GR L 1316; (November, 1903) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-1316, November 12, 1903
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. LI-DAO, defendant-appellant.
FACTS:
The defendant, Li-dao, was convicted by the Court of First Instance of the Province of Lepanto-Bontoc for the crime of murder and sentenced to death. The complaint alleged that on December 8, 1902, at a place called Sugit, Li-dao and two others inflicted wounds upon an Igorrote named Al-i-co, from which he died. The case was initially brought before the Supreme Court on a motion to dismiss based on the insufficiency of the complaint. The Court previously held that the complaint was sufficient to support a conviction for homicide but not for the qualified crime of assassination (murder).
ISSUE:
Whether the complaint is sufficient to sustain a conviction for homicide, considering the allegations made and the evidence presented.
RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed its prior ruling that the complaint, while insufficient for a conviction of assassination (murder), was sufficient for the crime of homicide. The evidence established beyond doubt that Li-dao was guilty of homicide, but it did not justify a finding of the qualifying circumstance of “evident premeditation” necessary for murder. The Court considered the mitigating circumstance under Article 11 of the Penal Code. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court was reversed. Li-dao was convicted of the crime of homicide, with the mitigating circumstance of Article 11 of the Penal Code applied, and was sentenced to twelve years and one day of reclusión temporal. Costs were assessed against the appellant.
Dissenting Opinion:
Justice Cooper dissented, arguing that the complaint was insufficient to charge either murder or homicide. He contended that the complaint failed to allege the qualifying circumstances for murder and did not state positively and distinctly that Li-dao inflicted the fatal wounds, using instead the phrases “to the best of my knowledge and information” and “one or all.” In his view, this loose pleading violated the requirements of General Orders, No. 58, and an objection to a complaint that fails to charge an offense can be raised at any stage. Therefore, he could not concur with the majority decision.