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).”