G.R. No. 25782 , September 30, 1926
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DAYUG and BANNAISAN, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The appellants, Dayug and Bannaisan, both Igorot Kalingas, were convicted of double murder for killing Daupan and Panabang. The killings were motivated by a desire to avenge the death of the family of their relative, Suguian, who had been murdered by Abauag and Gumpad (who were already imprisoned). Unable to exact revenge on the imprisoned perpetrators, the appellants targeted Daupan (a relative of Abauag and Gumpad) and Panabang. Upon learning that the victims were traveling to Laya, the appellants lay in wait, ambushed them on the road, and killed them with bolos. They also robbed the victims of money and rings. The appellants freely confessed to the crimes. The trial court found them guilty of double murder qualified by evident premeditation, with aggravating circumstances of treachery and commission in an uninhabited place, offset by the special extenuating circumstance under Article 11 of the Penal Code (pertaining to members of non-Christian tribes). They were sentenced to life imprisonment.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly appreciated the qualifying and aggravating circumstances, and whether the penalty imposed was proper.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction but MODIFIED the penalty.

1. Qualifying Circumstance: The Court upheld the finding of evident premeditation as a qualifying circumstance for murder. The appellants planned the killings by agreeing to target the victims, lying in wait, and ambushing them.

2. Aggravating Circumstances: The Court disagreed with the trial court’s appreciation of treachery (alevosia), as the evidence showed the victims were pursued and could have potentially resisted, thus not eliminating all risk to the aggressors. The Court also rejected abuse of superior strength and cruelty, as the evidence did not establish deliberate prolongation of suffering or significant disparity in strength. However, the Court affirmed the aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place for both appellants and added disregard of sex for Bannaisan (since his victim was a woman).

3. Extenuating Circumstance: The Court applied the special extenuating circumstance under Article 11 of the Penal Code (as amended by Act No. 2142 ) for members of non-Christian tribes, considering their traditional custom of avenging a relative’s death. This offset the aggravating circumstances.

4. Penalty: The penalty for each count of murder is *cadena temporal* in its maximum degree to death. With no modifying circumstances, the medium penalty of life imprisonment (*cadena perpetua*) was imposed for each murder. However, under Article 89 of the Penal Code, when multiple penalties are imposed, the total duration must not exceed 40 years. Thus, while each appellant was sentenced to two life imprisonments, the combined service was limited to 40 years.

The judgment was affirmed with the modification that the joint duration of the penalties for each appellant shall not exceed 40 years of *cadena perpetua*.