until he
succumbed to death. The police found and arrested him in a forested area some 150 meters away upon
positive identification based on the on-the-spot descriptions and report of Wee Gan and Boo Gan.
In the trial court, Pee Malang admitted his participation in the dang-a or bayanihan but denied
his presence in the crime scene alleging that after drinking he proceeded to his grandfather’s house
about 1.5 kilometers away. The RTC ruled in favor of the victim finding accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime murder attended by treachery. The CA agreed with the RTC that the
killing was attended by treachery because Na Teh was unsuspectingly attacked. He was deprived of any
means to defend himself. It did not also appear that victim provoked his killer, nor was there any
altercation between the two prior to the hacking. On appeal, accused-appellant objected the sufficiency
of allegations in the information filed. The CA ruled that the information was sufficient as to warrant
probable cause. It opined that accused-appellant’s objection was belatedly raised. Pee Malang elevated
the issue before the SC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not insufficiency of information may be raised on appeal.
RULING:
No. The Court said that the determination of the guilt of an accused hinges on how a court
appreciates evidentiary matters in relation to the requisites of an offense. In this case, the Court did not
find any mistakes or abuse of discretion on the part of the lower courts. Hence, it cannot perform
calibration of facts in respect to the lower court’s best efforts in trying the case. There is no merit also to
the accused-appellant’s argument questioning the sufficiency of allegations in the information. Upon
examination of the information, the Court concluded that the ultimate facts were specified surrounding
the qualifying circumstance of treachery. Otherwise, he could have filed a motion to quash or a motion
for bill of particulars prior to arraignment in adherence to the procedural rules. Not only did he raise it
untimely, he also participated in the trial. Treachery was evident by the unpreparedness of the victim
against the blow; victim was unsuspecting, thus this insured the execution of the crime without risk to
the assailant arising from the defense of the victim.
As regards accused-appellant’s alibi that he was in his grandfather’s house during the crime, the
Court considered it worthless in the face of positive identification because for a defense of alibi to
prosper, accused-appellant must prove not only that he was somewhere else when the crime was
committed but he must also satisfactorily establish that it was physically impossible for him to be at
the crime scene at the time of its commission. Physical impossibility refers to the distance and facility
of access between the crime scene and the location of the accused. In past cases, the Court declared
that the distance of 2, 3 or 5 kilometers were not too far to preclude the possibility of an aggressor’s
presence at the locus criminis, yet in this case at bar, accused-appellant was allegedly only around 1.5
kilometers away from Wee Gan’s house where Na Teh was killed. He was also positively identified by
Wee Gan and Boo Gan. In the wordings of the SC, “the narration of two eyewitnesses establishes, with
moral certainty, that accused-appellant treacherously took a life. His conviction to murder must stand.”
Further, SC respected Lagawe RTC’s observation that for a small tight-knit community, it is against
human nature for neighbors to falsely accuse a fellow resident of killing another that gave credence to
the statements of Wee Gan and Boo Gan, neighbors of the assailant and the victim.
With the foregoing, the Court dismissed the appeal, pronounced Pee Malang guilty beyond
reasonable doubt and to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with damages and interests.
On the side note:
SC dropped from the lower court’s decisions the phrase “without eligibility for parole” with respect to A.M. No. 15-
0802-SC,42. from the penalty, “Reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole” as all convicts penalized with an indivisible
penalty are not eligible for parole. The phrase is but an indication that the penalty could have been death when there are
aggravating circumstances to warrant the same had death penalty not been abolished by virtue of RA 9346.

IFUGAO Murder Case

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

IFUGAO Murder Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

IFUGAO MURDER CASE

CASE DiGEST 09/15/2021

People of the Philippines v. Pee Malang

On the side note:

You might also like