G.R. No. L-48554; November 22, 1941
EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS, querellante y apelado, vs. BILAANS SUNI Y SAMAL, acusados y apelantes.

FACTS

The appellants, brothers of a Moro named Kilam, were accused of murder but were found guilty only of simple homicide by the Court of First Instance of Cotabato, which sentenced them to an indeterminate penalty. Both appealed. The Court of Appeals elevated the case to the Supreme Court because it considered that the penalty to be imposed, if found guilty of the crime charged, would be death or life imprisonment. The facts established are: About a month before February 2, 1933, a brother of the deceased Janab abducted Kilam’s wife and took her to Janab’s house. Upon learning this, Kilam swore revenge. On the night of February 2, 1933, Kilam, the appellants (his brothers), and five other followers, all armed, went to the house of Angan (Janab’s mother) where Janab lived. They forced open the door, wounded Angan when she met them, entered the house, seized Janab, and despite her protests and offer of two horses in exchange for her release, dragged her outside and attacked her with bolos and arrows, inflicting eleven mortal wounds from which she died. The appellants, upon arrest and investigation, admitted their participation in the aggression. The testimony of Angan and Janab’s son confirmed that the appellants wounded Janab with their lances.

ISSUE

The central legal issue is the proper classification of the crime committed and the corresponding penalty, specifically whether the crime constituted murder with qualifying and aggravating circumstances warranting the supreme penalty.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the facts constitute the crime of murder, with treachery (alevosia) as the qualifying circumstance. The aggravating circumstances of dwelling, breaking of a door, band (cuadrilla), and cruelty (ensañamiento) were present, with only the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction for the appellants. The Court found the appellants’ testimony denying participation not credible, as their cooperation was evidenced by their presence with the armed aggressors, their own admissions, and the testimony of witnesses. Since the crime committed is murder with multiple aggravating circumstances, the appellants deserved the death penalty. However, for lack of unanimity in imposing the death penalty, and acting in accordance with Article 47, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Article 133 of the Administrative Code as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 3, the Court sentenced the appellants only to life imprisonment (reclusion perpetua). The appealed judgment was modified accordingly and affirmed in all other respects.