G.R. No. L-6871; April 20, 1955
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BANDALI TAGACAOLO, BANCIL BANDALI and SUGANDIL TAGACAOLO, defendants, BANDALI TAGACAOLO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On June 13, 1951, Hoc Hong (alias Yap Kiana), his wife Sumanbuyan Tagacaolo, Segundo Bancil, and Marcos Lamapiada were found dead in the spouses’ house and store in Sanghai, Malita, Davao. All victims had multiple fatal wounds. Money and articles valued at around P500 were missing. After investigation, Bandali Tagacaolo, Bancil Bandali, and Sugandil Tagacaolo were charged with robbery with quadruple homicide. Bancil Bandali pleaded guilty and was sentenced. Bandali Tagacaolo pleaded not guilty and was tried separately. The trial court acquitted Sugandil Tagacaolo but convicted Bandali Tagacaolo, sentencing him to life imprisonment, indemnities, and costs. Bandali Tagacaolo appealed, questioning the sufficiency of evidence.
The prosecution presented Juan Mamat, Bandali’s son-in-law, who testified that Bandali and his son Bancil left their house on June 12, 1951, at 6:00 p.m., did not return that night, and came back at about 4:00 a.m. on June 13. Bandali was carrying a “patakia” (container, Exhibit G), a firearm, and a bolo; Bancil had a shotgun later identified as taken from Yap Kiana. Bandali told Mamat the “patakia” came from Yap Kiana, whom they had killed, and warned him not to report it. Tumalasik Tagacaolo testified that Exhibit G was his property, pledged to Yap Kiana and unredeemed at the time of the killing. Exhibit G was found hidden inside Bandali’s pillow during a police search. The defense consisted only of Bandali’s testimony denying the crime, claiming he bought Exhibit G from Tumalasik, and alleging that Mamat testified against him due to a land dispute.

ISSUE

Whether the evidence is sufficient to convict Bandali Tagacaolo of robbery with quadruple homicide.

RULING

Yes, the evidence is sufficient. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The testimony of Juan Mamat was credible and partly corroborated by Tumalasik Tagacaolo and the discovery of Exhibit G hidden in Bandali’s pillow. Bandali’s uncorroborated denial and claim of purchase were insufficient to offset the prosecution’s evidence, especially since his explanation for possessing Exhibit G constituted perjury. The aggravating circumstances of treachery, nighttime, and dwelling were present. However, considering Bandali is an illiterate member of the non-Christian tribes and the lack of necessary votes for the death penalty, the proper penalty is life imprisonment. The Court clarified that the P650 indemnity is due to the heirs of the spouses Hoc Hong and Sumanbuyan Tagacaolo, to whom the stolen property belonged. The decision was affirmed with these modifications.