G.R. No. L-5815, March 24, 1911
THE UNITED STATES vs. PALA, CAWI (alias SINADCUP), and DUMALOG

FACTS

On or about March 21, 1909, the Igorot Pagsangao was killed near Bontoc. His decapitated body was later discovered. Three accusedDumacog, Pala, and Cawiwere charged with murder. The prosecution’s main witness was Puki, whose case was dismissed to testify. Puki testified that all three accused, armed with aliwas (head axes), together with him, lay in wait for Pagsangao. Pala and Dumacog attacked Pagsangao from behind, killing him, after which Pala decapitated the victim. Cawi participated in the ambush. Dumacog, testifying for the defense, claimed he acted alone with Puki to avenge his brother’s killing by Pagsangao, and that Pala merely arrived later and advised caution. The trial court rejected Dumacog’s version, finding it influenced by Pala’s dominance and fear he instilled in the community, and instead credited Puki’s corroborated testimony. The court convicted Dumacog and Pala as principals and Cawi as an accomplice, sentencing the principals to death and Cawi to cadena temporal.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted the accused of murder and properly imposed the penalties.

RULING

Yes, but with modification of penalties due to the mitigating circumstance under Article 11 of the Penal Code. The Supreme Court affirmed the factual findings and conviction for murder (asesinato), noting the presence of treachery (alevosia) as the attack was made from behind without risk to the assailants. However, the Court held that Article 11 (which allows mitigation for offenders from non-Christian tribes who acted under deeply rooted customs and ignorance) should be applied. All accused were members of a savage, ignorant, and superstitious Igorot tribe, and the decapitation was viewed by them as a rightful duty to avenge Dumacog’s brother. Thus, the death penalty was reduced to cadena perpetua for Dumacog and Pala, and Cawi’s penalty was reduced to twelve years and one day of cadena temporal. The indemnity to the heirs and costs were upheld.