G.R. No. L-12152; September 22, 1959
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CRISOSTOMO ABONALES, JUAN ABONALES, SIMEON ABONALES AND ROSALES CATONGAY, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On June 23, 1956, around 6:30 p.m., Reyes Mahinay and his hired hand, Vivencio Catamora, were riding a carabao home to Barrio Manraya, San Antonio, Samar. On the way, near a bridge between Barrios Rizal and Manraya, they met the four accused (Crisostomo, Juan, and Simeon Abonales, and Rosales Catongay). Crisostomo began hurling stones at them, one of which struck Reyes on the forehead, causing him to fall from the carabao into a ditch. Crisostomo, followed by his three companions, immediately pounced on the prostrate Reyes. Crisostomo stabbed him multiple times with a pocket knife on the back and neck. The other three cooperated in the assault. Vivencio, fearing for his life, ran about 150 meters to the house of Nicasio Mahinay (Reyes’s father) to report the attack. Nicasio, accompanied by Vivencio and Silvino Solasta, rushed to the scene. Upon nearing, he heard Crisostomo say, “Help me in killing for I am the one who will go to jail.” He saw the four accused stabbing and belaboring his son. When Nicasio shouted at them, the four fled. Reyes, upon being raised from the ditch, stated that if his attackers had not ganged up on him, he might still be alive. He then collapsed and died. The autopsy revealed a lacerated wound on the forehead from the stone and multiple fatal punctured wounds on the back and neck.
The defense claimed that only Crisostomo killed Reyes, acting in self-defense after a quarrel provoked by Reyes. They alleged that earlier, at Nicasio’s house, a dispute arose after Nicasio’s dog bit Crisostomo and Nicasio refused to give medicine. Reyes sided with his father, leading to a fight where Reyes knocked Crisostomo down. Crisostomo fled but was pursued and assaulted by Reyes. In self-defense, Crisostomo used his pocket knife, and during the struggle, with Reyes on top, he inflicted the wounds on Reyes’s back. The trial court rejected this version. Crisostomo initially appealed but later withdrew his appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted the appellants (Juan Abonales, Simeon Abonales, and Rosales Catongay) of the crime of murder.

RULING

Yes, the conviction is affirmed with modifications regarding the penalties. The Supreme Court found the facts as established by the trial court to be credible, particularly the eyewitness accounts of Vivencio Catamora and Nicasio Mahinay, which showed a conspiracy among all four accused in the killing of Reyes Mahinay. The defense’s theory of self-defense by Crisostomo alone was improbable and unsupported by evidence. The court noted that Crisostomo’s withdrawal of his appeal was a practical admission of guilt.
Regarding penalties:
1. For Juan Abonales: The mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction (illiteracy) under Article 15, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code was appreciated. Thus, the penalty of reclusion perpetua is reduced to the minimum degree of reclusion temporal, i.e., not less than 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor and not more than 17 years, 4 months, and 1 day of reclusion temporal.
2. For Simeon Abonales: He was seventeen years old at the time of the crime. His penalty is lowered by one degree from reclusion perpetua to reclusion temporal, i.e., not less than 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor and not more than 12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal.
3. For Rosales Catongay: He was less than eighteen years old at the time of the crime (as uncontradicted by the prosecution). His penalty is also lowered by one degree, the same as for Simeon Abonales.
The decision of the Court of First Instance finding the appellants guilty of murder is affirmed with the above modifications to their respective penalties. The appellants are also held jointly and severally liable to indemnify the heirs of Reyes Mahinay in the sum of P6,000.00 and to pay the costs.