People vs Pilus Subano

Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the case cited. Xie xie!

People vs Pilus Subano
G.R. No. L-48143
September 30, 1942

Facts:

On July 9, 1940, defendant and his wife Bankalot had a quarrel because the latter, then suffering from a headache, refused to work in their kaiñgin. The defendant then remarked in a fit of anger that it would be better if she were dead. The quarrel was resumed the following morning when she again refused to accompany her husband to a creek of the Macasin River to catch fish; but this time, defendant dragged her along with him. When he returned home the afternoon of that day, he was alone and was noticeably pale and restless. Ebol Subano, father of Bankalot, and Biwang Subano, father of Cumay, another wife of the defendant, noticed bloodstains on his bolo and on its scabbard.

Defendant sought to explain these bloodstains as of a big fish which he had cut. Ebol and Biwang noticed, however, that the defendant had not brought home any fish, and suspecting the something might be wrong, Ebol asked the defendant where his daughter was. Defendant disclaimed knowledge of her. With nightfall bringing no sign of Bankalot's coming, Ebol and Biwang began searching for her.

Four days later, they found her dead body lying in an isolated place in the middle of a creek of the Macasin River with a mortal wound on the back and another at the neck which almost severed the head from the body, and with several contusions. Lieutenant Olivares, to whom the case was reported, repaired to the hut of the defendant who came down with an unsheathed bolo accompanied by his brother also carrying a bolo. The lieutenant ordered them to drop their bolos and when they refused he ordered his men to aim their rifles at them, whereupon the accused dropped his bolo and was arrested. Taken to the scene of the crime, he would not look at the dead body of his wife although he was asked to view and identify it, and showed no sign of grief. The accused at the trial denied having killed his wife.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused-defendant is liable for the crime of parricide or homicide?

Held:

The crime committed is homicide and not parricide. From the testimony of Ebol Subano, father of the deceased, it appears that the defendant has three wives and that the deceased was the last in point of time. Although the practice of polygamy is approved by custom among these non-Christians, polygamy, however, is not sanctioned by the Marriage Law which merely recognizes tribal marriage rituals. The deceased, under our law, is not thus the lawful wife of the defendant and this precludes conviction for the crime of parricide.

However, accused-defendant appealed his case to the CA, from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga where he was found guilty of the crime of parricide and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P2,000. But the judgment on the appellate court rendered with the modification that the accused be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from eight years of prision mayor to fifteen years of reclusion temporal, the judgment is affirmed, with costs.