G.R. No. L-10851; August 28, 1959
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SERGIO DAGATAN, ET AL., accused and appellants.

FACTS

Sergio Dagatan and Saturnino Dagatan were charged with murder for the killing of Victorio Ceniza on June 11, 1937, in Carmen, Cebu. The initial case filed in 1937 was not decided, and its records were destroyed during the war. A new information was filed in 1949 after reconstitution proceedings. The prosecution’s evidence established that on the night of June 11, 1937, the appellants, together with their father Julio (who died before trial), attacked Victorio Ceniza on the Dawis bridge. Sergio hit the victim with a wooden cane, and Saturnino beat him with a “caborrata” (a leather-covered rod). The victim, rendered unconscious, was thrown into the creek to make it appear he drowned. An autopsy confirmed death by drowning, with contusions and a broken bone inflicted before he was thrown into the water. The motive was to avenge the dishonor to their sister, Lucila Dagatan, who had eloped with and was later abandoned by Eleuterio Yara, a first cousin of the victim, whom the appellants believed the victim had assisted. The eyewitness, Leodegario Into, who was with the victim, was detained and threatened by the appellants not to report the crime. The defense was alibi, claiming they were in Cebu City, 40 kilometers away, at the time. The trial court convicted them, appreciating two mitigating circumstances (vindication of a grave offense and passion/obfuscation) and imposing an indeterminate penalty. The Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court due to the penalty involved.

ISSUE

1. Whether the defense of double jeopardy is tenable.
2. Whether the mitigating circumstances of vindication of a grave offense and passion/obfuscation were correctly appreciated by the trial court.
3. What is the proper penalty for the crime committed?

RULING

1. No, double jeopardy did not attach. The Supreme Court had previously ruled (in G.R. No. L-4396) that the failure of the judge to decide the original 1937 case after submission did not terminate it by dismissal or conviction; therefore, jeopardy had not set in.
2. No, the mitigating circumstances were not correctly appreciated. The Court held that the two mitigating circumstances (vindication of a grave offense under Article 13[5] and passion/obfuscation under Article 13[6] of the Revised Penal Code) could not be considered. The elopement and abandonment of their sister occurred long before the crime, and the deceased victim was not the one who committed the offense against their sister. Furthermore, these two circumstances cannot be counted separately and independently from each other.
3. The proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. The crime is murder, qualified by treachery. The Court found the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, superior strength, and treachery to be duly proven. With no mitigating circumstances to offset the aggravating ones, and applying Article 248 in relation to Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty imposable is reclusion perpetua.
DISPOSITIVE:
The appealed judgment was AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the penalty imposed upon each appellant is reclusion perpetua.