G.R. No. L-6742, January 26, 1912
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SANTIAGO LASADA and MACARIO LASADA, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

In 1906, Pedro So Priengco filed a complaint against Agapito Lasada, who was convicted but served his sentence irregularly in the municipal president’s house. So Priengco protested and sought to bring the matter to provincial officials. On the evening of March 30, 1908, in Abuyog, Leyte, eyewitnesses Espiridion Moldes and Benito Resardo heard cries and blows near the Balocaue River. Hiding nearby, they saw Agapito Lasada holding the victim, Pedro So Priengco, by the hair while Santiago Lasada and Macario Lasada struck him with sticks. They also saw Panfilo Closa stab the victim in the side. The witnesses heard Macario suggest ensuring no one was around to kill the Chinaman to prevent denunciation. Later that night, another witness, Lope Margate, overheard Santiago Lasada and companions discussing hiding a bolo. Agapito Lasada was previously convicted of murder in a separate trial. Panfilo Closa escaped. Santiago and Macario Lasada were tried for murder.

ISSUE

Whether the crime committed by the appellants constitutes murder or homicide.

RULING

The crime is Homicide, not Murder. The evidence established that the appellants, along with two others, assaulted and killed Pedro So Priengco. However, the qualifying circumstance of alevosia (treachery) for murder was not proven, as the witnesses did not see how the assault began and there was no evidence that the means employed specifically insured the execution of the crime without risk to the assailants from any defense by the victim. The court found the presence of the aggravating circumstances of the crime being committed (1) in an uninhabited place and (2) with abuse of superiority (due to the number of assailants). With no mitigating circumstances, the penalty for homicide under Article 404 of the Penal Code was imposed in its maximum degree: reclusion temporal. The trial court’s judgment was AFFIRMED with the modification that the appellants shall be solidarity liable with their accomplice Agapito Lasada for the indemnity to the heirs of the deceased.