G.R. Nos. L-13983-85, December 31, 1960
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PERLITO SOYANG and CRESENCIO SOYANG, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Brothers Cresencio and Perlito Soyang were jointly tried for related offenses. They were charged with murder and direct assault upon a person in authority (a Philippine Constabulary soldier). Cresencio was separately charged with illegal possession of a firearm. The prosecution evidence established that on August 6-8, 1957, PC soldiers Silvestre Bagumba and Rustico Mercoleta arrested the Soyang brothers in Malangas, Zamboanga del Sur, and were transporting them by launch to Pagadian. At dawn on August 8, while the prisoners’ hands were tied, they managed to free themselves. They grappled with and pushed soldier Mercoleta into the water, with all three falling overboard. Bagumba heard a shot and later saw the Soyang brothers in the water, but Mercoleta had disappeared and was never found. Perlito, now in possession of Mercoleta’s carbine, fired at Bagumba’s boat. Later, when rescuers Geronico Malinao and policeman Lope Velencio approached in a vinta, the Soyang brothers capsized their boat, assaulted Velencio, and were struck by Malinao with a paddle before escaping. They were later apprehended. During Cresencio’s arrest, a Colt automatic pistol was found in his possession.
The defense claimed the soldiers demanded a bribe for their release. They alleged that during the voyage, an argument and struggle ensued after the soldiers attempted to molest Perlito’s wife, leading to Mercoleta falling overboard accidentally during the scuffle. They denied killing him. Cresencio claimed the firearm belonged to a PC agent and he was merely keeping it.

ISSUE

The primary issues were whether the appellants were guilty of murder for the death of soldier Mercoleta, guilty of direct assault upon a person in authority, and whether Cresencio was guilty of illegal possession of a firearm.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The appellants were found guilty of murder. The court held that the killing of Mercoleta was qualified by treachery. The attack was sudden and unexpected, as the soldiers had no reason to anticipate an assault from prisoners whose hands were supposedly tied, ensuring no risk to the assailants. The defense of accidental fall was rejected as unconvincing and contrary to the evidence. The court also found them guilty of direct assault for their subsequent attack on policeman Lope Velencio, a person in authority. Finally, the court upheld Cresencio’s conviction for illegal possession of a firearm, ruling that possession under the law includes not only physical possession but also constructive possession with animus possidendi (intent to possess), and his claim of merely safekeeping it for another did not exculpate him. The penalties imposed by the lower court were affirmed.