G.R. No. L-73461 October 27, 1987
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Amador Masangkay, Jaime Masangkay, and Carlito Mirano, accused-appellants.

FACTS

The accused, Amador Masangkay, his brother Jaime, and brother-in-law Carlito Mirano, were charged with Murder for the killing of Ely Verano on the evening of July 21, 1981, in Masbate. Prosecution evidence established that the victim’s son, Arthur Verano, witnessed the attack from a distance of five meters on a moonlit night. He saw Amador stab his father while Jaime held the victim’s hands from behind and Carlito covered his mouth. Arthur shouted, prompting Amador to tell his companions to flee. Jaime and Carlito then chased Arthur. The victim’s wife, Feligonia, testified that her dying husband, at the hospital, identified his three assailants. Osita Castillo also testified to hearing cries and seeing Amador bent over the fallen victim.
Amador Masangkay claimed self-defense, testifying that the victim had threatened him at his house, banged on his door, and attacked him with a piece of wood, forcing him to retaliate with a knife. He asserted he acted alone. Jaime and Carlito presented alibis, claiming they were elsewhere and later assisted in Amador’s surrender. The trial court convicted all three of Murder, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting all three accused of Murder based on conspiracy.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. It rejected Amador’s claim of self-defense as the nature, number, and location of the victim’s fatal wounds were inconsistent with a sudden, uncontrolled retaliation and indicative of a determined assault. The Court found conspiracy among the three accused. The coordinated actions of Amador stabbing, Jaime holding the victim’s hands, and Carlito covering his mouth demonstrated a community of criminal purpose and unity of action to ensure the victim’s defenselessness. The fact that Jaime and Carlito fled together and later chased the eyewitness further evidenced their concert of action. Conspiracy having been established, the act of one is the act of all.
The crime was Murder qualified by treachery, as the mode of attack—restraining the victim from behind while covering his mouth—ensured the execution of the attack without risk to the assailants. The circumstance of abuse of superior strength was absorbed by treachery. Applying the 1987 Constitution which abolished the death penalty, the penalty for Murder is reclusion temporal maximum to reclusion perpetua. With no modifying circumstances, the penalty was imposed in its minimum period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court modified the sentence to an indeterminate penalty of ten years and one day of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen years, four months and one day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The indemnity of P30,000.00 was affirmed.