G.R. No. L-4837; April 28, 1956
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DATU DIMA BINASING, SULTAN SINARIMBO BINASING, AROYOD SALI, PANAYAM UMAL, KAMANTIS DAOROGEN, and BADTEKEN KABONG, defendant-appellants.

FACTS

On June 6, 1950, at about 3:00 p.m., all six defendants went together to the house of Atty. Serafin Pacheco in Cotabato. The prosecution’s evidence established that Sultan Sinarimbo Binasing resented a statement imputed to Pacheco that he was a datu in Cotabato but not in Malaquit. Sinarimbo went to Pacheco’s office to demand an explanation, accompanied by his brother Datu Dima Binasing and their followers, the other defendants. Inside the office, Datu Dima forcibly raised Pacheco’s right hand and demanded he swear he never made the statement. When Pacheco refused, Dima hit him with his fist on the right eye, causing Pacheco to fall unconscious on his chair. Badteken Kabong then grabbed and squeezed Pacheco’s neck. The other defendants rushed to help maul Pacheco. Sultan Sinarimbo gave a sign by folding his arms across his breast, upon which the defendants dragged Pacheco outside his office. As Aroyod Sali and Badteken Kabong held Pacheco up, Sultan Sinarimbo again gave the sign, and Panayam Umal, holding a piece of wood, hit Pacheco on the back of his head. Pacheco fell into a canal, was brought to the hospital, and died from a depressed occipital fracture with laceration of the brain. The defense presented a different version, claiming the incident started from a separate altercation and that Umal struck Pacheco only to subdue him because he feared Pacheco would get a knife. The trial court believed the prosecution’s theory.

ISSUE

The main issues were: (1) which version of the circumstances surrounding the occurrence merits credence; (2) the participation and respective liability of each defendant; and (3) whether conspiracy existed among them.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court in toto. It held that the prosecution’s version was credible and consonant with the ordinary course of events, while the defense’s theory was inherently incredible. The Court found there was conspiracy among all defendants, making each responsible for the acts performed by the others in pursuance thereof. They were all guilty of murder, qualified by abuse of superior strength. No modifying circumstances were sufficiently established. The penalty of life imprisonment, with accessory penalties, joint and several indemnity to the heirs of Pacheco in the sum of P6,000, and payment of costs, was affirmed.