The complaint in the first case is as follows:

That on or about the 30th day of December, 1952, in Mountain Province,

Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, then a passenger of Philippine Air Line plane PI-C-38
entroute from Laoag to Aparri , And while he said he was flying over
Mountain Province, he did it and he willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, and
armed with .45 and .38 caliber pistols, with treachery and known
premeditation shot Eduardo Diago, the purser of the aforesaid plane, thus
Inflicting gunshot wound on his (Eduardo Diago) body and as a result of said
Eduardo Diago died instantly.
Contrary to law.
Baguio City, March 9, 1953 (P. 1, rec., Criminal Case No. 419).
The complaint in the second case is as follows.
That on or about the 30th day of December, 1952, in Mountain Province,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, then a passenger of Philippine Air Line Plane PI-C-38
enroute from Laoag to Aparri While the said plane was flying over Mountain
Province, it was then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, and
without authority of law, compel Pedro Perlas, pilot of the aforesaid plane,
against the latter's will and consent, to change the route of the plane And
took him (Accused) to Amoy, and when Pedro Perlas failed to comply with
said order, said accused who was then armed with .45 and .38 caliber pistols,
with treachery and known premeditation, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and Pedro Perlas died Pedro Pedro, Pedro Perlas, Pedro Perlas,
Pedro Pedro, Pedro Perlas, Pedro Perlas, Pedro Perlas, Pedro Perlas.
All contrary to law.
Baguio City, March 9, 1953 (p. 1, rec., Criminal Case No. 420).
Informed the accused of the two quarrels with the assistance of his lawyers,
pleaded guilty. The Court convicted him in the first case twelve (12) years of
imprisonment greater than a minimum of twenty (20) years of temporary
imprisonment as maximum, with compensation to the heirs of Eduardo Diago
in the sum of P6,000 and costs. In the second cause the court condemned
him to life imprisonment, with indemnification to the heirs of Pedro Perlas in
the sum of P6,000 and costs. The motions for reconsideration filed in these
cases, alleging that the lower court failed to impose in the first case the
penalty of life imprisonment and in the second death, have been denied by
the lower court, so the provincial prosecutor filed an appeal .

The Attorney General contends in his plea that the lower court made a
mistake in the first case by not declaring the aggravating circumstance of
premeditation with the extenuating statement of guilt and not imposing the
perpetrator's imprisonment on conviction The second cause, not declaring
that the accused committed the complex crime of serious coercion with
murder and not impose capital punishment.
The contention of the Public Prosecutor in the first case is well founded. As
the aggravating circumstance of premeditation with the extenuating
statement of guilt is compensated, the accused must be imposed the penalty
provided by article 248 of the Revised Penal Code in its average degree, that
is, perpetual imprisonment.
As to the second case, the accused forced the pilot Pedro Perlas to direct the
airplane from Laoag to Amoy instead of taking it to Aparri and, for nor to
fulfill such illegal request, the defendant shot several shots of revolver. E
crime committed - contends the Attorney General - is the complex crime of
serious coercion with murder, and the death penalty. This pretension lacks
foundation.
This article states that "In the event that a single act constitutes two or more
crimes or when one of them is necessary means to commit the other, the
corresponding penalty shall be imposed on the most serious offense,
applying it to its maximum extent."
The defendant forced the aviator Pedro. Pearls change the direction of the
airplane, and as it did not fulfill its order I kill it; The accused executed two
different facts, not one; Therefore, these two successive acts can not
constitute the complex crime of coercion with murder. Siel aviador would
have followed the order of the accused, he would not have had to kill him;
The pilot was put on the harsh alternative to comply with the order, or die.
Elaviador did not want to be disloyal to his obligation, and he was dead.
The accused could have deprived Pedro Perlas of his life without having to
force him to change the direction of the airplane; Coercion was not necessary
to commit murder. Nor was it indispensable to know how to commit coercion,
but quite the contrary; For having murdered the pilot, the accused did not
obtain his desire to arrive at Amoy: he committed two acts that consitutyen
the crimes of coercion and assassination.
"He who cleanses the habitation of others, causing them to yield