G.R. No. L-12655; June 30, 1960
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Fabian Ulita, et al., defendants. Santos Ulita, Serapio Ulita, Bernardino Ulita, Alfredo Ulita, and Isabelo Pacamalan, appellants.

FACTS

The appellants (Santos Ulita, Serapio Ulita, Bernardino Ulita, Alfredo Ulita, and Isabelo Pacamalan), along with others including Fabian Ulita, were charged with the murder of Guillermo Tagayuna in the Court of First Instance of Cagayan. Fabian Ulita pleaded guilty. After trial, the appellants were found guilty of murder. The trial court appreciated the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation (due to an order for the deposit of their harvest) and, finding no aggravating circumstance, sentenced each appellant under the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeals, which elevated the case to the Supreme Court because it found the murder was aggravated by evident premeditation, warranting a penalty of at least life imprisonment, which it could not impose. Pending appeal, the appellants filed a motion for new trial based on affidavits from prosecution witnesses Macario Constantino and Concepcion Ulita retracting their trial testimony. The Supreme Court deferred action on this motion until considering the merits.

ISSUE

1. Whether the motion for a new trial based on the recanting affidavits of witnesses should be granted.
2. Whether the crime committed was murder aggravated by evident premeditation and whether the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation was correctly appreciated.

RULING

1. On the Motion for New Trial: The Supreme Court denied the motion. It found the affidavits of recantation without merit. The reasons given by the affiants for their false testimony (being defendants in prior minor cases filed by the Ulitas) were flimsy, as those cases were filed and resolved months before the killing and not all accused were complainants. The Court, citing precedents (People vs. Farol, People vs. Ubiña), held that retractions are viewed with suspicion. Testimony given in open court under oath, subject to cross-examination, and under the judge’s observation carries more weight. New trials based on retractions are not justified unless special circumstances cast genuine doubt on the trial testimony essential for conviction, which was absent here. Such retractions are often unreliable and easily obtained.
2. On the Merits of the Case: The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The evidence established that on January 24, 1953, the appellants, armed with bolos, ambushed and killed Guillermo Tagayuna along a narrow trail with tall grasses. The attack was sudden and concerted, resulting in 21 wounds, three of which were necessarily mortal. The number of assailants, the nature and location of the wounds, and the manner of attack indicated a deliberate plan to kill. The Court found the crime was aggravated by evident premeditation. The appellants lay in wait in a secluded place suitable for an ambush, demonstrating a clear and deliberate plan to kill the victim. The Court rejected the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation. The cause alleged (an order to deposit the harvest with the barrio lieutenant) was not unlawful or sufficient to produce such a mental state, especially since Jose Ulita, the eldest brother, had consented to the deposit the day before the killing.
DISPOSITIVE:
The appellants are guilty of murder aggravated by evident premeditation, without any mitigating circumstance. For lack of the required votes to impose the death penalty, the Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. Appellants Santos Ulita, Serapio Ulita, Bernardino Ulita, Alfredo Ulita, and Isabelo Pacamalan are each sentenced to reclusion perpetua and to indemnify, jointly and severally, the heirs of Guillermo Tagayuna in the sum of P6,000.00. The decision is affirmed with costs against the appellants.