Chapter IV: Part 4

(b) P and R compromise on the grade of fine that is midway between
their stations; that is, the fine of the middle class. In Kiangan
this is the usual settlement.

(c) P shows such bungot (wrath and ferocity) that R's kin advise
him to pay the larger fine. They point out that the fine is a
small matter as compared with the loss of life, and state that
there is no telling what this poverty-stricken but rampant dog
will do. This settlement is not uncommon in the Kiangan area,
where the poor people have a great deal of pride and bravery,
but rare in other parts of Ifugao.

Aside from other matters, the diplomacy and tact of the go-between
would have a great deal to do toward determining which of these
contingencies would result.

It is extremely hard to make a general statement as to fines when offender and offended are of different classes. It may safely be said that the fines assessed average the amount midway between the fines proper to the two classes concerned. Thus, when a poor man offends a rich man, and when a rich man offends a poor man, the average of the fines assessed equals approximately the fine assessed for injuries within the middle class. In questions in which rich and middle class persons are involved, the fines approximate an amount half way between the fines of the rich and of the middle classes.

89. Importance of influential position and personality.--The fact has already been mentioned (see sec. 4) that Ifugao administration of justice is remarkably personal in nature. We have just seen, in the example given in section 88, to what an extent personality and war-footing enter into the infliction of fines when offender and offended are of different classes. Nowhere can a man of magnetism and force reap greater benefit from these qualities, relatively speaking, than in an Ifugao controversy. The fact stares us in the face in every phase of Ifugao law, especially in procedure.

89a. Cripples and unfortunates.--Cripples and those afflicted by disfigurements or disfiguring diseases are often in a desperate mood for the reason that life is not at all precious to them. They are likely to be erratic and to constitute exceptions in punishment of crimes and procedure. I remember a case that happened in Baay District a few years ago which illustrates to what extent determination and absolute abandon to a single purpose are valuable in carrying a point in Ifugao procedure. I did not make note of the names but shall designate the rich man as R and the poor man as P. P was afflicted with the disease hiphip--probably ichthyosis--a skin disease in which the skin becomes white, rough, and scaly. R met P one day and sneered at him, saying, "Although you have neither fields, gongs, nor jewelry, I see that you have become a kadongyang, for you are wearing a white coat" (referring to the skin disease). P became violently angry but restrained himself from assaulting R. He calmly informed R that for this insult he fined him a large and valuable field, R's property in Dayukong; that life meant little to himself, and that if R resisted and interfered with his taking possession of the field, he would certainly kill him. P further stated that he knew that R's kin would retaliate and that he would lose his own life but that he did not care since he was miserable anyway. None of the women would deign him their favors and being poor--well, what was the use of living! P carried his point and maintains possession of the field to this day. Having the field, he managed to get a wife, who, although homely, has borne him two or three children who are not afflicted with his disease.

Another case in point is the following: Piklud, a fairly wealthy man of Kurug, was paralyzed from the knees down and in his locomotion he had to crawl on all fours. He loaned a neighbor a chicken. There was a quarrel over the repayment of this which left ill feeling between the two. A little while after the quarrel, the neighbor met Piklud crawling along the path through the village, and called to him as to a dog, "Doa! doa! dé-dé-dé!" Piklud pretended not to notice and even feigned amiability. He gossiped a little about the drought which was parching the rice fields. Finally he said, "Let me see your spear." He felt the edge and then with the words, "It is pretty sharp, isn't it?" he thrust it upward into the other's abdomen.

THE PRINCIPAL CRIMES AND THEIR FREQUENCY

90. List of offenses.--In the Kiangan-Nagakaran-Maggok area, the principal crimes, in order of their probable frequency, are: sorcery; adultery; theft; murder (or in the case of women and children, kidnapping); the putting of an innocent person in the position of being considered an accessory to crime; manslaughter; rape of a married woman; arson; incest. Minor crimes are: insult; slander; false accusation; rape of a girl.

SORCERY

91. The ayak (soul-stealing) is a series of religious ceremonies in which the sorcerer calls to a feast the ancestral spirits of some man whose death he desires to encompass, together with many maleficent spirits and deities, and bribes them to bring to him, incarnated as a blue-bottle fly, a dragon fly, or a bee, the soul of the man whose death he desires. When one of the insects mentioned comes to drink of the rice wine in front of the sorcerer, it is imprisoned and put into a bamboo joint tightly corked. The enemy, being thus deprived of his soul, will die.

This form of sorcery cannot be practiced unless the sorcerer knows the names of the ancestral spirits of his victim-to-be. For this reason, when the Lamot people, who are famous sorcerers, come to Kiangan and approach a religious feast, the Kiangan people do not invoke their ancestral spirits until after the visitors have gone. Needless to say, sorcery is always practiced in secret. It sometimes happens that it is practiced by a man against his kin. In such a case, kinship does not extenuate his punishment, since the preservation of the family necessitates the extirpation of the sorcerer within its gates. This is the only exception I know of to the general rule that a family may not proceed against one of its members.

92. Other forms of sorcery.--Certain persons have an evil "cut" of the eye, which, whether they wish it or not, brings misfortune or sickness on whomsoever or whatsoever they see. Injury by means of the "evil eye" may be effected intentionally or entirely unintentionally.

The words of certain persons even though innocent and unconnected with evil, and though spoken as they usually are without malicious intent, have the quality of bringing whatever is spoken to an evil end.

Thus A, afflicted with the "blasting word," goes to the house of B,
and, seeing a sow with a litter of handsome pigs, remarks, "That's
a fine litter of pigs you have!" If A be truly afflicted with
the blasting word, the pigs will die, even though A was without
intent to do injury, and was even ignorant of his affliction.

The evil eye and the blasting word are frequent afflictions--afflictions that their possessor is the last to learn about. They may be cured by the possessor's offering sacrifices of the proper sort. In the event of injury unintentionally being done by evil eye or blasting word, no punishment is meted out, although in some cases restitution is demanded.

Curses are of two kinds: directly by word, and indirectly by curses laid on food, drink, or betels. Kiangan people are afraid to purchase rice from the Lamot people to the south of them through fear of being affected by curses that may have been laid on the rice.

93. Punishment of sorcery.--Sorcerers are not punished hysterically. To his credit, it must be said that the Ifugao proceeds slowly in condemning a person for this crime. Before he takes action, he demands not merely strong grounds for suspicion, but proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspected person is a sorcerer. Proof that one has performed the ayak ceremony against a person is sufficient ground for the infliction of the death penalty. But in the case of the evil eye and the blasting word, it must be proved that the death of the pigs, the betel vine, or whatever it be that dies, was due to the glance or words of the bewitched, and that both glance and words were used with evil intent. This would obviously be hard to do; but for the purpose of justifying an injured person in killing such a sorcerer or bewitched one, a record of previous misdeeds of the kind, and a general conviction, in which a portion, at least, of the man's kin concurred, that the suspect was a malicious sorcerer, would be sufficient.

A curse, by one who has no reputation for supernatural powers, is punishable by the following fine:

KADANGYANG MIDDLE CLASS NAWATAVAT Hin-bakid (One ten) Hin-bakid (One ten) Na-onom (Six)

Pu-u (2 death Pu-u (death blankets) P16.00 blanket) P8.00 Pu-u (dili) P8.00 Hay nub palyuk 5.00 Haynub palyuk 5.00 Natauwinan 1.00 Hay nub palyuk 2.00 Haynub palyuk 2.00 Nuntuku .50 Natauwinan 1.00 Natauwinan 1.00 Natuku .50 Natauwinan 1.00 Natauwinan 1.00 Na-oha .20 Natauwinan 1.00 Natauwinan .50 Liwa comes out Natauwinan .50 Nuntuku .50 of the No-onom Nuntuku (3 each) .50 Nuntuku .40 Nuntuku .50 Nunbadi .40 ====== Na-oha .20 P27.50 Liwa comes out Liwa or fee of of the Hin-bakid go-between (1 death blanket) P8.00 ====== ====== ====== Total, P35.50 Total, P19.00 Total, P10.20

A curse by one who had a reputation of being a sorcerer might possibly lead to the death of the sorcerer on the spot. In case he were not killed, and the person or thing cursed died, the death penalty would be inflicted later.

The following instances will be of value as illustrations. Some are recent, others historical:

Before the coming of the Spaniards, Atiwan of Longa acquired
a reputation as a sorcerer. He killed several of his kinsmen in
Baay. Even his relatives in Longa admitted that he was a sorcerer,
and said that he ought to be killed. Ginnid of Baay and several
companions went to Longa one night, and called to Atiwan that
they had come to see him. He opened the house and put down the
ladder. The party ascended, and set upon Atiwan with their war
knives and killed him. In trying to protect him, his wife, Dinaon,
was wounded. The killing was universally approved.

Kimudwe (alias Dulnuan) of Tupplak is a famous, or rather an
infamous, sorcerer. Owing to a quarrel with one of his nephews,
Butlong, over a debt, he performed an ayak to cause the latter's
death. Butlong was informed of the fact by one who, eavesdropping
below Kimudwe's house, heard the prayers and incantations. On
a certain day on which there was a feast in Ambabag, to which
Kimudwe was nearly certain to come, Butlong waylaid him, firing
a rifle at him from cover near Ambabag. His marksmanship was
atrocious. Before he could reload women rushed out from the
village and covered Kimudwe with their bodies, interceding, and
stating that there was not sufficient certainty that Kimudwe was
guilty to justify his nephew in killing him. (This occurred in
the interval between Spanish and American rule.)

Kimudwe is reputed to have killed by means of sorcery several
of his kinsmen. Recently a child died in Tupplak whose death was
attributed to him. He killed, it is said, the son of Bahni, another
of his nephews. Bahni sent Dulinayan of Ambabag as a go-between
to Kimudwe to challenge him to an ordeal, saying that he had no
intention of killing him, even if guilty, owing to the peculiar
prejudice of the Americans against such doings, but for his own
satisfaction he wanted to know if Kimudwe were the sorcerer. He
stated that in case Kimudwe won in the ordeal, he (Bahni) would pay
a fine of a gold bead for having accused him falsely. This was an
unusually large fine. Kimudwe refused, or rather evaded, saying:
"If I am a sorcerer, it is a case of the entire family, including
Bahni, being guilty." In other words, he took refuge behind the
Ifugao doctrine of collective responsibility (see sec. 4).

In cases of strong suspicion, a supposed sorcerer was often openly accused and challenged to an ordeal. The ordeal was usually more in the nature of a duel, the two exchanging spears at twenty steps (20 meters) distance. If the ordeal showed the suspect guilty, he was killed if he stayed in the region. He was not, however, killed on the field of duel--unless killed in the duel or ordeal itself--because such an execution might precipitate a battle with this kin.

ADULTERY

94. Forms of adultery.--In its unaggravated form, adultery is called luktap. Luktap signifies sexual intercourse between a spouse and some person other than the one to whom he (or she) be married, uncomplicated by insults and scandalous behavior flaunted in the face of the injured spouse. The intention to abandon the spouse is either not present, or is concealed.

The aggravated form of adultery is called hokwit. It consists of openly and scandalously bestowing one's love and body upon some other person than the spouse; of insulting the injured spouse; or of repeatedly, while living under the same roof with the spouse, meeting the third person and having sexual intercourse. The intention is present of separating (or effecting a separation) from the injured spouse. The following is an illustration:

Maxima, a girl of Umbul, was married to Ananayo of
Pindungan. But Ananayo had not yet reached the age of puberty,
while Maxima herself had reached that age. Sergeant Dominong,
of the constabulary company at Kiangan, began paying attentions
to Maxima, while Maxima was living in the house of Ananayo 's
father. During the season of watching the rice fields against
theft of water these two continually cohabited, the sergeant
going to where Maxima was watching the fields at night. Ananayo
attaining the age of puberty in the meantime, Maxima refused
to have anything to do with him. Both Maxima and Dominong were
guilty of hokwit in this case. Maxima's conduct was considered
especially reprehensible, since she was a binawit in the house
of Ananayo 's father (see sec. 14).

95. Punishment of adultery.--In both luktap and hokwit, the offending spouse and the lover (or mistress) are equally guilty. Each is equally liable to punishment. However, the offended spouse may, if he chooses, forgive the offending spouse without forgiving the partner in crime. This frequently happens. A wife is more likely to forgive than is a husband.

The adulterer when taken in delicto is sometimes punished by death. The offended spouse is justified by public opinion in administering this punishment to a considerably greater degree than our laws in the United States would justify him. Several stories are told of persons caught in the commission of this crime who were impaled by a single spear thrust. It should be stated that the kin of those killed for this crime rarely look upon the killing as justified, and often avenge it. They take the stand that the offended spouse ought to have demanded the usual fine; that if this had not been immediately forthcoming no one would have questioned the propriety of the killing. On the other hand, the kin of the offended spouse take the ground, and it may be said that in general public opinion backs them in it that a self-respecting man could not well do otherwise than kill the offender, and that the holding off and demanding money would savor too much of the mercenary.

It is to be noted that a sexual offense committed after the mommon ceremony is punished by a small fine; that an offense committed after the imbango or hingot ceremonies is punished by a larger fine, and that an offense committed after the bubun ceremony is punished by what to the Ifugao is a very large fine. These fines are diagramed Ifugao fashion in sec. 75. Hokwit, aggravated adultery, is punished by twice the greatest fine demanded in the case of simple adultery, luktap.

Adultery being a very hard crime to prove, the Ifugao takes as proof: (1) the confession of either party; (2) evidence that the accused wilfully and intentionally placed themselves in such a position or circumstances that the crime would be presumed by any reasonable person to have been consummated. Thus, the sleeping of the accused together at night in the absence of the spouse would be sufficient evidence.

Both offenders must pay the fine demanded by the circumstances to the offended party or parties. Thus, if both the offenders be married, each must pay a fine to (a) his own offended spouse, and (b) to the offended spouse of the partner in the crime. The pu-u of the fine goes to the offended spouse--the rest to the kin of the offended spouse. In addition to paying the fine, should the offender desire to continue the marriage relation with his offended spouse, he must provide animals and other perquisites for a honga (general welfare feast) in which the kin of both parties take part, and which is supposed to start the spouses anew in domestic harmony and felicity, and in all that the Ifugao considers prosperity, namely, abundance of pigs, chickens, rice, and children.

96. Sex in relation to punishment for adultery.--Although the punishment for adultery is the same for either sex, the likelihood of the adulterer's being punished is much greater if the offender be a woman than if he be a man. This is for the reason that men are more jealous than women and less attached to their spouses, usually. A great deal of adultery on the part of men goes unpunished. Most women would rather not hear about the peccadillos of their husbands. They do not want to take action unless it be forced upon them. But once the matter is brought to their "official attention," they have to take action in order to "save face." Women sometimes tell their husbands "It would be all right for you to have a mistress if you could only do so without my hearing of it." And when they learn of some such offense on the part of their husbands, they sometimes upbraid them, saying: "Oh, why didn't you do this thing in such a way that I would not hear of it?"

The husband, on the other hand, usually punishes, and often divorces his offending wife.

Once an offense is known, it must be acted on. Otherwise, the offended spouse is considered to be lacking in self respect. And indeed I believe that the insult involved in adultery is more serious than any other phase of the crime. The Malay's "face" is exceedingly dear to him.

THE TAKING OF LIFE

97. General considerations.--It is extremely difficult to unravel the law, if there be a law, with respect to murder, executions, and war. The Ifugao has no tribunals to sentence, and no government to execute. He makes no declarations of war. Doubtless no two nations or tribes of the world ever engaged in a warfare in which each did not consider the other the aggressor, or at least, the offender. The same is true with respect to feuds between families, which were almost as numerous as the families themselves. In spite of the years of American occupation during which comparative peace has prevailed, these feuds still exist. We must substitute, however, for patriotism, fraternal and filial love; the sense of duty to the unavenged dead, love of vengeance, and intense hatred engendered and justified by a well learned catalogue of wrongs and assassinations inflicted on the family by the enemy family. Once started, a blood feud was well nigh eternal (unless ended by a fusion of the families by means of marriage), for the reason that what was a righteous execution to one family was a murder (usually treacherous) to the other.

Outside of manslaughter, to be treated of later, it may be stated as a general tenet of Ifugao practice that the taking of a life must be paid by a life. Considering, too, that a member of an Ifugao family rarely if ever effected or accomplished any except the most ordinary and elemental acts without previous consultation with his family, and that nearly all killings were effected pursuant to a decision of a family council, it was not without a fair show of reason that Ifugao law held that a murder might be punished almost as well by the execution of some member of the murderer's family as by the execution of the murderer himself. For, if not principals in the commission of the crime, other members of the family were at least accomplices or accessories. Indeed Ifugao law held the whole family guilty, looking upon the crime, quite correctly, as an offense for which the whole family was responsible.

War, murder, and the death penalty exacted in execution of justice, in the Ifugao's society are so near each other as to be almost synonymous terms. We have already seen that a capital execution for crime is nearly always looked upon by the kin of the executed as being a murder; it is retaliated by them, by what to them is a justifiable execution; but by what, to the killers, is considered as a murder to be punished by another execution, and so on ad infinitum.

The Ifugao has one general law, which with a few notable exceptions he applies to killings, be they killings in war, murders, or executions, which public opinion would pronounce justifiable and legal. That law is: A life must be paid by a life. Let us pass now to a consideration of various classes of the takings of human life.

98. Executions justifiable by Ifugao law.--Public opinion or custom, or both, justify the taking of a life in punishment for the following crimes: sorcery; murder; persistent and wilful refusal to pay a debt when there is the ability to pay; adultery discovered in flagrante; theft by one of a foreign district; refusal to pay a fine assessed for crime or for injury suffered. But even though custom and public opinion justify the administration of the extreme penalty in these cases, the kin of the murdered man do not, in most cases, consider the killing justified. There are innumerable circumstances that complicate a given case. Was the sorcery proven or only suspected? Was it a murder that the man committed; or was he justified in the killing? Would not the debtor have come to his right mind had his creditor waited a little longer; and did the creditor approach him in the right way with reference to the debt? Did not the woman make advances in the adultery case that no self-respecting male could turn down? Was not the indemnity assessed too large or otherwise improper; or did the injured party wait long enough for the payment? These and a thousand other questions may arise with respect to the various cases.

If the death penalty be inflicted by persons of a foreign district, it is sure to be looked upon as a murder.

At feasts and gatherings about the "bowl that cheers" and especially in drunken brawls, an unavenged killing, no matter what the circumstances, is likely to be brought up as a reflection upon the bravery or manhood of the living kin, and so urge them to the avenging of what was really a justified execution.

Murder, sorcery, and a refusal to pay the fine for adultery justify the infliction of the death penalty even on a kinsman if he is not too close a relative. An execution of one kinsman by another is not so likely to be avenged as is justifiable execution by one outside the family. This is in accordance with the principle of Ifugao law: The family must at all hazards be preserved.

99. Feuds.--A feud is a series of takings of human life as vengeance, in which the heads may or may not be taken. There are some hundreds of ways in which feuds may start. As a rule they begin with a taking of life that is not justified in the eyes of the kin of him whose life was taken. They may begin from a retaliation for a kidnapping or even from an accidental killing. Feuds exist between neighboring districts, or districts not far distant between which to a certain extent ties of blood and marriage exist. It is exceedingly rare--if it ever occurs--that entire villages or districts are involved. The feud is an affair between families only. It consists of a series of vengeances and "returning of vengeances." Feuds may even start within the district: but as a rule, they are short lived, being stopped by the counsel of the influential. Feuds between districts are well nigh interminable usually, but may come to an end by means of intermarriage or when one or two of the leaders of each family are afflicted by certain diseases [17] thought to be inflicted by certain deities that desire the peace ceremony. As has been hitherto stated, each killing in a feud is considered by the killers to be an entirely justifiable execution in punishment of crime. The deities of war and justice are called to witness that the debt is not yet paid. Contemporaneously, the kin of the slain are calling on the same deities to witness that their family is sorely afflicted; that no debt was owed the others; that no chickens or pigs, or rice had been borrowed; that no theft or other crime had been committed, and so on; yet, that innocent, they are being slaughtered.

100. War.--Before the American occupation, districts that were far distant might be said to be continually at war with each other. The war was carried on as a series of head-takings. There was no formal declaration of war. As a rule there were no large expeditions to the enemy country, and heads were taken from ambush, on the outskirts of an enemy village or along much traveled paths. Women's heads were taken in these exploits; but not as a rule, in feuds. To avenge lives taken in war, while no doubt the life of the actual head-taker was preferable, the life of any person of the enemy village might be taken; just as in feuds, the life of any member of the enemy family might be taken.

101. Head-taking.--Heads were not taken in the case of executions for injury. In feuds within a district, heads were not taken. In feuds between families of different districts, heads might or might not be taken. Usually they were taken if there were no ties of kinship between the districts. It should be emphasized, however, that there was no definite boundary between districts, and consequently, no well-defined line beyond which heads might be taken. Families from the southern part of a district would take heads in territory from which those in the northern part of the district would not take them. Heads were always taken in the case of those killed in war, if circumstances permitted.

102. Hibul or homicide.--The Ifugao law clearly recognizes several grades of homicide.

(a) The taking of life when there is an entire absence of both
intent and carelessness. As for example, in the case already cited
(see sec. 54). when a party of hunters have a wild boar at bay. The
boar, as there stated, charges the most advanced of the hunters,
and in retreating backwards, the latter jabs one of his companions
with the shod point of his spear handle. There is no penalty for
such a taking of life.

(b) The taking of life when there is clearly an absence of
intent, but a degree of carelessness. For example, a number of
men are throwing spears at a mark. A child runs in the way, and
is killed. The penalty is a fine varying from one third to two
thirds the amount of the full fine for homicide according to the
decree of carelessness.

(c) Intentional taking of the life of another, under the impression
that he is an enemy when in reality he is a co-villager or a
companion. In case the killer can make the family of the slain
understand the circumstances, only a fine is assessed. This fine
is called labod. (See sec. 106.) If the killer be unrelated to
the slain, the full amount of the labod is demanded: if related,
the amount is usually lessened.

Example: Pumauwat of Raay was irrigating his fields at night. Some
of his companions told him that there were some head-hunters from
an enemy village near. In the darkness. Pumauwat encountered
another man. Likyayu, the betrothed of his daughter. He asked
him who was there. On account of the noise of water falling
from the rice fields, Likyayu did not hear the inquiry, and
said nothing. Pumauwat speared him. Likyayu cried out. Pumauwat
recognized his voice, and carried him home. He furnished animals
for sacrifice to secure Likyayu's recovery. Likyayu recovered. Had
he died, Pumauwat would have been called on for the full amount
of the fine: but had Likyayu been firmly engaged to Pumauwat's
daughter, that is, had the bango ceremony been performed the full
amount of the labod fine would not have been demanded, since the
relationship would have been an extenuating circumstance.

(d) The taking of life by persons in a brawl or by an intoxicated
or insane person. In case the slain died before his slayer
could agree to provide animals for sacrifice, the latter would
probably be killed by the kin of the slain if he were of a foreign
district. He might be killed if a non-related co-villager. He
would be fined the labod if a kinsman. He would probably go scot
free if a brother or uncle.

Example: A of Longa became insanely drunk at a feast at the house
of his brother Gimbungan. He attempted to embrace the comely
daughter of Gimbungan, his niece. Gimbungan tried to quiet him,
and in so doing aroused his ire. He drew back his spear menacingly,
and in so doing pierced the girl--who was at his back--with the
shod point at the end. She died. A was properly penitent when
he sobered, and furnished animals for sacrifice. The fine labod
was not, however, demanded of him. This was about thirty five
or forty years ago. Considerable feeling exists between the two
branches of the family to this day, owing to this occurrence.

The burden rests upon the slayer in the above cases to show that the killing was accidental or that he was so drunk as to have utterly lost his reason. The absence of a motive is a great help to him in this. If he has ever had a serious altercation with the slain, in the absence of controverting evidence, the presumption is likely to be that the killing was intentional, and that he has been "feigning friendship in order to kill by ugâ (treachery)."

103. Attempts to murder.--An attempt on the part of an enemy of another district on the life of a person is punishable by death. An attempt by one of the same district may or may not be punished by death; in most cases peace would be arranged by mutual friends and kinsmen. In such a case, he who made the attempt would be required to furnish animals for a peace feast.

104. Wounding.--Wounds inflicted accidentally and without intent or carelessness are not punished. In case the element of intent or carelessness be present, he who inflicts the wounds must furnish animals for sacrifice, pay the wounded man and his kin a fine, and stand the expense of a feast to make peace. The following is a typical list, for the kadangyang (wealthy)class, of the expenses of animals for sacrifice and fine:

(a) First feast for the recovery of the wounded man, sacrifices
to the war deities: 3 pigs at 15 pesos; 10 chickens at 1 peso;
total 55 pesos.

(b) Second feast for recovery, the pinochla, or feast to cure
wounds and infections: 1 pig at 10 pesos; 2 chickens at 1 peso;
8 spear heads as fees of priests at 25c; total 14 pesos.

In case the wounded man lives, the following fine is paid him and his kin:

(c) Fine of two bakid (two tens) amounting to 72 pesos; fee of
the monkalan, 10 pesos; total 82 pesos.

(d) Peace making ceremony: 1 pig at 15 pesos; other appurtenances
of feast, 2 pesos; total 17 pesos.

105. Special liability of the givers of certain feasts.--The givers of uyauwe or hagabi feasts (glorified general welfare feasts to which great numbers of people come) are responsible for wounds or deaths that occur at these feasts. When a man decides to initiate himself and his wife into the ranks of the kadangyang by giving one of these feasts, he appoints one of the old priests of his family to perform the tikman ceremonies. These ceremonies are sacrifices to the various classes of deities whose special function is the "tying up" of men's stomachs and passions. Prayers are addressed to these deities that a little food satisfy the guest that attends the feast, to the end that the giver be not eaten out of house and home; that a little rice wine suffice to intoxicate the people; that the passions of men be tied up to the end that no quarrels or frays occur; that no rice-wine jars or gongs be broken; that no accidents occur--in short, that the whole feast pass off smoothly. The duties of the manikam (the priest who performs these ceremonies) are rather arduous. To say nothing of the ceremonies he conducts, he must fast for a number of days and must observe a number of taboos. He receives rather a large fee for these services. And, indeed, their importance, in the eyes of the Ifugaos, and the legal responsibility he incurs, certainly justify a large fee.

The manikam priests are jointly responsible with the giver of the feast for accidents or violence that may occur. This liability of the giver of the feast for wounds or loss of life is based on the supposition that if he had not given the feast the wound would not have occurred; and possibly that he gave the feast with the motive of bringing about such an occurrence. The liability of the manikam is based on the supposition that there must have been a remissness on his part in his religious duties, else the accident or loss would never have occurred. The following is an actual instance that would indicate that this provision of the law is an incipient employer's liability provision.

Malingan of Pindungan, many years ago, gathered together his
kin and friends, performed the preliminary feasts, and went to
Payauan to make a hagabi (lounging bench, the insignium of the
kadangyang class). They made a very large hagabi that weighed
nearly a ton. In helping to carry it across the river two men
were carried downstream by the current and drowned. Demand was
made on Malingan and the manikam of the feast for the labod fine
(see sec. 106). It was paid, and that is the reason Malingan's
descendants are not wealthier today, for formerly Malingan was
one of the wealthiest men of the district.

It should be stated that brawls and accidents are much more common in feasts of this character given in parts of Ifugao other than the Kiangan-Nagakaran-Maggok area. This is due to the fact that in the area named above only relatives and persons invited by relatives attend, while in other regions the event is not so exclusive. There is the further consideration that in this area, on the night before the general drink-fest begins, an old man makes a speech in which he tries to put the crowd assembled in a good humor, and in which he warns each and every one to seize and hold any person who begins to disgrace hospitality by unseemly brawling.

106. The labod, fine assessed for homicide.--This fine is paid to the family of the slain. For the kadangyang, or wealthy class, the full fine consists of ten portions or divisions, totaling 975 pesos in the case tabulated below. These divisions may be briefly described as follows:

THE LABOD FINE

1. Outlay for a honga (general The honga is performed by the man's
welfare feast): kin as a means of preventing the
recurrence of such misfortunes in
(1) carabao P80.00 the family. The animals are
(2) 3 pigs 60.00 sacrificed to all the deities.
=======
Total P140.00

2. Dangale (sacrifices at funeral The animals of this part of the
feast): fine are killed at the funeral
feast of the slain.
(1) 2 carabaos P160.00
(2) 5 pigs 80.00
=======
Total P240.00

3. Gagaom (funeral shrouds): The clouts are to tie the dead man
in the death chair: one about the
(1) 8 death blankets P64.00 chest; one about the head; one
(2) 4 clouts 4.00 about the shoulders; and one to
(3) 1 ceremonial clout 1.00 tie on the head and beak of the
====== hornbill worn as a mark of rank.
Total P69.00 The ceremonial clout is worn on
the breech of the corpse.

The corpse is wrapped and entombed
in the eight death blankets.

4. Habalag (hangings at funeral The nine cheap blankets are
feast): distributed among the man's kin.

(1) 2 death blankets as
fee of the monkalun P16.00
(2) 9 maginlotan (cheap
death blankets) 36.00
======
Total P52.00

5. Mata-na (his eyes):

(1) 1 gold neck-ornament
for left eye P80.00
(2) 1 gold neck-ornament
for right eye 80.00
=======
Total P160.00

6. Putu-na (his belly): Articles listed under numbers 5 to
9 inclusive, go to the dead man's
(1) 1 pango (string of heirs and kin.
beads) P120.00

7. Puhu-na (his heart):

(1) 1 guling (rice-wine
jar, small) P80.00

8. Ubuna-na (his seat):

(1) 1 gong P80.00

9. Nunlidludagan (his place to
lie):

(1) 2 death blankets P16.00

10. Hidit (peace-making): For making peace with the family of
the slain.
(1) 1 pig and other
essentials of feast P18.00
=======
Total P314.00

The rank of the slain has something to do with the amount of the labod. The amounts given above are those that would be collected in the case of the killing of a Kiangan man of the kadangyang class. If the slain were a middle class or poor man the amounts would not be so great. [18] If the slayer were a middle class, or poor man, the amounts above might be lessened somewhat, but not very much. If the slayer be unable to pay, he is saddled with the rest as a debt. If he cannot pay the debt during his lifetime, his children must pay it.

107. Accidental killing of animals.--The accidental killing of an animal is not a crime. Sometimes even the value of the animal is not demanded or accepted if tendered.

If a dog runs out threatening to bite a passer-by, and the latter kills it, he is required to pay the value of the dog. If a dog bites a passer-by, the latter may kill the dog and need not pay a fine. If the dog bites him, and he does not kill it, he may demand a payment from the owner. It was a provision of primitive Roman law that "If an injury were done by a slave, the person injured had the right to exact vengeance against the slave personally, thus injuring the master's property; and the master or owner was consequently allowed to prevent this vengeance by making compensation for the injury done." [19]

Should a pig, at that period of the year when rice is stacked below the granary to dry out, enter through the fence and eat of the rice, it may be killed by the owner of the granary; but he must give the owner another pig in place of it. Such a killing is not considered malicious, for the pig was spoiling the "miraculous increase" of the year's harvest.

A pig that enters a rice field and eats of the unharvested rice is usually returned to the owner with the request that he tie the pig up. Should it again enter the field, the damage it does must be paid for. Should the owner refuse to pay this indemnity, and should the pig again enter the field, the owner of the field would be likely to kill the animal. The owner of the pig might consider such a killing malicious and improper. Public opinion would sustain the owner of the field.

108. Malicious killing of animals.--This is a serious crime. Its seriousness is due partly to the fact that domestic animals are to a great extent considered members of the household and as such loved and protected, and further to the fact that the intentional and malicious killing of such a member of a household would have a tendency to bring a like fate on the human members thereof, owing to the mystic power and force of analogy.

A labod fine is demanded for the malicious killing of a pig. The fine, in case a wealthy family is concerned, is as follows:

LABOD FINE FOR MALICIOUS KILLING OF A PIG

1. The corpse of the dead pig is surrounded by living pigs,
one on each side, i.e., four pigs are exacted in return.
2. Dangale (see sec. 106): 1 carabao. This animal is simply
handed over, not killed for a funeral as is the case when
a human being is concerned.
3. Gagaom (see sec. 106): 6 death blankets; 1 bayaó (fancy
blanket); 1 tin-unwe (ceremonial clout); 4 clouts.
4. Habalag (see sec. 106): precisely as in the case of a
homicide.
5. Liwa, fee of the monkalun, or go-between: 1 death blanket.

PUTTING ANOTHER IN THE POSITION OF AN ACCOMPLICE

109. The tokom, or fine for compromising another.--He who, voluntarily or involuntarily, puts another in the position of an accomplice, or in such a light that he might be regarded as being an accomplice in the commission of a crime, and so be liable to punishment as such, must pay the person so injured a fine, called tokom. It may almost be said that he who causes another person's name to be prominently mentioned or bandied in connection with a crime must pay this fine.

The following are instances in which a tokom would be demanded:

A of another district comes to the house of B, and is received
by B as a guest. While he is going home and while he is in the
outskirts of the district he is speared by C, a neighbor of B's
or a resident of the same district. B must force C to pay a tokom.

B steals or illegally confiscates property belonging to A. C sees
B in the act. He demands a tokom--in this case it may be the bolo
or spear that B is carrying--and so puts himself "on record" as
not having been an accomplice. But he says nothing about the crime
unless it come to light that he was a witness of it. In this case
he proves by the tokom that he received that he had no connection
with it. As a matter of practice it would seem that a gift received
from the thief would tend to lead the witness to conceal the crime.

A gives an uyauwe feast. At the attendant drink feast B in a
drunken brawl kills C. A and the manikam D must demand a tokom
from B in order to clear their reputations.

The following is the amount of the tokom usually demanded in the case of murder, head-hunting, or slaughter:

In case of the death In case of the death In case of the death
of a kadangyang Honga of a middle-class man of a poor man Honga
Honga

1 carabao P80.00 8 pigs P80.00 4 pigs P40.00
2 pigs 30.00 1 bakid 25.00 1 bakid 15.00
1 bakid 44.00
======= ======= ======
Total P154.00 Total P105.00 Total P55.00

One who is put in a position in which a tokom is due him must collect the tokom. It is not sufficient that he demand the payment of it--he must enforce the payment. Otherwise he will be considered by the kin of the injured as having been an accomplice, and liable to punishment accordingly.

Should the culprit refuse to pay the tokom, the obligation rests on those to whom the tokom is due to take the leading part in the punishment of the crime. Thus, in the first example given above, if C does not pay the tokom to B, the obligation rests on B more heavily even than it rests on A's relatives to kill C, and so avenge A's death. Should he not do this, he would be held liable to punishment by A's relatives along with C.

Visitors came to the house of Timbuluy of Ambabag from the district
of Maggok. It was suggested that a contract of friendship and
alliance be accomplished between Timbuluy and his Maggok visitors
by means of the feast called monbiyao. A day was appointed for
this feast, and Binwag of Bolog was named as the go-between in
matters pertaining to the feast. These preliminaries having been
finished, the Maggok people started home. On the road they were
killed by some people from Wingian.

The following persons were under obligation to demand a
tokom: Timbuluy, whose guests they had been, and Binwag,
the go-between. But the murderers were poor people, while the
murdered were wealthy. It would have been impossible for the
murderers to have paid the tokom proper for having killed a
kadangyang. Consequently without any ado, Binwag killed one of the
murderers, and Timbuluy kidnapped one of the women folk of another.

Timbuluy sold this woman to slavery in Nueva Vizcaya, receiving
four carabaos. He gave one carabao to each of the four villages
Pindungan, Ambabag, Bango, and Baay--all in Kiangan valley--on
the consideration that if the people of Wingian retaliated by
capturing a Kiangan woman in the open territory surrounding or
adjacent to one of these villages, the people of that village
would collect the necessary sum and redeem the woman.

THEFT

110. Of theft in general.--There is a considerable degree of difference in the severity with which theft is punished in different parts of Ifugao. The following is the general law with respect to the theft of articles of medium or slight value:

Kadangyang class: It is a general principle that true kadangyang
do not steal. However, it sometimes occurs, especially in the
Kiangan-Maggok area, that persons who have the right to claim
this rank become needy. The rule for the punishment of members of
this class is: The kadangyang must return the stolen thing, or,
if it shall have been consumed, its equivalent in value, and must
entirely surround it with like things of equivalent value. This
rule merely amounts to the paying of five times the value of the
stolen thing. He must also pay a fee to the go-between.

Middle class: A thief of this class must return the stolen thing
and ulpitan it, i.e., place a like thing, or an equivalent value,
on either side of it. He must also pay a liwa fee to the go-between
of the case.

Very poor: A thief of this class must repay the stolen article
or its equivalent value, tokopna, and pay a fee to the go-between
in the case.

In the case of the theft of heirlooms of great value, such as rice-wine jars, or gansas, the thief must repay, besides the stolen articles, their tokop, or equal, and in addition must furnish a certain number of pigs or other articles of medium value. The following shows how the Ifugao visualizes a payment of this sort.

* The stolen article.
* Its equal or equivalent.
* Honga, a full-grown pig.
* Yubyub, a full-grown chicken.

Theft should not be confused with improper or illegal confiscation. This latter is commonly effected by members of the kadangyang class. It is punished in much the same way as theft, but is not so disgraceful.

A thief discovered in delicto is likely to be punished by death if the thief be of a different district. If not punished by death, the culprit is caught and tied and kept prisoner until his kin in the other district pay the fine demanded. This fine, needless to say, is somewhat larger than would ordinarily be assessed for the crime. If a member of the home district be caught in an unaccomplished theft, the case is not altered in any way from an ordinary, consummated theft.

111. Theft of rice from a granary.--The theft of rice is considerably more serious than would be theft of any other article of equal value, because it ruins the miraculous increase of the rice that the Ifugao as well as all other Malay tribes in these islands so thoroughly believe in. If the thief confesses and shows himself docile, he may wipe out his guilt with the following payment:

* Hulul-na, 1 large pig, payment of the stolen rice.
* Honga, 1 large pig and 1 large chicken, for granary feast to
secure return of the miraculous increase.

If, however, the accused persistently deny his guilt, he is challenged to an ordeal. If by this he is proven guilty, he is fined one bakid or one "ten"--in Kiangan about thirty pesos--in addition to the payment above. If he refuse to submit to the ordeal, he is adjudged guilty, and has to make the same payments as if he had submitted to the ordeal and had been adjudged guilty. The fee of the monkalun is included in, and is not additional to, the bakid in this case.

112. Theft of unharvested rice.--In a case of this sort, the amount of rice stolen can be determined by estimating it from the number of headless stalks. The punishment is:

* The return of the stolen rice or its equivalent value.
* A full-grown pig for the owner's harvest feast.
* The fee for the monkalun.

113. Illegal confiscation.--What the Ifugao recognizes as legal confiscation is treated below under Procedure, sections 134 to 138. The following is a case of illegal confiscation in the district of Banaue.

A owes B a debt, which he persistently refuses to pay. Both men
are of the Kadangyang class. B is somewhat afraid of A, or for
some reason cannot or does not dare collect the debt according
to the ordinary mode of procedure. He accordingly runs away with
a valuable rice-wine jar belonging to A, leaving nothing behind
to show who took it.

B finds out who ran away with his jar. He pays the debt he owes B,
if it be truly owed, and demands the following from him for his
improper procedure:

* The return of the stolen jar.
* Another one like it, or an equivalent of some sort.
* A gong as a dalag (fine for illegal confiscation).
* A large pig for a honga (general welfare feast).
* A kettle worth five pesos called habale (pegs on which house
charms are hung).
* 4 yards of brass wire. This payment is called nundopa,
referring to the jumping down of the culprit when he carried
off the jar.
* Death blanket with which to carry jar home.

If B, when he ran away with the jar, had left behind his scabbard
or bolo or some other of his belongings to show his identity,
the above would have been a case of legal confiscation, and
not punishable.

Illegal confiscation lacks the elements of disgrace that theft carries with it, and, in the mind of the confiscator and his relatives at least, is justifiable. It may be that it is for this very reason that this crime is punished more severely than ordinary theft.

ARSON

114. Fines assessed for goba or arson.--One caught in the act of setting fire to a house or granary would be likely to be killed on the spot. Should he consummate the act and escape, demand would probably be made upon him and his kin for two granaries full of rice and for the animals necessary to consecrate them by the usual feasts. This would be the probable punishment. The crime of arson is rare, and consequently there is no penalty or restitution well defined by law. The punishment might be death, or the kidnapping and selling into slavery of a member of the culprit's family, or a fine as above. Which of these it would be would depend very much on the personality of the injured party.

KIDNAPPING

115. Circumstances under which kidnapping may occur.--If performed to cover a debt for which payment had been repeatedly demanded, or to cover an injury for which a proper fine had been repeatedly demanded in due form, kidnapping was a legal seizure, although the victim and his kindred might not consider it so.

But there were a good many cases in which the kidnapper's motive was utterly different. He might wish, for example, to display his valor, or to profit financially by the sale of his captives. Sometimes, too, a head-hunting party, failing to get a head, would capture a woman and carry her back with them to their village. In some parts of Ifugao the woman was ravished for a period of five days by the party of head-hunters. She was then sold into slavery.