G.R. No. L-13052; October 4, 1918
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALABOT (alias) PAGUINAGUINA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
On or about September 14, 1915, a band of armed Moros, including the accused Alabot, was lying in wait in a cotta in the barrio of Tuluan, Province of Lanao. Their leader, Rumaub, shot an American (later identified as Charles H. Mills) passing on a nearby roadway. Upon hearing the shot, Alabot ran towards the victim and slashed him with a kris. Alabot then took the victim’s revolver and money. The band later regrouped, and Alabot admitted his actions to others, showing the stolen items, which were later distributed among the band members. The body of Charles H. Mills was found with fatal gunshot and multiple slash wounds consistent with the attack described.

Alabot was charged with robbery with homicide. During the trial, the court permitted the prosecution to amend the information by inserting the phrase “con animo de lucro” (with intent to gain) after the accused had pleaded not guilty. Alabot was convicted and sentenced to death by the Court of First Instance of Lanao.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the identity of the victim as Charles H. Mills was sufficiently established.
2. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the crime scene in Tuluan, Lanao.
3. Whether the dismissal of cases against co-accused to turn them into state witnesses rendered their testimony incompetent.
4. Whether the accused was properly arraigned on the correct information.
5. Whether the trial court erred in allowing the amendment of the information to include “intent to gain” after the accused had pleaded.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and the death penalty.

2. Jurisdiction of the Trial Court: The Court found that the trial court had jurisdiction. The information alleged the crime was committed in Barrio Tuluan, Province of Lanao. Testimony from a witness, given in response to a question presupposing Tuluan was in Lanao, sufficiently established the location. Furthermore, courts may take judicial notice of whether a barrio is within their territorial jurisdiction.

3. Testimony of Discharged Co-Accused: The Court ruled that even assuming the witnesses (Adam, Kalaku, and Kuruao) were previously charged with the same offense, any error in discharging them to become prosecution witnesses did not affect the competency or admissibility of their testimony.

4. Arraignment on the Correct Information: The Court held that the filing of the amended information charging robbery with homicide effectively withdrew the earlier information charging brigandage. The arraignment and plea were presumed to have been made on the amended information.

5. Amendment of the Information: The Court ruled that the amendment inserting “con animo de lucro” was permissible and not prejudicial error. The information, even before the amendment, necessarily implied intent to gain from its description of the unlawful taking of property by violence with the stated purpose of appropriating the items (“con el fin de apoderarse”). The amendment was merely formal, clarifying an element already inferable from the allegations, and thus could be allowed at any stage of the trial under the rules.

The crime committed was robbery with homicide under Article 503 of the Penal Code. The aggravating circumstance of the crime being committed in an uninhabited place was present. The Court found no mitigating circumstances, rejecting lack of instruction/education as a mitigant for crimes against property. The penalty of death was thus affirmed.