People vs. Ang Cho Kio

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$L J. % The co&plaint in the first cause is the following lines% That on or about the '(th day of )ece&ber *+,- in Mountain #roince #hilippines and within the /urisdiction of this 0onorable 1ourt the aboe2na&ed accused then passenger of #hilippine Air Line plane #3212'4 entroute fro& Laoag to Apa Aparri rri and while sai said d pla plane ne was flying flying oe oerr Mou Mountai ntain n #ro #roin ince ce did then and the there re wil willful lfully ly unlawful unlawfully ly and feloniously and ar&ed with .5, and .'4 caliber pistols with &utiny and 6nown pre&editation shot 7duardo )iago the purser of the aforesaid plane thus inflicting gunshot wound on his 87duardo )iago9 body and as a result thereof said 7duardo )iago died instantly. Baguio City, March 9, 1953 (p. 1, REC., Criminal Case No. 419. !he complaint in the secon" cause is the #ollo$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 *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 unl a$#ully an" #eloniously, an" $ithout authority o# la$, compel *e"ro *earls, pilot o# the a#oresai" plane, against the latters $ill an" consent, to change the route o# the plane a n" tae 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, $ith mutiny an" no$n preme"itation, "i" then an" there ill#ully, ill#ully, unla$#ully unla$#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 3nfor&e d the accused accused of the tw two o co& co&plai plaints nts with the assistanc assistance e of his lawyers lawyers he ple pleaded aded guilty. guilty. The 1ourt sentenced senten ced hi& in the first cause to twele twele 8*-9 AOA i&prison&ent as a &ini&u& to twenty 8-(9 years of te&porary confine&ent confin e&ent as &a;i&u& with co&pensation co&pensation to the heirs of 7duardo )iago in the su& of #3n the eent that a single fact constitutes constitutes two go &ore offenses or when one of the& is necessary necess ary &eans for co&&i co&&itting tting the other the penalt penalty y shall be red stop 6ey light co&e to the &ore serious offense offense applying it in its &a;i&u& degree. > The accused co&pelled co&pelled the aiat aiator or #edro. #earls to change the direction 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 accuse d 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 #earls without forcing you to change the direct direction ion of the airplane? airplane? it was not necessary coercion 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 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.