G.R. No. L-5198; April 17, 1953
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Panglima Mahlon, Moro Saon, and Moro Muntasal, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On the afternoon of December 24, 1948, Moro Lumundut was shot to death on the bed of the Tubigduyan Creek in Cabcaban, Basilan. His body was found with multiple gunshot wounds at the back and thigh. The money he carried was intact, but his Japanese rifle was missing. The prosecution’s principal witness, Moro Sabdani, testified that he saw the three appellants (Panglima Mahlon, Moro Saon, and Moro Muntasal) together with Moro Sabtal and Moro Manon pass by his copra kiln shortly before he heard shots. After the shots, he met the same group, and Sabtal ordered him at gunpoint to join them. At that time, Mahlon was already carrying Lumundut’s rifle. The group went to Mahlon’s house, where Sabtal ordered Saon and Manon to fetch Sabtal’s brother, Marajuki. Sabdani and Marajuki were later taken to the forest but managed to escape and report the incident. Mora Salasina, the victim’s wife and a substitute barrio lieutenant, testified about prior rivalry with appellant Mahlon and that Mahlon had made threatening remarks about her appointment. The defense presented witnesses claiming that Sabtal, Sabdani, and Manon were the killers and that the appellants were not present. The trial court convicted the appellants of homicide with the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength. The Court of Appeals found the crime to be murder qualified by treachery and certified the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants conspired with the actual killers (Sabtal and Manon) in the murder of Lumundut, and whether the crime was committed with treachery.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court found the appellants guilty of murder qualified by treachery. The Court held that the circumstantial evidence, taken together, formed an unbroken chain leading to the reasonable and moral certainty of the appellants’ guilt as co-principals by conspiracy. The circumstances proven were: (1) the appellants were seen in the company of the armed triggermen (Sabtal and Manon) proceeding toward the scene of the crime just before the killing; (2) they were armed with bladed weapons; (3) they were seen together with the triggermen immediately after the shots were fired; (4) appellant Mahlon was in possession of the victim’s rifle after the killing; (5) Mahlon ordered his son Saon to accompany Manon to fetch Sabtal’s brother, indicating continued support; and (6) there was a common motive stemming from rivalry and a previous altercation. These facts were inconsistent with innocence and supported the conclusion that the appellants conspired, were present at the commission of the crime, and provided armed encouragement. Furthermore, the victim was shot from behind, unable to offer any defense, which constituted treachery. The penalty was modified to life imprisonment, and the indemnity was increased to P6,000.