G.R. No. L-9066; March 7, 1914

FACTS:
On the evening of April 29, 1913, in Santa Barbara, Iloilo, Justice of the Peace Isidoro Montaño was conversing with three visitors in his house. Two armed men, identified as the appellants Anastasio Hudieres and Lamberto Sagun, entered and attacked Montaño. During the assault, one of the visitors, Pedro Sosteguer, intervened and was fatally stabbed. Montaño managed to escape. Another victim, a boy sleeping in the kitchen, was also wounded. The assault was motivated by ill-will stemming from a boundary dispute litigation between Hudieres and Montaño. The appellants were charged with asesinato (assassination/murder) for the death of Sosteguer and asesinato frustrado (frustrated assassination/murder) for the attacks on Montaño and the boy. The two cases were tried jointly. The defense relied on an alibi, which the trial court found unworthy of credence. The trial court convicted the appellants and imposed a single penalty of cadena perpetua (life imprisonment), treating the multiple acts as a single complex offense under Article 89 of the Penal Code.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the trial judge deprived the appellants of a fair trial by his method of examining defense witnesses.
2. Whether the trial court erred in trying the appellants on two separate charges jointly without their consent.
3. Whether the trial court erred in imposing a single penalty of cadena perpetua without specifying to which charge it applied.
4. Whether the trial court erred in treating the killing and the frustrated killings as a single act under Article 89 of the Penal Code and in failing to render separate judgments for each charge.

RULING:
1. No. The trial judge’s examination of witnesses was proper. A trial judge has the right and duty to question witnesses to clarify material facts and ascertain the truth, especially in a jurisdiction where judges are triers of both law and fact. While some remarks could have been omitted, they did not prejudice the substantial rights of the appellants.
2. No. The joint trial of the two cases was in accordance with established doctrine (citing U.S. v. Lampano), and no prejudice was shown.
3. No. A reading of the trial court’s opinion clearly shows it found the appellants guilty of the crimes charged in both informations. The penalty of cadena perpetua was for the crime of asesinato.
4. Yes, but the error does not warrant modification of the penalty. The trial court erred in applying Article 89 of the Penal Code. The murder of Sosteguer and the separate assaults on Montaño and the boy were distinct crimes, not a single act constituting multiple crimes. Each should have been penalized separately. However, since the principal penalty imposed (cadena perpetua) is the correct medium penalty for the crime of asesinato, and it is the highest penalty involved, the Court deemed it unnecessary to remand the case solely for the imposition of an additional, lesser penalty for the frustrated murder. The failure to impose a separate penalty for the latter crime did not prejudice the appellants.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants of the crime of assassination and sentencing them to cadena perpetua with its accessory penalties is AFFIRMED. Costs against the appellants.