People V Kiichi Omine

People v Kiichi Omine July 24, 1935 Vickers, J.
FACTS: Defendants appeal from a decision of the CFI finding them guilty of frustrated homicide, with the aggravating circumstance that advantage was taken of their superior strength, and sentencing them each to suffer an indeterminate sentence from 6 yrs of prision correccional to 12 yrs of prision mayor. Defendants Eduardo Autor, Luis Ladion and Agapito Cortesano were working under codefendant Kiichi Omine, the overseer or manager of the hemp plantation owned by Angel Pulido. The 4 defendants lived together in a house on the plantation. Kiichi Omine asked Angel Pulido permission to open a new road through the plantation. Omine: Pulido did give his permission and thats why he began working on the new road. Pulido: Refused to grant this request because there was already an unfinished road. As Pulido and his son along w/ 2 others were returning home from a cockpit, they noticed that a considerable number of hemp plants were destroyed by the construction of the new road. Angered by this, they went to the defendants house and there happened a violent altercation resulting to the owner Pulidos death from a wound by a bolo struck in his breast. Conflicting evidence:
Prosecution: While Angel Pulido was talking with Omine, Autor attempted to intervene, but was prevented by Hilario Pulido. Autor attacked Hilario Pulido with a bolo, but did not wound him except on the left thumb. Ladio and Cortesano held Angel Pulido, and when Autor approached, Omine shouted pgale y mtale Defense: Offended party and son were aggressors. First to arrive was Hilario Pulido. After applying to Omine an offensive epithet and asking him why he grubbed up the hemp, struck him in the breast with brass knuckles. When Autor attempted to intervene, the Pulidos s attacked him with their fists, Hilario striking him on the right cheek with brass knuckles. Ladio n and Cortesano ran away before Angel Pulido was wounded by Autor. Omine never uttered the words or urged Autor to strike Pulido.
HELD:
1) Evidence does not convince that Ladion and Cortesano took part in the fight. Court is
inclined to believe that they ran away and were not present when Pulido was wounded. Also, they were not even included in the original complaint.
2) Although it is alleged that Kiichi Omine uttered words of inducement to Eduardo Autor, it
would be insufficient to make him a principal by induction. Eduardo Autor though
working under the direction of Omine was still being paid by Pulido. It does not appear that the words uttered by Omine caused Autor to strike Angel Pulido. Moreover, it is necessary that inducement be made directly w/ the intention of procuring the commission of the crime and that such inducement be the determining cause of the commission of the crime. It must be precede the act induced and must be so influential in producing the criminal act that w/o it the act wouldnt have been performed. Moreover, as words of direct inducement, it is essential that such advice or words have great dominance and great influence over the person who acts, that they be as direct, as efficacious, as powerful as physical or moral coercion or as violence itself.
3) Hence, the 3 co-defendants of Autor are not responsible for the injury inflicted by him on
Angel Pulido. Judging from the nature of the wound, which was about 11 inches in length, it is probable that it was caused by the point of the bolo on a downward stroke. It was not a stab wound, and was probably given during a commotion and without being aimed at any particular part of the body. Moreover, as Autor struck the offended only once, it is indicative that it was not his intention to take the offended partys life.
4) Wherefore, Eduardo Autor is guilty of lesiones graves w/ a sentence of 1yr 8 mos & 21 days of prision correccional, since the offended party was incapacitated for the performance of his usual work for a period of more than 90 days, and not of frustrated homicide. The rest of the co-defendants are acquitted.
Note: I online-translated pgale y mtale several times and it seems like it basically means hit and kill. Some sites also translated pgale as clobber.

People V Kiichi Omine

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People V Kiichi Omine

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People V Kiichi Omine

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v Kiichi Omine July 24, 1935 Vickers, J.

You might also like