G.R. No. L-22476 February 27, 1968
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SENANDO PANGANIBAN, SAMSON PANGANIBAN and ROBERTO FLORES, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The case involves the murder of Almaquio Martinez. The incident originated from a carabao owned by Martinez being gored by a carabao tended by appellant Samson Panganiban, damaging Martinez’s palay crop. A settlement agreement (“Kasunduan”) was drafted on November 17, 1959, where Samson promised to lend his carabao to Martinez and pay one cavan of palay. On November 24, Martinez obtained the carabao but could not return it to the Panganibans as no one was home; he left it with the barrio lieutenant, Emilio Lida. The next day, November 25, appellants Eleuterio Panganiban (unarmed), Senando Panganiban (armed with a bolo), Samson Panganiban (armed with a bolo), and Roberto Flores (holding a scythe and a piece of wood) gathered at the barrio lieutenant’s yard. When Martinez arrived, he approached them. After a brief conversation where Martinez stated he brought the carabao for amicable settlement, Eleuterio suddenly punched Martinez, knocking him down. Roberto Flores then kicked him. Samson hacked Martinez on the nape with a bolo, and Senando struck his right knee. Roberto Flores clubbed the victim with wood. Samson and Senando continued the assault as Martinez lay helpless. Eleuterio was heard shouting, “Go ahead, Samson, kill him! kill him.” The attack was witnessed by Milagros Lida (the barrio lieutenant’s daughter) from the balcony and her mother, Emilia Gagnao, from the kitchen window. Martinez sustained nineteen wounds, resulting in acute hemorrhage and death. Appellants presented a different version, claiming Martinez provoked them and attempted to draw his bolo, and that only Samson acted in self-defense, while Eleuterio and Senando ran away, and Roberto Flores was not present.

ISSUE

The main issue is whether the trial court correctly convicted the appellants of murder, qualified by treachery, and rejected their claim of self-defense.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction. The Court held that the plea of self-defense was untenable. The nature, number, and location of the victim’s wounds (nineteen wounds, including fractures) negated self-defense and indicated a determined effort to kill. The Court cited jurisprudence (e.g., People v. Gonzales, People v. Constantino) that such numerous wounds are inconsistent with self-defense. The killing constituted murder, qualified by treachery, as the attack was sudden and rendered the victim defenseless. The penalties imposed by the lower court were upheld: Senando Panganiban (reclusion perpetua); Samson Panganiban (indeterminate sentence, 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor to 18 years, 2 months, and 21 days of reclusion temporal, with voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance); Roberto Flores (indeterminate sentence, 1 year, 7 months, and 11 days of prision correccional to 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor, with minority as a privileged mitigating circumstance). All appellants were ordered to indemnify the heirs jointly and severally.