G.R. No. L-25555 March 28, 1969
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DOMINGO MAGCAMIT, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Domingo Magcamit and Juan Labay were prosecuted as principals for the murder of Arceo Montemar on June 6, 1962, in barrio Boton, Boac, Marinduque. Both initially pleaded not guilty. During trial, Labay changed his plea to guilty, while Magcamit maintained his not guilty plea. After trial, both were found guilty. Labay was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 12 to 20 years of reclusion temporal, and Magcamit was sentenced to 17 years and 4 months to life imprisonment. Both were ordered to pay P6,000 solidarily as civil indemnity. Magcamit appealed.
The evidence established that at about 8:00 p.m. on June 6, 1962, Juan Labay (armed with a bolo) and Domingo Magcamit stoned the house of Lamberto Lazo. As the stoning intensified, Arceo Montemar, who was inside, came out. As Montemar walked towards neighboring houses, Magcamit suddenly placed himself behind Montemar, held him fast by the waist, and told Labay: “Upakan mo na bayaw, ito ang kasira ko.” Labay then struck Montemar on the left side of the neck, inflicting a mortal wound. The assailants fled. Montemar staggered back to Lazo’s house and was taken to the hospital but died en route from severe hemorrhage and shock due to the neck wound. Eyewitness Rolando Montemar and co-accused Juan Labay (who testified for the prosecution after his guilty plea) testified to these facts. Another witness, Pedro Gubangco, saw the accused flee.

ISSUE

1. Whether the evidence established conspiracy and treachery (alevosia) to qualify the killing as murder.
2. Whether there was a material contradiction in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses regarding the words uttered by Magcamit.
3. Whether the trial court erred in not giving credence to appellant’s testimony.

RULING

1. Yes, conspiracy and treachery were established. The attack was sudden and unexpected, and the victim was helpless as he was held fast by Magcamit. Conspiracy was shown by the concerted actions of Labay and Magcamit and by Magcamit’s words urging Labay to attack, indicating previous concert of criminal design.
2. No, the alleged contradiction is untenable. The variance between eyewitness Rolando Montemar hearing “Tirahin mo na bayaw” and Juan Labay hearing “Upakan mo na bayaw” is inconsequential as both expressions have the same meaning. The additional words “Ito ang kasira ko” heard by Labay could have been uttered in a lower tone, explaining why Montemar did not hear them.
3. No, the trial court correctly disbelieved appellant’s testimony. Magcamit’s testimony that he left the scene before the killing and was later informed by Labay was found unworthy of credence.
The Supreme Court modified the appealed judgment. With no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the penalty for murder (reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death) was imposed in its medium degree, which is reclusion perpetua. The civil indemnity was increased from P6,000 to P12,000. However, since Juan Labay did not appeal, his solidary liability with Magcamit remains limited to P6,000. Appellant Domingo Magcamit was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay the heirs of Arceo Montemar P12,000, with P6,000 of that amount to be satisfied solidarily with Juan Labay.