CRIM REV Article 13 (Crime committed for price, reward.

Or
promise)
Case title: US vs. Alim G.R. No. 13312
Date: . April 1, 1918.
DOCTRINE: The circumstance of there having intervened price and reward for the death of the
deceased qualifies the crime of murder; and this circumstance affects not only the person who
gave the price and the reward but those who received them as well
FACTS:
- The Moro Panglima Salani was the chief of the settlement to which the deceased and the
defendants belonged, and Maharaja Alim was his assistant.
- About a year prior to the commission of the crime, Maharaja Alim had proposed to Munagil,
Lahaman, and Salatung to kill Tantung and later, about one month prior to its commission,
Maharaja Alim again made to them the same proposal, offered them P100, and advanced on
that same occasion P10, which sum was received by Munagil. Said proposal was accepted by
all three of them.
- On the morning of March 16, 1917, Alim told the three that Tantung will go fishing later on the
afternoon. As night came, they sailed out in a vinta to Tantung with Salatung carrying a lance
belonging to Alim.
- Upon seeing Tantung, they feigned asking for some bait and while the former was reaching to
get some, Munagil pierced him with the lance. Lahaman used the same lance to pierce Tantung
again in the breast. When he fell into the water Munagil struck him in the back with a bolo. They
then reported their success to Alim.
- Tantung’s body floated to the shore.
- They were convicted for the crime of murder under the strength of the testimony of Munagil and
Lahaman and because of the price and reward offered by Maharaja Alim to the other defendants
qualifiers its commission.
- NOTE: Extenuating circumstance that they are Moro was not considered by the court since
Maharaja Alim is the second chief of the settlement, and this fact implies that, relatively
speaking, he was fairly intelligent. Although the other defendants are of a lower intellectual level,
yet their scant intelligence can not be considered as sufficient to show that they were mere
unconscious instruments in the hands of Maharaja Alim, whose will they could not resist. The
proposal to kill the deceased had been made to them about a year before, yet they had
refrained from committing the deed and finally decided to do it only when Maharaja Alim had
assured them that he would take care of them in case that the crime would be discovered, and
after he offered them the reward and advanced them P10 in partial payment of it.
ISSUE/S:

- What are the aggravating circumstances that attended the crime of murder by the
accused?
HELD:
 The circumstance of there having intervened price and reward for the death of the deceased
qualifies the crime of murder; and this circumstance affects not only the person who gave the
price and the reward but those who received them as well. Thus, Munagil, Lahaman and
Salutang’s crime is also qualified to murder.
 Other Aggravating Circumstance
 The additional aggravating circumstances of despoblado since the crime was committed at
sea. The inducer Maharaja Alim is covered because as the latter was the one who had advised
in the morning that the deceased intended to fish in the sea that afternoon, he virtually induced
the commission of the crime precisely at that place.
 Nocturnity. The advice which Munagil, Lahaman, and Salatung received was that in the
afternoon of that day the deceased intended to fish in the sea; those defendants, however,
awaited the coming of the night for the commission of the crime, and this indicates that they
precisely chose night time that they might commit it with a better chance of the success of the
execution and with less danger of punishment. But, as the record does not show that Maharaja
Alim shared in the determination to kill the deceased precisely at night, nor that he had
knowledge thereof, this circumstance of the crime should not affect him.
 Premeditation, should be held to have attended the commission of the crime, and it likewise
should affect all the defendants.
 Treachery should be counted against Munagil, Lahaman, and Salatung, considering the
evidently treacherous manner employed in the commission of the crime. This circumstance
should not affect Maharaja Alim, inasmuch as it was not shown that he induced the commission
of the crime in that particular way, nor that he was even present at its commission.

CRIM REV Article 13 (Crime committed for price, reward. Or

promise)
Case title: Fuertes vs People G.R. Nos. 95891-92.
Date: February 28, 2000
DOCTRINE:

1. An order, even if illegal, if it is patently legal and the subordinate is not aware of its
illegality, the subordinate is not liable, for then there would only be a mistake of fact
committed in good faith.
2. A defense of good faith is a valid defense in a prosecution for malversation for it would
negate criminal intent on the part of the accused
FACTS:
-
Tabuena and Peralta was convicted of malversation through negligence to the amount of P55 Million of
the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) funds during their incumbency as General Manager
and Acting Finance Services Manager, respectively, of MIAA. On January 10, 16, & 29 of 1986, the
accused withdrew the said amount from MIAA’s cash accounts purportedly as partial payment to the
Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC) outstanding claims from MIAA, including what is
due from the escalation clause. Such payment was motivated by the Marcos Memorandum issued by
Roberto Ongpin requiring MIAA to pay its obligations with PNCC.
In their defense, the accused argues that they withdrew the amount in good faith compliance of a
superior or then President Marcos, when he issued a memorandum ordering the payment of MIAA to
PNCC be coursed through the Office of the President. Then they believed that the MIAA has liabilities to
PNCC that are due. Futhermore, that the President unquestionably exercised control over government
agencies such as the MIAA and PNCC, through a Presidential Decree. Thus, Marcos had a say in
matters involving inter-government agency affairs and transactions.
Tabuena was initially charged with intentional malversation but the Sandiganbayan convicted him of
malversation due to negligence.
ISSUE/S:
- 1. Is the accused entitled to the justifying circumstance of compliance with superior order?
- 2. Is Tabuena liable for malversation by negligence?
HELD:
 YES, the accused are entitled to the justifying circumstance of compliance with superior order.
The order (Marcos Memorandum) is patently legal and the accused was not aware of its
illegality.

Then President Marcos has a subordinate-superior relationship between them. Marcos, being
the President of the Republic, unquestionably exercised control over government agencies and
thus, has a say in matters involving inter-government agency affairs and transactions.

Further, the Marcos Memorandum is patently legal (for on its face it directs payment of an
outstanding liability). In the case at bench, the order emanated from the Office of the President
and bears the signature of the President himself, the highest official of the land. It carries with it
the presumption that it was regularly issued. And on its face, the memorandum is patently lawful
for no law makes the payment of an obligation illegal.

 NO, the accused is not liable for malversation as he acted in good faith.
1. Tabuena acted under the honest belief that the P55 million was a due and demandable debt
and that it was just a portion of a bigger liability to PNCC;
2. He also was not able to follow all the auditing procedure and was only able to record a
journal entry of the transaction considering the he did not have the luxury of time for the
Marcos Memorandum required immediate compliance;
3. There is also no showing that he had anything to do whatsoever with the execution of the
Marcos Memorandum nor is there proof that he profited from the felonious scheme. In short,
no conspiracy was established between Tabuena and the real embezzler/s of the P55
Million. Thus, he is not liable.

Quote that may be asked

For the most dangerous precedent arises when we allow ourselves to be carried away by such fears so
that it becomes lawful to sacrifice the rights of an accused to calm the fearful