G.R. No. L-2665; March 6, 1950
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FLORENTINO PATERNO, ARADES LAGBAWAN, CERBESA MALIMBASAO, SARMIENTO PANGANAY, ENRIQUE LEMENTE and MANGAPA TALBIN, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The appellants were members of an underground organization called volunteer guards. On February 12, 1943, they went to the barrio of Primo Jurolan, who had guided a Japanese patrol that attacked their camp days earlier. They found Jurolan and his wife, Delfina Gatillo. Jurolan was tied up and led into his house, where Arades Lagbawan stabbed and killed him. Delfina Gatillo was similarly bound, taken into the house, and stabbed and killed by Enrique Lemente. After the couple were dead, Mangapa Talbin set fire to the house, which contained the lifeless bodies and the couple’s three-day-old infant, causing the child’s death. The appellants took the two elder children out before burning the house. The trial court convicted them of murder for the deaths of Delfina Gatillo and the infant, but granted amnesty for the killing of Primo Jurolan, finding he was a Japanese spy. On appeal, the appellants claimed they acted under the orders and threats of their commander, Anselmo Onofre.

ISSUE

1. Whether the appellants’ defense of acting under orders and duress is valid.
2. Whether the crime committed for the death of the infant is murder or arson.
3. Whether the penalties and indemnities imposed by the trial court are correct.

RULING

1. The defense of acting under orders and duress is without merit. The appellants’ sworn confessions and the testimony of prosecution witnesses, despite being hostile, did not substantiate the claim of compulsion. The appellants’ confessions, except for those of Paterno and Lemente, did not implicate Onofre. The Court found the claim of fear unconvincing, as Onofre was not present when statements were made, and peace had been restored. Even if Onofre had given an order, it would not justify or excuse the appellants’ criminal acts.
2. For the death of the infant, the crime is arson under Article 321, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code, not murder. The arson was the end itself, and the death was a mere consequence; thus, the killing is absorbed by the crime of arson. Murder would only exist if the killing were the objective and arson merely the means.
3. The penalties are modified. For the murder of Delfina Gatillo, all appellants, having the same degree of participation, are sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The penalty for the arson resulting in the infant’s death (reclusion perpetua) is affirmed as correct by the trial court. The indemnity for each death (Delfina Gatillo and the infant) is increased to P6,000. The appealed decision is affirmed with these modifications.

AI Generated by Armztrong.