The Attorney General Mr. John R. Liwag Law Office and the Attorney Mr.

Jose Bautista on behalf of the appellant.

Mr Francisco Reyes F. Lardi!abal and ". #aonil on behalf of the appellee.
#A$L J. %
The co&plaint in the first cause is the following lines%
That on or about the '(th day of )ece&ber *+,- in Mountain #ro.ince #hilippines and within the /urisdiction of this
0onorable 1ourt the abo.e2na&ed accused then passenger of #hilippine Air Line plane #3212'4 entroute fro& Laoag
to Aparri and while said plane was flying o.er Mountain #ro.ince did then and there willfully unlawfully and
feloniously and ar&ed with .5, and .'4 caliber pistols with &utiny and 6nown pre&editation shot 7duardo )iago the
purser of the aforesaid plane thus inflicting gunshot wound on his 87duardo )iago9 body and as a result thereof said
7duardo )iago died instantly. Baguio City, March 9, 1953 (p. 1, REC., Criminal Case No. 419.
!he complaint in the secon" cause is the #ollo$ing%.
!hat on or a&out the 3'th "ay o# (ecem&er, 195), in Mountain *ro+ince, *hilippines an" $ithin the ,uris"iction
o# this -onora&le Court, the a&o+e.name" accuse", then passenger o# *hilippine /ir 0ine *lane *1.C.32
enroute #rom 0aoag to /parri sai" $hile the plane $as #lying o+er Mountain *ro+ince, "i" then an" there
$ill#ully, unla$#ully an" #eloniously, an" $ithout authority o# la$, compel *e"ro *earls, pilot o# the a#oresai"
plane, against the latter3s $ill an" consent, to change the route o# the plane an" ta4e him (accuse" to /moy,
an" $hen *eter *earls #aile" to comply imme"iately $ith sai" or"er, sai" accuse" $ho $as then arme" $ith .
45 an" .32 cali&er pistols, $ith mutiny an" 4no$n preme"itation, "i" then an" there 5ill#ully, unla$#ully an"
#eloniously, shot sai" *eter *earls, thus in#licting gunshot $oun"s on the "i##erent parts o# his (*eter *earls
&o"y an" as a result thereo# sai" *eter *earls "ie" instantly.
Baguio 1ity March + *+,' 8p * rec. 1ri&inal 1ase :o. 5-(. 9.
3nfor&ed the accused of the two co&plaints with the assistance of his lawyers he pleaded guilty. The 1ourt
sentenced hi& in the first cause to twel.e 8*-9 AOA i&prison&ent as a &ini&u& to twenty 8-(9 years of te&porary
confine&ent as &a;i&u& with co&pensation to the heirs of 7duardo )iago in the su& of #<.((( and coasts. 3n the
second cause the 1ourt sentenced hi& to life i&prison&ent with co&pensation to the heirs of #eter pearls in the su&
of #<.((( and coasts. The &otions for reconsideration filed in these cases arguing that the lower court erred in not
i&posing on the first cause the penalty of life i&prison&ent and the second of death ha.e been denied by the court
below that is why the pro.incial prosecutor presented appeal.
The Attorney General &aintains in its allegation that the lower court co&&itted error in the first case to not declare
offset the aggra.ating cirunstancia of pre&editation with the e;tenuating circu&stance of spontaneous declaration of
guilt and in failing to i&pose the accused the penalty of life i&prison&ent and in the second case the failure to
declare that the accused co&&itted the offense co&ple; of se.ere coercion with &urder and not i&pose 1apital
punish&ent. is well2founded the contain&ent of the #ublic #rosecutor in the first case. As it is co&pensated the
aggra.ating cirucnstancia of pre&editation with the e;tenuating circu&stance of declaration of guilt should be
i&posed on the accused the penalty pro.ided for by article -54 of the Re.ised #enal 1ode in your a.erage grade or
is life i&prison&ent .
in regard to the second case the accused forced the pilot #eter pearls to steer the airplane of Laoag to A&oy instead
of lle.erlo to Aparri and co&ply with such re=uire&ent nor illegal the defendant fired se.eral shots fro& a re.ol.er.
A:) cri&e co&&itted 2 contends the Attorney General 2 is the co&ple; cri&e of se.ere coercion with &urder and the
death penalty. Lac6s base this clai&.
that article pro.ides that >3n the e.ent that a single fact constitutes two go &ore cri&es or cu
This article pro.ides that >3n the e.ent that a single fact constitutes two go &ore offenses or when one of the& is
necessary &eans for co&&itting the other the penalty shall be red stop 6ey light co&e to the &ore serious offense
applying it in its &a;i&u& degree. >
The accused co&pelled the a.iator #edro. #earls to change the direction of the airplane and how does not co&ply
with its order 6illed hi&? the accused ran two different facts and not /ust one? therefore they cannot these two
successi.e acts constitute the co&ple; cri&e of coercion with &urder. 3f the a.iator had followed the order of the
accused this would not ha.e felt the need to 6ill hi&? the pilot was put in the hard choice to co&ply with the order or
die. 7la.iador did not want to be disloyal to its obligation and was dead. The accused could be depri.ed of his life
#eter #earls without forcing you to change the direction of the airplane? it was not necessary coercion to co&&it the
&urder. :or was it essential the ase natio to co&&it the coercion but =uite the contrary? for ha.ing 6illed the pilot the
accused did not succeed in its desire to reach out to A&oy% co&&itted two acts that consitutyen the cri&es of coercion
trustrada and &urder.
>The dwelling that pa.es the others &a6ing yield to force the door 6noc6s and cerradra of the sa&e and in it 6ills
wo&en residing there and by who& he had before relations ilicitass> does not co&&it an offense of allna&iento
co&ple; of dwelling with ho&icide. Must be i&posed on the accused the penalty for each of the offenses. 8Judg&ent
of January -5 *44*. 9 8- 1o&&onalty ,.ed. <*'. 9
>#resentanse at night two sub/ects in the dwelling place of a third party? 6noc6 at the door and as6ing the& =uestions
that they wanted the )uea answered that en/oy it and his daughter? not open staged penetrate to the force &istreat
and beat the inhabitants were serious in/ury and &ild ta6ing with the& the lea.e so&e &pact rated in less than *(
pesetas%> The accused did not co&&it the offenses of burglary with .iolence and inti&idation serious in/ury &inor
in/ury and theft. "hould apply article 44 and article +( which deals with the co&ple; cri&e. 8Judg&ent of *( February
*44,.9 8- 1o&&onalty ,.ed.? <*52<*,.9 there is no need to i&pose the defendant therefore the penalty of death. can
the prosecutor appeal@ Article - of the Rule **4 reads as follows%
Mand can appeal. 2 The people of the #hilippines howe.er or you can appeal when the accused would be e;posed
to a double /eopardy. 3n all other cases either party &ay appeal a final /udg&ent or order issued after the /udg&ent
which affects the essential rights of appellant.
This article is reproduction of articles 5' and 55 of the General Order :o. ,4 As a&ended by article 5 of Law :o.
-44<. General Order :o. ,4 3t is of A&erican origin and therefore the unprecedented anglo2A&ericans should be
ta6en into account. in a long list o# "ecisions a#ter "etermine" in cassation the cause o# 6epner against 7nite"
8tates, 195 7. 8. , 1''9 11 :7R. *hil., ;29, has &een esta&lishe" &y this Court in+aria&ly the "octrine that the
prosecution cannot appeal against a ,u"gment in $hich the accuse" is ac<uitte", #or the reason that #or the
secon" time she is in "anger o# &eing punishe" #or the same o##ense. =!he /merican common la$ also
prohi&ite" a secon" trial #or the same o##ense the accuse" ha" su##ere" any punishment or not, o3&een
ac<uitte" or con+icte" in a pre+ious reason. =
in the cause o# the 7nite" 8tates against 8anges, <uote" in the 6epner, sai"% =>rom the time o# 0or" -ale to
"ate o# the case o# Cha"$ic4 ,ust <uote", the te?t&oo4s, $ith rare e?ceptions, or "an o# course or claime"
that the accuse", (or your representati+e, is the only one $ho can get a ne$ trial to appeal in cassation in
criminal case, an" a ,u"gment in your #a+or is lasting peace an" conclusi+e. (8ee ) -a$4., +. 4@, 8ec. 1)9 C.
5', 8ections 1' et se<.9 Bac. /&. !rial, 0. 99 Error, B9 1 Chit, Crim. 0a$, ;5@, @4@9 8tar4, Crim. *1. (8econ"
E"ition, 35@, 3;@, 3@1, /rch&. Crim. *l. , = ... 3!here has &een no case o# resource o# cascion against a
,u"gment in #a+or o# the accuse", a#ter ac<uitte".3 (/rc&ol" Cr. *1 A *R., *omery3s E"., 199 .
>:o error howe.er flagrant co&&itted by the court against the state can be reser.ed by it for decision by the
supre&e court when the defendant you ha.e ele.en been placed in /eopardy and discharged e.en though the
discharge was the result of the error co&&itted. "tate .s. Roo6 5+ A. L. R. *4< <* Aan. '4- ,+ 1ap. <,'. 8* L. R.
A. -5-. 9
This 1ourt has ne.er sol.ed a si&ilar =uestion to the instant case in which the defendant was con.icted of a lesser
sentence than the sealada by law and the public prosecutorBs office on appeal re=uests that in accordance with the
Re.ised #enal 1ode the accused is i&posed a greater penalty. 3f the public prosecutor 2 as the accused 2 you can
appeal to correct an error of law then it will be i&posed upon the defendant forced a penalty of life i&prison&ent.
After you ha.e been and 2 by error2sentenced by the lower court to the sentence of *- years of i&prison&ent for -(
years of te&porary confine&ent is not to put again the accused in danger of being conde&ned to greater penalty for
the sa&e offense@ 3f the accused was the appellant it would ha.e no right to co&plain if you i&pose a greater
penalty in the case told the that appeals is the public prosecutor and the appeal is endangering the accused to
recei.e another greater conde&nation. Ce belie.e that in the present case is the accused in double /eopardy this is
in the danger of recei.ing a sentence of life i&prison&ent after ha.ing been already conde&ned by the court less than
a lesser penalty. By this danger the public prosecutor &ay appeal in accordance with article - of the Rule **4 and
following the constitutional guarantee that >will not to a person in danger of being punished twice for the sa&e offense>
on in /eopardy.
is dis&issing the appeal.