GR 20353; (May, 1923) (Digest)

G.R. No. 20353; July 17, 1923
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MANDAGAY (ATA) and TAQUIAWAN (ATA), defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The defendants-appellants, Mandagay and Taquiawan, were convicted of murder for the killing of Tambonan. The crime occurred on the night of June 18, 1922, in the municipal district of Guianga, Province of Davao. The prosecution’s eyewitness, Talome or Dalome, testified that about three months before the trial (held on September 19, 1922), the defendants assaulted and killed Tambonan while he was sleeping. The defense did not deny the assault and killing but presented an alternative theory that Talome’s son, Insing, was the author. This was denied by both Insing and Talome. Mandagay claimed he was sick and did not participate, but his wife’s testimony indicated he was engaged in labor and was not sick. Taquiawan raised an alibi, which the court found unproven. The evidence showed Mandagay inflicted a cut on Tambonan’s neck, and Taquiawan struck a cut on his forearm almost simultaneously.

ISSUE

1. Whether the guilt of the appellants was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Whether both appellants are liable as principals for the murder.
3. Whether the penalty imposed was correct.

RULING

1. Yes. The Supreme Court found no reason to deviate from the trial court’s findings. The testimony of eyewitness Talome, considered together with the entire evidence, sufficiently established that the appellants assaulted and killed Tambonan. The defenses of alibi and non-participation were not credible.
2. Yes. Both appellants are liable as principals by direct cooperation. Taquiawan’s presence at the crime scene late at night, far from his residence, and his simultaneous aggression against the sleeping victim demonstrated his knowledge and participation in the design to kill. The Court cited a Spanish Supreme Court judgment holding all participants in a single assault as principals, even if only one blow caused the fatal wound.
3. Yes. The penalty was affirmed. The Court considered the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity and the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction of the defendants, as provided under section 11 of the Penal Code (amended by Act No. 2142) and section 106 of the Administrative Code of the Department of Mindanao and Sulu. The trial court properly applied these circumstances in imposing the penalty. The judgment of conviction was affirmed in all parts.