G.R. No. L-28355 July 17, 1969
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. APOLINARIO LUMANTAS @ PEOLE, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Olimpio Badiang and Apolinario Lumantas were convicted of murder by the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental. Lumantas appealed. The evidence showed that on November 14, 1963, in Mobod, Oroquieta, Misamis Occidental, during a fair, the victim Laureto Limpahan was playing a “hantak” game. Prosecution eyewitness Francisco Bati-on, about two meters away, saw Badiang and Lumantas position themselves on both sides of the victim. Badiang slapped and stabbed Limpahan on the left side. Lumantas then stabbed him on the right armpit. The victim ran but collapsed; Badiang kicked him. Lumantas fled upon seeing the victim was dead. The post-mortem examination revealed multiple wounds, including a fatal penetrating wound below the left nipple and a deep wound on the right axilla. The defense of Lumantas was alibi, claiming he was gathering tuba about two kilometers away at the time. The trial court, finding conspiracy, sentenced Lumantas to a penalty one degree lower (10 years and 1 day of prision mayor maximum) on the erroneous ground that he fled after stabbing, and ordered him to indemnify the heirs P1,500.00. The Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court as the imposable penalty was reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

The main issue is whether the trial court erred in its appreciation of the facts, the defense of alibi, and the imposition of the proper penalty and civil indemnity for the crime of murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the decision. It held that the crime committed was murder, qualified by treachery, as the sudden and simultaneous attack from both sides rendered the victim unable to defend himself. The defense of alibi was rejected as weak and unsubstantiated, failing to prove physical impossibility for Lumantas to be at the crime scene. Conspiracy was established by the coordinated actions of the accused. The trial court erred in considering flight as a mitigating circumstance; it is not a reward or mitigation but may indicate guilt. With no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua (the medium period of the penalty for murder). Regarding civil indemnity, while the trial court’s award of P1,500.00 against Badiang became final after his appeal was dismissed, the prevailing jurisprudence at the time (People vs. Pantoja) set indemnity at P12,000.00. To do justice to the heirs, Lumantas is ordered to pay P12,000.00, with the right to demand contribution of P1,500.00 from Badiang. The modified sentence imposes reclusion perpetua with its accessories, an indemnity of P12,000.00 to the heirs of Laureto Limpahan, and proportionate costs.