No. 5386. November 8, 1909.
] REVIEW of a judgment of the Court of First Instance of
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff and appellee, vs. ARSENIO
PALACIO, defendant and appellant.
MURDER; SUFFICIENCY OF
INFORMATION; MULTIFARIOUSNESS.—From the Court of
First Instance of Antique. McCabe, J.
Defendant was convicted of murder under aggravating
circumstances, and sentenced to death. He killed two men and
a little girl, wounded two women, and set fire to the house.
Defense admitted the guilt of the defendant but
763
claimed that judgment should be reversed and new trial
ordered because the complaint charges five different crimes.
No objection to the form of the complaint was raised in the
court below. Held,following U. S. vs. Perez (2 Phil. Rep., 178),
that, although the information charged and .the proofs
established the murder of three different persons, it is inferred
that the judgment of conviction referred to one single murder,
and as no objection was raised at the trial court, the
information and proceedings can not now be declared void for
multifariousness. Judgment affirmed.
Per Moreland, J.
For appellant: Charles C. Cohn.
For appellee: Solicitor-General Harvey.
No. 5386. November 8, 1909.]
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff and appellee, vs. ARSENIO
PALACIO, defendant and appellant.
MURDER; CRIMINAL PRACTICE AND
PROCEDURE; INFORMATION CHARGING NUMEROUS
CRIMES.—|Although an information may charge and the proofs
establish the guilt of the defendant with respect to more than one
crime, it will be inferred that the judgment of conviction relates
to only one crime unless the contrary appears therein, and,
where no objection was taken at the trial, the information and
proceedings will not be declared void for multifariousness.
Antique. McCabe, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Charles C. Cohn, for appellant.
Solicitor-General Harvey, for appellee.
MORELAND, J.:
This case comes before the court en consulta. The defendant
was charged with the crime of assassination (murder). He was
tried by the Court of First Instance of the Province of Antique
on the 8th day of
661
VOL. 16, NOVEMBER 8, 1909. 661
United States vs. Palacio.
March, 1909. He was found guilty of the crime charged, with
attendant aggravating circumstances, and sentenced to death.
The facts are as follows:
On or about the 25th day of February, 1909, there was
living at a place called Budbudan, in the Province of Antique,
one Simeon Tamon, an uncle of the defendant. With him were
living his wife, Agustina Martinez; his niece, Tomasa
Magrare; and one Rosalia Martinez, the latter having with her
there her little daughter, about 8 months of age. These persons
were all known to the defendant, most of them being relations
of his. On the night of February 25 aforesaid, at about 9
o'clock, one Urbano Dumaraog, a relative of the owner and a
cousin of the accused, came to sleep at the house above
mentioned. About 10 o'clock that night the woman Rosalia,
with her infant daughter, was lying asleep upon the floor, the
child reclining on the mother's left arm. Urbano Dumaraog
was standing at the table, with his back toward the stairs
which led from the room below. Simeon Tamon was sitting
near him, his arms on the table and his head bowed forward
upon them, probably asleep. His wife, Agustina Martinez, was
sitting on the other side of the table, and the niece, Tomasa
Magrare, was lying down, but apparently not asleep. The
accused, Arsenio Palacio, came up the stairs quietly. He the information in the action accused the defendant of not less
carried in a sheath at his side a war bolo. Reaching the top of than five separate and distinct crimes. It appears, however,
the stairs, he was seen by the woman Tomasa Magrare that no objection was made to the form of the information
immediately to draw his bolo and inflict a blow upon the neck during the trial. That question is raised on appeal for the first
of Urbano Dumaraog, who, at that moment, was standing with time. In the case of the United States vs. Perez(2 Phil. Rep.,
his back toward the accused. The blow was delivered with such 171), the court held that although the information charged and
force that the victim immediately fell to the floor, dying the proofs adduced established the murder of three different
instantly. The accused then quickly attacked Simeon Tamon persons, it would be inferred that the judgment of conviction
and struck him a powerful blow upon the head, which referred to one single murder unless the contrary appeared
appeared to have instantly killed him, his head falling forward therefrom, and where no objection was taken at the trial the
upon the table, almost severed from the body. In the meantime information and proceedings would not be declared void for
Agustina Martinez had run out of the room and away from the multifariousness.
house. The judgment of the court below is, therefore, affirmed,.
662 with costs against the appellant.
662 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED Arellano, C. J., Torres and Johnson, JJ., concur.
United States vs. Palacio. Judgment affirmed.
delivered against Simeon Tamon, arose from the floor; the 663
accused struck at her with his bolo, inflicting a wound upon VOL. 16, NOVEMBER 29, 1909. 663
her back. The blow, however, was not serious enough to United States vs. Samaniego and Benedicto de Perez.
prevent her from running from the house and hiding. The © Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
other woman, Rosalia Martinez, sleeping on the floor with her
child on her arm, was aroused by a blow upon her arm and,
jumping up, saw and felt blood from the head of her child, and,
seeing that the little one had been killed by the blow, dropped
it and fled from the house, having received herself, as
afterwards appeared, an extremely serious wound in her arm.
The accused then took a lamp which was burning in the house
and set fire to it in various places. He then escaped. After the
house had burned down the charred bodies of. Urbano
Dumaraog, Simeon Tamon and the child were recovered and
identified.
A careful examination of the proofs adduced at the trial
demonstrates beyond any question of doubt the guilt of the
defendant.
Counsel for the defendant in his brief admits the guilt of
the defendant but urges that the judgment of conviction
should be reversed and new trial granted upon the ground that