G.R. No. 1245 : March 21, 1904
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. CASIANO SAADLUCAP, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
On November 17, 1902, Casiano Saadlucap was charged with the crime of murder for killing an old woman named Ines Acosta in 1899 in Julao-julao, Misamis. The information alleged evident premeditation. The accused pleaded not guilty. At trial, witnesses Andres Baal and Danga testified that one morning in 1899, they found the accused with bloodstains on his clothing near Acosta’s corpse. The accused told them he killed her because she had accused him of stealing bananas. They witnessed him, with his wife, bury the body. The body was later exhumed in December 1901. Another witness, Fausto Sarenas (the deceased’s employer), testified that the accused later confessed to him that he had killed Acosta. The trial court convicted Saadlucap of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment (cadena perpetua).

ISSUE:
Whether the accused is guilty of murder or a lesser offense.

RULING:
The Supreme Court modified the conviction. The evidence sufficiently established the accused’s guilt as the sole perpetrator of the killing. However, the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation alleged in the information was not proven. With no qualifying circumstance present, the crime could not be classified as murder. The offense committed was homicide, as defined under Article 404 of the Penal Code. The aggravating circumstances of the victim’s sex and advanced age (Article 10, No. 20 of the Penal Code) were present, with no mitigating circumstances to offset them. Applying the law, the Court convicted the accused of homicide. The penalty was imposed in its maximum period due to the aggravating circumstance. The Court sentenced Casiano Saadlucap to seventeen years four months and one day of reclusion temporal, with the corresponding accessory penalties, and ordered him to indemnify the heirs of the deceased. The trial court’s judgment was reversed accordingly.