6 Phil.

581

CARSON, J.:

The appellants in this case were convicted in the Court of First Instance of Manila of the crime
of conspiracy to overthrow, put down, and destroy by force the. Government of the United
States in the Philippine Islands and the Government of the Philippine Islands, as defined and
penalized in section 4 of Act No. 292 of the Philippine Commission.

The appellant Francisco Bautista was sentenced to four years' imprisonment, with hard labor,
and $3,000 fine, and Aniceto de Guzman and Tomas Puzon, and each of them, to three years'
imprisonment, with hard labor, and a fine of $2,000, and all and each of the said appellants to
pay their proportionate share of the costs of the trial and to undergo subsidiary imprisonment
in the event of insolvency and failure to pay their respective fines.

The evidence of record conclusively establishes that during the latter part of the year 1903 a
junta was organized and a conspiracy entered into by a number of Filipinos, resident in the city
of Hongkong, for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of the United States in the
Philippine Islands by force of arms and establishing in its stead a government to be known as
the Republica Universal Democratica Filipinos; that one Prim Ruiz was recognized as the titular
head of this conspiracy and one Artemio Ricarte as chief of the military forces to be organized
in the Philippines in the furtherance of the plans of the conspirators; that toward the end of
December, 1903 the said Ricarte came to Manila from Hongkong in hiding on board the
steamship Yuensang; that after his arrival in the Philippines he held a number of meetings in
the city of Manila and the adjoining provinces whereat was perfected the above-mentioned
conspiracy hatched in Hongkong; that at these meetings new members were taken into the
conspiracy and plans made for the enlistment of an army of revolution and the raising of money
by national and private loans to carry on the campaign; that to this end bonds were issued and
commissions as officers in the revolutionary army were granted to a number of conspirators,
empowering the officers thus appointed to raise troops and take command thereof; and that
the conspirators did in fact take the field and offered armed resistance to the constituted
authorities in the Philippines, only failing in their design of overthrowing the Government
because of their failure to combat successfully with the officers of the law who were sent
against them and of the failure of the people to rise en masse in response to their propaganda.

It further appears from the evidence that the appellant Francisco Bautista, a resident of the city
of Manila, was an intimate friend of the said Ricarte; that Ricarte wrote and notified Bautista of
his coming to Manila and that, to aid him in his journey, Bautista forwarded to him secretly 200
pesos; that after the arrival of Ricarte, Bautista was present,,taking part in several of the above-
mentioned meetings whereat the plans of the conspirators were discussed and perfected, and
that at one of these meetings Bautista, in answer to a question of Ricarte, assured him that the
necessary preparations had been made and that he "held the people in readiness."

It further appears that the appellant, Tomas Puzon, united with the conspirators through the
agency of one R. Muñoz, who was proven to have been a prime leader of the movement, in the
intimate confidence of Ricarte, and by him authorized to distribute bonds and nominate and
appoint certain officials, including a brigadier-general of the signal corps of the proposed
revolutionary forces; that at the time when the conspiracy was being brought to a head in the
city of Manila, Puzon held several conferences with the said Muñoz whereat plans were made
for the coming insurrection; that at one of these conferences Muñoz offered Puzon a
commission as brigadier-general of the signal corps of the revolutionary forces and that Puzon
accepted the commission and voluntarily united himself with the conspirators and undertook to
do his part in organizing troops; and that at a later conference he assured the said Muñoz that
he had things in readiness, meaning thereby that he had duly organized in accordance with the
terms of his commission.

Puzon at the trial declared that he had never united himself with the conspirators; that he had
accepted the appointment as brigadier-general of the signal corps of the revolutionary forces
with no intention of ever taking any further action in the matter, and merely because he did not
wish to vex his friend Muñoz by refusing to do so; and that when Muñoz offered him the
appointment as brigadier-general he did so in "a joking tone" and that he, Puzon, did not know
that Ricarte was in Manila organizing the conspiracy at that time.

These statements, however (except in so far as they corroborate the testimony of Muñoz as to
the fact that he had had several interviews with Puzon at which plans were entered into for the
advancement of the cause of the conspirators), can not be accepted as true in the light of a
written statement signed by Puzon himself at the time when he was first arrested, part of
which is as follows:

"Q. What is your name and what is your age, residence, and occupation? A. My name is Tom&s
Puzon; born in Binondo, in the Province of Manila; 37 years of age; married; by profession a
teacher of primary and secondary schools, and residing in Calle Concepcion, No. 195, district of
Quiapo.

"Q. Do you know Artemio Ricarte? A. Personally I do not know him, but by name, yes.

"Q. Did you have any information that Ricarte was in these Islands and with what object he
came here? And if you know it to be true, through whom did you get such information? A. In
the first place I had notice of his coming to the Islands as well as his object by reading the
newspapers of Manila, and secondly because J. R. Munoz told me the same on one occasion
when I was in his house to visit him.

"Q. Did you acquire this information through any other person? A. No, sir; I have no more
information than that which I have mentioned.

"Q. Are you a part of this new revolution presided over by Ricarte? A. Yes, sir.

"Q. What is the employment (empleo) which you have in this organization and who is it who
invited you to join it? A. J. R. Muñoz, who is general of division of this new organization, spoke
to me with much insistence, asking me to accept employment as brigadier-general, chief of
signal corps, to which I, on account of his request and in view of the fact that the said Muñoz is
a friend of mine from my youth, acceded; nevertheless I have organized absolutely nothing in
respect to this matter.

"Q. Did you accept this employment and did they give you any commission for it? A. Yes, sir; I
accepted said employment and although they gave me an order to organize my brigade I did
not do it, because I had neither the confidence nor the will.

"Q. If you didn't have faith in the said organization nor the will to carry out what was intrusted
to you, why did you accept employment as general of the brigade? A. I accepted it on account
of friendship and not to vex a friend, but I never had the intention of fulfilling the obligations."

Puzon, When on the stand in his own behalf, did not deny that he made this statement, but he
attempted to explain it away by saying that when he made it he was so excited that he did not
know just what he was saying. He does not allege that improper means were taken to procure
the confession, and it was proven at the trial that it was freely and voluntarily made and not the
result of violence, intimidation, threat, menace, or promise of reward or leniency. The accused
appears to be an intelligent man and was for eighteen years a school-teacher and later a
telegraph operator under the Spanish Government, and during the insurrection he held a
commission as an officer in the signal corps of the revolutionary army. His confession is clear
and intelligible and in no way supports his pretense that he was so excited as not to know what
he was saying when he made it, and its truth and accuracy in so far as it inculpates him is
sustained by other evidence of record in this case.

It is contended that the acceptance or possession of an appointment as an officer of the

military forces of the conspiracy should not be considered as evidence against him in the light
of the decisions of this court in the cases of the United States vs. Antonio de log Reyes[1] (2 Off.
Gaz., 364), United States vs. Silverio Nunez et al.[2] (3 Off. Gaz., 408), United States vs. Eusebio
de la Serna et al.[3] (3 Off. Gaz., 528), and United States vs. Bernardo Manalo et al.[4] (4 Off. Gaz.,
570). But the case at bar is to be distinguished from these and like cases by the fact that the
record clearly discloses that the accused actually and voluntarily accepted the appointment in
question and in doing so assumed all the obligations implied by such acceptance, and that the
charge in this case is that of conspiracy, and the fact that the accused accepted the
appointment is taken irito consideration merely as evidence of his criminal relations with the
conspirators. In the first of these cases the United States vs. De los Reyes the accused was
charged with treason, and the court found that the mere acceptance of a commission by the
defendant, nothing else being done either by himself or by his companions, was not an' "overt
act" of treason within the meaning of the law, but the court further expressly held that

"The state of affairs disclosed by the evidence, * * * the playing of the game of government like
children, the secretaries, colonels, and captains, the pictures of flags and seals, and
commissions, all on paper, for the purpose of duping and misleading the ignorant and the
visionary, * * * should not be dignified by the name of treason."

In the second case the United States vs. Nunez et al. wherein the accused were charged with
brigandage, the court held that, aside from the, possession of commissions in an insurgent
band, there was no evidence to show that they had committed the crime and, "moreover, that
it appeared that they had never united with any party of brigands and never had been in any
way connected with such parties unless the physical possession of these appointments proved
such relation," and that it appeared that each one of the defendants were separately
approached at different times by armed men while working in the field and were virtually
compelled to accept the commissions."

In the case of the United States vs. de la Serna et aL it was contended that de la Serna had
confessed that "he was one of the members of the pulajanes, with a commission as colonel,"
but the court was of opinion that the evidence did not sustain a finding that such confession
had in fact; been made, hence the doctrine laid down in that decision, "that the mere
possession of such an appointment, when it is not shown that the possessor executed some
external act by virtue of the same, does not constitute sufficient proof of the guilt of the
defendant," applies only to the case of Enrique Oamonas, against whom the only evidence of
record was "the fact that a so-called appointment of sergeant was found at his house."

In the case of the United States vs. Bernardo Manalo et al. there was testimony that four
appointments of officials in a revolutionary army were found in a trunk in the house of one
Valentin Colorado, and the court in said case reaffirmed the doctrine that "the mere possession
of documents of this kind is not sufficient to convict," and held, furthermore, that there was
"evidence in the case that at the time these papers were received by the, appellant, Valentin
Colorado, he went to one of the assistant councilmen of the barrio in which he lived, a witness
for the Government, showed him the envelope, and stated to him that he had received these
papers; that he didn't know what they were and requested this councilman to open them. The
councilman did not wish to do that but took the envelope and sent it to the councilman Jose
Millora. We are satisfied that this envelope contained the appointments in question and that
the appellant did not act under the appointment but immediately reported the receipt of them
to the authorities."

It is quite conceivable that a group of conspirators might appoint a person in no wise connected
with them to some high office in the conspiracy, in the hope that such person would afterwards
accept the commission and thus unite himself with them, and it is even possible that such an
appointment might be forwarded in the mail or otherwise, and thus come into the possession
of the person thus nominated, and that such appointment might be found in his possession,
and, notwithstanding all this, the person in whose possession the appointment was found
might be entirely innocent of all intention to join the conspiracy, never having authorized the
conspirators to use his name in this manner nor to send such a commission to him. Indeed,
cases are not unknown in the annals of criminal prosecutions wherein it has been proven that
such appointments have been concealed in the baggage or among the papers of the accused
persons, so that when later discovered by the officers of the law they might be used as
evidence against the accused. But where a genuine conspiracy is shown to have existed as in
this case, and it is proven that the accused voluntarily accepted an appointment, as an officer in
that conspiracy, we think that this fact may properly be taken into consideration as evidence of
his relations with the conspirators.

Counsel for appellants contend that the constitutional provision requiring the testimony of at
least two witnesses to the same overt act, or confession in open court, to support a conviction
for the crime of treason should be applied in this case, but this court has always held, in
confonnance with the decisions of the Federal courts of the United States, that the crime of
conspiring to commit treason is a separate and distinct offense from the crime of treason, and
that this constitutional provision is not applicable in such cases. (In re Bollman, 4 Cranch, 74; U.
S. vs. Mitchell, 2 Dall., 348.)

The evidence of record does not sustain the conviction of Aniceto de Guzman. The finding of his
guilt rests substantially upon his acceptance Of a number of bonds from one of the
conspirators, such bonds having been prepared by the conspirators for the purpose of raising
funds for carrying out the plans of the conspiracy, but it does not affirmatively appear that he
knew anything of the existence of the conspiracy or that, when he received the bonds wrapped
in a bundle, he knew what the contents of the bundle was, nor that he ever, on any occasion,
assumed any obligation with respect to these bonds. He, himself, states that when he opened
the bundle and discovered the nature of the contents he destroyed them with fire, and that he
never had any dealings with the conspirators in relation to the conspiracy or the object for
which it was organized. A We are of opinion, therefore, that the judgment and sentence before
us, in so far as it affects the said Aniceto de Guzman, should be reversed, with his proportionate
share of the costs of both instances de oficio, and that the said Aniceto de Guzman should be
acquitted of the crime with which he is charged and set at liberty forthwith, and that the
judgment and sentence of the trial court, in so far as it applies to Francisco Bautista and Tomas
Puzon, should be, and is hereby, affirmed, except in so far as it imposes subsidiary
imprisonment in the event of insolvency and failure to pay their respective fines, and, there
being no authority in law for such provision, so much of the sentence as undertakes to impose
subsidiary imprisonment is hereby reversed.

After ten days let judgment be entered in accordance herewith, when the record will be
returned to the trial court for execution. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Johnson, and Tracey, JJ., concur.

Mapa and Willard, JJ., concur as to the penalty imposed upon Bautista and.dissent as to that
imposed upon Puzon.
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 17958 February 27, 1922

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
LOL-LO and SARAW, defendants-appellants.

Thos. D. Aitken for appellants.

Acting Attorney-General Tuason for appellee.

MALCOLM, J.:

The days when pirates roamed the seas, when picturesque buccaneers like Captain Avery and
Captain Kidd and Bartholomew Roberts gripped the imagination, when grostesque brutes like
Blackbeard flourished, seem far away in the pages of history and romance. Nevertheless, the
record before us tells a tale of twentieth century piracy in the south seas, but stripped of all
touches of chivalry or of generosity, so as to present a horrible case of rapine and near murder.

On or about June 30, 1920, two boats left matuta, a Dutch possession, for Peta, another Dutch
possession. In one of the boats was one individual, a Dutch subject, and in the other boat
eleven men, women, and children, likewise subjects of Holland. After a number of days of
navigation, at about 7 o'clock in the evening, the second boat arrived between the Islands of
Buang and Bukid in the Dutch East Indies. There the boat was surrounded by six vintas manned
by twenty-four Moros all armed. The Moros first asked for food, but once on the Dutch boat,
too for themselves all of the cargo, attacked some of the men, and brutally violated two of the
women by methods too horrible to the described. All of the persons on the Dutch boat, with
the exception of the two young women, were again placed on it and holes were made in it, the
idea that it would submerge, although as a matter of fact, these people, after eleven days of
hardship and privation, were succored violating them, the Moros finally arrived at Maruro, a
Dutch possession. Two of the Moro marauder were Lol-lo, who also raped one of the women,
and Saraw. At Maruro the two women were able to escape.

Lol-lo and Saraw later returned to their home in South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi, Sulu, Philippine
Islands. There they were arrested and were charged in the Court of First Instance of Sulu with
the crime of piracy. A demurrer was interposed by counsel de officio for the Moros, based on
the grounds that the offense charged was not within the jurisdiction of the Court of First
Instance, nor of any court of the Philippine Islands, and that the facts did not constitute a public
offense, under the laws in force in the Philippine Islands. After the demurrer was overruled by
the trial judge, trial was had, and a judgment was rendered finding the two defendants guilty
and sentencing each of them to life imprisonment (cadena perpetua), to return together with
Kinawalang and Maulanis, defendants in another case, to the offended parties, the thirty-nine
sacks of copras which had been robbed, or to indemnify them in the amount of 924 rupees, and
to pay a one-half part of the costs.

A very learned and exhaustive brief has been filed in this court by the attorney de officio. By a
process of elimination, however, certain questions can be quickly disposed of.

The proven facts are not disputed. All of the elements of the crime of piracy are present. Piracy
is robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas, without lawful authority and done animo
furandi, and in the spirit and intention of universal hostility.

It cannot be contended with any degree of force as was done in the lover court and as is again
done in this court, that the Court of First Instance was without jurisdiction of the case. Pirates
are in law hostes humani generis. Piracy is a crime not against any particular state but against
all mankind. It may be punished in the competent tribunal of any country where the offender
may be found or into which he may be carried. The jurisdiction of piracy unlike all other crimes
has no territorial limits. As it is against all so may it be punished by all. Nor does it matter that
the crime was committed within the jurisdictional 3-mile limit of a foreign state, "for those
limits, though neutral to war, are not neutral to crimes." (U.S. vs. Furlong [1820], 5 Wheat.,
184.)

The most serious question which is squarely presented to this court for decision for the first
time is whether or not the provisions of the Penal Code dealing with the crime of piracy are still
in force. Article 153 to 156 of the Penal Code reads as follows:

ART. 153. The crime of piracy committed against Spaniards, or the subjects of another
nation not at war with Spain, shall be punished with a penalty ranging from cadena
temporal to cadena perpetua.

If the crime be committed against nonbelligerent subjects of another nation at war with
Spain, it shall be punished with the penalty of presidio mayor.

ART. 154. Those who commit the crimes referred to in the first paragraph of the next
preceding article shall suffer the penalty of cadena perpetua or death, and those who
commit the crimes referred to in the second paragraph of the same article, from cadena
temporal to cadena perpetua:

1. Whenever they have seized some vessel by boarding or firing upon the same.

2. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, or by any of the

physical injuries specified in articles four hundred and fourteen and four
hundred and fifteen and in paragraphs one and two of article four hundred and
sixteen.

3. Whenever it is accompanied by any of the offenses against chastity specified

in Chapter II, Title IX, of this book.

4. Whenever the pirates have abandoned any persons without means of saving
themselves.
 5. In every case, the captain or skipper of the pirates.

ART. 155. With respect to the provisions of this title, as well as all others of this code,
when Spain is mentioned it shall be understood as including any part of the national
territory.

ART. 156. For the purpose of applying the provisions of this code, every person, who,
according to the Constitution of the Monarchy, has the status of a Spaniard shall be
considered as such.

The general rules of public law recognized and acted on by the United States relating to the
effect of a transfer of territory from another State to the United States are well-known. The
political law of the former sovereignty is necessarily changed. The municipal law in so far as it is
consistent with the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or the characteristics and
institutions of the government, remains in force. As a corollary to the main rules, laws
subsisting at the time of transfer, designed to secure good order and peace in the community,
which are strictly of a municipal character, continue until by direct action of the new
government they are altered or repealed. (Chicago, Rock Islands, etc., R. Co. vs. McGlinn [1885],
114 U.S., 542.)

These principles of the public law were given specific application to the Philippines by the
Instructions of President McKinley of May 19, 1898, to General Wesley Meritt, the Commanding
General of the Army of Occupation in the Philippines, when he said:

Though the powers of the military occupant are absolute and supreme, and immediately
operate upon the political condition of the inhabitants, the municipal laws of the
conquered territory, such as affect private rights of person and property, and provide for
the punishment of crime, are considered as continuing in force, so far as they are
compatible with the new order of things, until they are suspended or superseded by the
occupying belligerent; and practice they are not usually abrogated, but are allowed to
remain in force, and to be administered by the ordinary tribunals, substantially as they
were before the occupations. This enlightened practice is so far as possible, to be
adhered to on the present occasion. (Official Gazette, Preliminary Number, Jan. 1, 1903,
p. 1. See also General Merritt Proclamation of August 14, 1898.)

It cannot admit of doubt that the articles of the Spanish Penal Code dealing with piracy were
meant to include the Philippine Islands. Article 156 of the Penal Code in relation to article 1 of
the Constitution of the Spanish Monarchy, would also make the provisions of the Code
applicable not only to Spaniards but to Filipinos.

The opinion of Grotius was that piracy by the law of nations is the same thing as piracy by the
civil law, and he has never been disputed. The specific provisions of the Penal Code are similar
in tenor to statutory provisions elsewhere and to the concepts of the public law. This must
necessarily be so, considering that the Penal Code finds its inspiration in this respect in the
Novelas, the Partidas, and the Novisima Recopilacion.

The Constitution of the United States declares that the Congress shall have the power to define
and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of
nations. (U.S. Const. Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 10.) The Congress, in putting on the statute books the
necessary ancillary legislation, provided that whoever, on the high seas, commits the crime of
piracy as defined by the law of nations, and is afterwards brought into or found in the United
States, shall be imprisoned for life. (U.S. Crim. Code, sec. 290; penalty formerly death: U.S. Rev.
Stat., sec. 5368.) The framers of the Constitution and the members of Congress were content to
let a definition of piracy rest on its universal conception under the law of nations.
It is evident that the provisions of the Penal Code now in force in the Philippines relating to
piracy are not inconsistent with the corresponding provisions in force in the United States.

By the Treaty of Paris, Spain ceded the Philippine Islands to the United States. A logical
construction of articles of the Penal Code, like the articles dealing with the crime of piracy,
would be that wherever "Spain" is mentioned, it should be substituted by the words "United
States" and wherever "Spaniards" are mentioned, the word should be substituted by the
expression "citizens of the United States and citizens of the Philippine Islands." somewhat
similar reasoning led this court in the case of United States vs. Smith ([1919], 39 Phil., 533) to
give to the word "authority" as found in the Penal Code a limited meaning, which would no
longer comprehend all religious, military, and civil officers, but only public officers in the
Government of the Philippine Islands.

Under the construction above indicated, article 153 of the Penal Code would read as follows:

The crime of piracy committed against citizens of the United States and citizens of the
Philippine Islands, or the subjects of another nation not at war with the United States,
shall be punished with a penalty ranging from cadena temporal to cadena perpetua.

If the crime be committed against nonbelligerent subjects of another nation at war with
the United States, it shall be punished with the penalty of presidio mayor.

We hold those provisions of the Penal code dealing with the crime of piracy, notably articles
153 and 154, to be still in force in the Philippines.

The crime falls under the first paragraph of article 153 of the Penal Code in relation to article
154. There are present at least two of the circumstances named in the last cited article as
authorizing either cadena perpetua or death. The crime of piracy was accompanied by (1) an
offense against chastity and (2) the abandonment of persons without apparent means of saving
themselves. It is, therefore, only necessary for us to determine as to whether the penalty of
cadena perpetua or death should be imposed. In this connection, the trial court, finding present
the one aggravating circumstance of nocturnity, and compensating the same by the one
mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction provided by article 11, as amended, of the Penal
Code, sentenced the accused to life imprisonment. At least three aggravating circumstances,
that the wrong done in the commission of the crime was deliberately augmented by causing
other wrongs not necessary for its commission, that advantage was taken of superior strength,
and that means were employed which added ignominy to the natural effects of the act, must
also be taken into consideration in fixing the penalty. Considering, therefore, the number and
importance of the qualifying and aggravating circumstances here present, which cannot be
offset by the sole mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction, and the horrible nature of the
crime committed, it becomes our duty to impose capital punishment.

The vote upon the sentence is unanimous with regard to the propriety of the imposition of the
death penalty upon the defendant and appellant Lo-lo (the accused who raped on of the
women), but is not unanimous with regard to the court, Mr. Justice Romualdez, registers his
nonconformity. In accordance with provisions of Act No. 2726, it results, therefore, that the
judgment of the trial court as to the defendant and appellant Saraw is affirmed, and is reversed
as to the defendant and appellant Lol-lo, who is found guilty of the crime of piracy and is
sentenced therefor to be hung until dead, at such time and place as shall be fixed by the judge
of first instance of the Twenty-sixth Judicial District. The two appellants together with
Kinawalang and Maulanis, defendants in another case, shall indemnify jointly and severally the
offended parties in the equivalent of 924 rupees, and shall pay a one-half part of the costs of
both instances. So ordered.
Araullo, C.J., Johnson, Avanceña, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns and Romualdez, JJ., concur.

3 Phil. 6

TORRES, J.:

On September 11, 1902, an information was filed in the Court of First Instance by the assistant
prosecuting attorney of the city of Manila, charging the thirty-five persons mentioned in
the record with the crime of murder. The information alleged that on or about the 13th
day of August, 1902, while the defendants were on board the Dos Hermanos, an American
steamer duly registered in the Philippine Islands, said steamer being at that time within the
navigable waters pf this Archipelago and at a distance of less than 1 mile from the beach
of the town of Virac, Catanduanes Islands, Albay, they willfully, feloniously,
treacherously, and with deliberate premeditation, assaulted, killed, and murdered one
Antonio Agudo, striking and wounding him with daggers, iron bars, and other deadly
weapons; and that afterwards, to wit, on or about the 2d of September of the same year, the
said steamer Dos Hermanos entered the port of Manila.

The information above mentioned refers to a crime committed on board a merchant steamer,
registered as a coasting vessel in these Islands and at anchor in a port of one of the islands,
therefore, under the provisions of section 1 of Act No. 400, passed by the Civil Commission on
May 16, 1902, by which the organic law of the courts, Act No. 136, passed June 11, 1901, was
modified and extended. The steamer Dos Hermanos having, after the commission of the crime,
put into this city, it is incontrovertible that the Court of First Instance thereof has sole
jurisdiction, to the exclusion of all other courts of the Archipelago, for the trial of the case.

The information having been admitted and the defendants arraigned, the plea of not guilty was
entered. Before the trial commenced Isidro del Valle and Tiburcio Soriano died; and with
respect to the defendants Damaso Sopgang and Carlos Septimo the case was dismissed, the
prosecuting attorney having entered a nolle prosequi.
From the evidence introduced at the trial, and especially from the testimony of
Miguel Morales, captain of the steamer Don Hcrmanos, together with that of First Mate Juan
Zabala, Second Engineer Fabian Rendon, and the other witnesses examined, the following
facts were established :

Shortly after 8 o'clock on the evening of August 13, 1902, the steamer Dos Hcrmanos, a vessel
bearing license No. 72, dated January 11, 1900, authorizing her employment in the coastwise
trade, was lying at anchor in the harbor of Virac, Catanduanes Islands, at a distance of some 40
yards from the beach, with the bow toward the shore and the stern
seaward. The bow anchor was dropped and the stern made fast to the
beach with a cable. Supper was just over, and Captain Morales, Zabala, the first mate, and
five passengers, three of whom were men and two women, together with Don
Joaquin Romero, a guest on the vessel, were sitting around the big table on the poop deck
engaged in conversation. The first and second engineers were amidships on the port side,
engaged in conversation just outside the officers' staterooms. Suddenly the sound of the voices
of many men rushing from the bow of the ship was heard. Upon this Captain Morales and the
mate, Zabala, jumped up and went down toward the place where the tumult was in
progress. Just at this moment the first engineer's voice was heard shouting, "Quartermaster,"
and at the same moment they saw the second engineer, Rendon, coming toward them on the
run, pursued by the quartermaster, Pantaleon Cajilig, and several members of the crew,
armed with knives, daggers, and iron bars. One of them attacked Rendon and wounded him in
the back with a dagger or a knife, while the quartermaster, in turn, attacked Captain Morales,
inflicting upon him a stab in the groin. Morales tried to get into the pantry. Some ten or
fourteen men endeavored to prevent him and one of them, in the course of the struggle, cut
him on the head with a knife. In the meantime First Mate Zabala, believing that the noise was
due to a fight forward, went down the other side toward the scene of the disturbance. Upon
seeing a number of the crew, armed and evidently in mutiny, approaching him, he
retreated. He was, however, overtaken and Calker Elpidio Andrade attacked him with a
knife. In the struggle another member of the crew approached him and endeavored to throw
him into the sea, and immediately after another seaman, Rufino de Jesus, struck him on the
head with an iron bar. Zabala, however, finally succeeded in shaking off his assailants and
made his escape into the pantry, where the captain and the second engineer, Rendon, had
taken refuge. They closed the door and five.of the mutineers, who unsuccessfully endeavored
to force an entrance, locked it with a key from the outside and remained on guard there. Some
of them endeavored to stab the inmates of the stateroom with daggers and knives through
the portholes. About the same time one of the passengers, Faustino Tremoya, was wounded
on the arm, and, upon retreating, was pursued until he also took refuge in the pantry. He was
unable tc recognize his assailant. Chief Engineer Antonio Agudo was the officer first
attacked when the mutiny broke out. He was assailed by several of the mutineers and was
wounded in ten places with different weapons. The body of this officer was subsequently
found in his stateroom. The steward, Vicente Amellategui, was also attacked, and, upon being
struck with an iron hook, jumped overboard and disappeared. His body
was never recovered. The Chinese carpenter, Tan Chuen, also disappeared and was not seen
again after that night. While the attack was in progress the mutineers lowered the side
awnings, which up to the time of the commencement of the mutiny had been pulled up,
the lights on the steamer were extinguished, three of the boats wThich had been in the water
were1 raised, the cable by which the stern of the vessel was fastened to the shore was cut, the
accommodation ladder was hauled up, the anchor raised with the donkey engine, the ship's
engines were started, and the steamer was put in motion, unquestionably with the intention of
leaving the port of Virac for parts unknown, and thereby escaping the legal consequences of
their acts. The record does not disclose the motive which led to the commission of the crime.

First Lieutenant Fletcher, of the Constabulary, who was on shore that night in the barracks near
the beach, heard the shouting on board the steamer, and, believing a fight was in progress, got
into a boat with two of his soldiers and headed for the steamer. This was at about 8.30 on the
night in question. After covering half the distance to the steamer he found a man
swimming. The latter was picked up, and, being barely able to breathe, could gasp only the
word "fight." This man proved to be Damaso Sopgang. In the meantime the anchor was raised
and the steamer commenced to move. The boat containing the Constabulary officers ran along
the port side of the ship, and Fletcher shouted to the men on board to drop the anchor,
whereupon a man on the bridge threw a lump of coal at him. Fletcher replied by firing at the
man, who fell from the starboard side of the bridge. Lieutenant Fletcher then commenced
firing at several men who were running the donkey engine near the anchor and ran his boat
around to the starboard accommodation ladder, but found this raised. However, finding a
hanging stage at the stern, he managed to climb on board the ship, which was at that time in
motion. When he got on deck the captain, who was near his stateroom, shouted to him to
hurry. Lieutenant Fletcher ran to the engine room and fired a couple of shots into it from his
revolver, ordering the men below to stop the engine, which order was immediately obeyed. He
then ran down to the stern and fired several shots at some men he saw there, all of whom fled
excepting three, who we're captured. Three or four others jumped into the water. A sailor
shot and wounded one of the Constabulary men and was, in turn, fired at by Lieutenant
Fletcher. During all this confusion the steamer ran aground near the mouth of the harbor,
about 150 yards from the place where it had been anchored when the mutiny broke out. The
first mate, Zabala, and the second engineer, Rendon, jumped overboard and swam
ashore. The first engineer was found in his stateroom, dead, and covered with wounds. On
the following morning, after the Constabulary had the situation under control, there were
found scattered about the deck daggers, knives, hatchets, and iron bars, some of them
spattered with blood, several piles of coal prepared for use as missiles, the captain's swordstick,
and later, hidden in a grease box in the engine room, one of his revolvers. Vicente Gallardo,
Ciriaco Silva, Gregorio Almondia, Pedro Rodriguez, Mamerto Avelilla, Rufino do Jesus, Marcelo
Bertos, Pio Tionson, Felipe Almendras, Emilio Lebiga, Manuel Raon, Juan Briguela, Mariano
Gunao, Antonio Villagracia, Pablo Conception, Dionisio de la Cruz, Luis Dialao, Estanislao de
Castro, Damian Oseson, Macario Arevalo, Eugenio Olores, Severino Damagat, Cipriano Rizado,
Luis Taunson, Exequiel Perez, and Antonio Villamor were arrested and taken ashore. Benigno
Parra was apprehended on shore the next day, and several days later Telesforo Dasal, one
of the men who escaped, was captured. Lieutenant Fletcher in his testimony stated that he
could not remember where Victorino Villacarlos and Tranquilino Aga were apprehended; nor
could he state whether the men arrested on board the ship and those who were identified by
him took part in the mutiny and the assault up.on the officers. He stated it was his belief that
the purpose of the uprising was to steal the money on board the vessel and to carry off the
vessel itself. He further testified that Pablo Conception and Benigno Parra were wounded,
the former in the hand and the latter in the side, by shots fired by the Constabulary men.
He stated that Telesforo Dasal was wounded in the leg by a policeman at the time of his arrest
on shore, and that the quartermaster, Cajilig, who was seen with Dasal several days after the
occurrence, managed to make his escape. With
respect to the defendant Juan Briguela, Lieutenant Fletcher testified that after Briguela was
told that unless he obeyed every order given him he would be killed he was asked why he had
started the engines during the mutiny, and he thereupon replied that at about 7 o'clock on the
night of the occurrence the quartermaster, revolver in hand, came to the engine room and
told him he was to start the engines whenever the signal was given and that if he did not do so
he would he killed. Other member of the crew who were interrogated concerning the
occurrence replied evasively and said that they had not done anything. The calker, Andrade,
and the seaman who attacked the mate Zabala and tried to throw him into the sea were killed
by the Constabulary in the course of the mutiny.

From the facts stated, it clearly appears that a number of men belonging to the crew of the
steamer Dos Hermanos conspired together to overcome the rest of the crew and kill the
captain and officers of the steamer, with the intention of seizing the vessel and its contents and
with it leaving for parts unknown. This outbreak resulted in the death of the first engineer,
Antonio Agudo, the steward, Vicente Ameliategui, and the Chinese carpenter, Tan Chuen, and
in the wounding of Captain Morales, First Mate Zabala, Second Engineer Kendon, and the
passenger Faustino Tremoya.

The killing of the first engineer, Antonio Agudo, must be classified as murder, lie was put to
death by several of the mutineers on the night of August 13, 1902, they acting with evident
premeditation and after reflection concerning the perpetration of the crime, which they had
conspired together to commit. This circumstance determines the nature of the crime and
brings it within the provisions of article 403 of the Penal Code. The circumstance of evident
premeditation is present in a marked degree, for, without careful planning beforehand,
the crime above related would not have been committed.

The court below, in its judgment of February 11, 1903, condemned ltufino de Jesus, Juan
Briguela, and Telesforo Dasal to the penalty of death and the other defendants to the penalty
of life imprisonment at hard labor, as authors of the crime of murder.

Although we agree with the judge below as to the classification of the crime and as to tjie guilt
of some of the defendants, we can not agree with him as to that of others. With respect to
some of the accused, the record contains no evidence whatever that they took part in the crime
herein prosecuted. It is unquestionable that a portion of the crew of the steamer Dos
Hermanos participated in the mutiny and in the attack upon the captain and other officers, and
more especially upon the first engineer, whose body was subsequently found wounded in ten
places. The presumption that some 10 or 14 men took part in that attack is based upon the
fact that in order to effect in so short a time the various acts performed, many men must have
acted together, although not necessarily the 41 who composed the crew. It can not be denied
that a large portion of the crew did not take any part in the mutiny and had nothing to do with
the crime committed by the mutineers. Consequently it was error to hold that all of, the
members of the steamer's crew should be regarded as co-principals of the crime in
question. The record does not disclose evidence of the guilt of all of the defendants, but only
of some of them, and the degree of guilt of these varies.

Carlos Septimo, Damaso Sopgang, and Jorge Orlano were also members of the crew of the
steamer, but nevertheless took no part in the commission of the crime. The evidence also
shows that there were several otheiMiien who unquestionably were not implicated in the
mutiny, but who had not sufficient courage to follow Sopgang's example and jump
overboard. These simply concealed themselves on board the steamer and waited for the
termination of the mutiny, without attempting to escape, as did the ringleaders, the
quartermaster, Pantaleon Cajilig, who has not been apprehended, and the helmsman,
Telesforo Dasal, who was arrested on shore several days after the occurrence.

Although Telesforo Dasal, Rufino de Jesus, Pablo Concepcion, Gregorio Almondia, Emilio
Lebiga, Benigno Parra, and Pedro Rodriguez pleaded not guilty, the evidence as to the guilt of
these seven defendants, the first as co-principal with the quartermaster, Cajilig, and the two
men who were killed by the Constabulary, and the other defendants as accomplices, is
convincing.

Carlos Septimo testified that while he was going ashore in a boat on the afternoon of the day
the crime was committed, accompanied by Andrade, the quartermaster, Cajilig, and the
helmsman^ Telesforo Dasal, he saw these three men conversing together and heard Cajilig say
to the other two in Spanish, "Where shall we kill him?" although without stating who was to be
killed. This conversation shows that the mutiny and the killing of the engineer Agudo and
the other crimes committed had been planned beforehand by these three men, one of
whom was the defendant Dasal, and that they were the ringleaders of the mutiny. While
the mutiny was in progress, Dasal, armed with a knife, aided the other mutineers in the attack
on the first engineer, Agudo, and also assisted the party led by the quartermaster and the
calker in their attack upon the second engineer, Kendon. This is the testimony of the latter
and of the witness Jorge Orlano. Furthermore, he was one of the men who pulled up the
accommodation ladder, directed that one of the boats be raised, and accompanied the
quartermaster to the engine room to order Juan Briguela to get up steam. Consequently, it is
unquestionable that he is guilty as principal by direct participation in the murder committed.

This evidence given by the first officer, Juan Zabala, witness for the prosecution, and by the
defendants Benigno Parra, Juan Briguela, Pablo Conception, and Emilio Lebiga has not been
overcome by the assertion of the defendant Dasal, who denies that he had anything to do
with the mutiny or the murder of Agudo.

The cooperation in the commission of a crime which results in fixing upon the guilty agent
the responsibility of an accomplice requires acts either prior to or simultaneous with the
commission of the crime which constitute an aid and protection to the person or persons guilty
of the actual commission of the crime; that is, perpetration of acts of moral or physical aid
given mediately by indirect means in such a way as to make it clearly appear that the
principal and the accomplices acted upon a common agreement for the purpose of effecting
some criminal act, although the means employed by each may have been distinct and
separate. (Penal Code, art. 14; judgments of the supreme court of Spain of April 25, 1877,
January 22, 1884, April 2, 1886, and June 7, 1886.)

The case contains sufficient circumstantial evidence to warrant the conviction of the other
defendants Rufino de Jesus, Benigno Parra, Pablo Concepcion, Gregorio Almondia, Pedro
Rodriguez, and Emilio Lebiga as accomplices in said murder. These six defendants were seen
moving about the deck of the ship during the mutiny, which they would not have done
had they not been implicated in the conspiracy. Some of them, as Lebiga, Rodriguez, and
Parra, were seen hauling up a boat and the accommodation ladder, thereby making it
impossible for Fletcher to board the ship by means of the latter. These facts are shown by the
testimony of the witness Jorge Orlano. The acts referred to were performed in obedience to
orders given by the quartermaster, Cajilig. Rufino de Jesus was one of the assailants of First
Mate Zabala, although the assault upon him was not the object of this prosecution. The
evidence during the prosecution does not show that Rufino de Jesus took a direct part in
the murder; nevertheless, the acts committed by him during the mutiny must be regarded as
acts of complicity or of aid or protection to the murderers of First Engineer Agudo. It is worthy
of note that both Captain Morales and First Mate Zabala testified that the mutineers were from
ten to fourteen in number, and to their number must be added as presumably guilty the
quartermaster, Cajilig, who was not arrested, the two men killed on board, and Isidro del Valle
and Exequiel Perez, who died after the trial commenced.

The defendant Parra was likewise ordered by the captain, who saw him go by the front of the
stateroom where he had taken refuge with the other officers, to fetch him his revolver from his
stateroom. Parra, although he obtained the revolver, did not deliver it as commanded, and it
was subsequently found in his possession by one of the Constabulary.

The witness Concepcion testified that he was on watch at the stern of the vessel when the
mutiny broke out; that he saw the quartermaster, the calker, and the helmsman, Dasal, and
one of the seamen run after the first engineer, and that thereupon the witness immediately
concealed himself in one of the boats at the bow. This statement was incompatible with the
proven fact that during the mutiny Conception was seen walking about the deck in front of the
stateroom in which the captain and officers had taken refuge.
Apart from the testimony of First Officer Zabala to the effect that he saw Gregorio Almondia
with the mutineers, Captain Morales affirms that on leaving the pantry he found on the deck
near the bow a black hat, which turned out to be the property of the said Almondia. The latter,
also, according to the statement of Mamerto Avelilla, was the one who woke him up when the
mutiny broke out, he having been asleep in the forecastle at the time.

These six men took no direct part in the murder of the first engineer, nor did they induce the
commission of the crime or cooperate in its commission by acts without which the crime could
not have been perpetrated. Consequently, under article 13 of the Penal Code, they can not be
regarded as principals. They did indeed perform acts of aid and assistance mediately and
indirectly tending to the realization of the crime and in conformity with the intention and
purpose of the principals; and therefore the responsibility of these six defendants with respect
to the murder is that of accomplices, under the provisions of article 14 of the Penal Code.

The details of the attack upon the first engineer, Agudo, were not determined at the trial, and
the evidence does not disclose how the attack commenced or what the position of the
deceased was at the time. If he was sitting with the second engineer, Rendon, by the side of
the table at which they had eaten, he mnst have noticed the approach of the assailants, as did
Rendon, who was able to seize a bar of iron to defend himself. Consequently, as it does not
appear that the deceased Avas attacked treacherously and under circumstances which
gave him no opportunity to make a defense, it is improper to consider the
qualifying circumstance of alevosia present. The facts constituting this circumstance
must be proven with the same degree of certainty as the crime itself and can not be inferred
or presumed.

Mutiny on board a vessel is, of itself, a crime severely punished by special maritime laws of
the former sovereignty. However, this crime, as well as other punishable acts, such as that of
piracy, which the record shows to have been committed, have not been the object of the
prosecution, and this decision must be limited solely to the crime of the murder of Antonio
Agudo.

In the commission of this crime it is proper to consider present the aggravating circumstances
of abuse of superior power, nocturnity, and, with respect to the defendant Telesforo Dasal,
abuse of confidence. As to the first of these, owing to the great number of wounds inflicted
on the deceased, Agudo, it is to be presumed that he was simultaneously attacked by several
persons, and that the number of his assailants prevented him from making a defense. With
respect to the circumstance of nocturnity, there can be no doubt that the mutineers availed
themselves of the darkness of the night, at a time when the officers and the rest of the creAv
were off their guard, for the purpose of committing the crime above related, and,
with reference to Dasal, it is unquestionable that, as he held the position of helmsman on
board the vessel, in placing himself, in company with the quartermaster, at the head of the
mutineers, and thereby using the influence he possessed'over the seamen and other members
of the crew as a result of his position, he abused the confidence reposed in him by the
captain and officers of the ship and committed an act of treachery with respect to them. On
the other hand, no mitigating circumstances were present, and consequently the adequate
penalty must be imposed in the maximum grade.

Against the other defendants, Estanislao de Castro, Ciriaco Silva, Mamerto Avelilla, Manuel
Raon, Luis Taunson, Mariano Gunao, Vicente Gallardo, Marcelo Bertos, Severino Damagat,
Pio Tionson, Victorino Villacarlos, Antonio Villamor, Dionisio de la Cruz, Cipriano Rizado,
Francisco Mendoza, Felipe Almendras, Macario Arevalo, Luis Dialao, Eugenio Olores, Damian
Oseson, Antonio Villagracia, and Tranquilino Aga, the record contains no evidence, not even
circumstantial, that they took any part whatever in the mutiny or in the crimes committed on
the night of August 13, 1902, and more especially in the murder of Antonio
Agudo. Consequently they must be acquitted.

The majority of the court are of the opinion that the same is true with respect to the assistant
engineer, Juan Briguela, who they think should also be acquitted of the charge. It
is believed that he started the engine under compulsion, the quartermaster having, revolver
in hand, ordered him to do so, and having threatened him with death if he failed to obey, and,
on the other hand, there is no evidence that he took part in the murder of the first engineer.

I do not concur in the opinion of the majority in this particular. I believe that, as
the exculpatory allegation of the defendant Briguela has not been proved, and in
consideration of the evidence against him, it having been proved that he performed acts of aid
and protection to the principals of the crime both prior to and simultaneous with its
commission, he should be convicted as an accomplice.

For tire reasons stated, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the court below should be
reversed. Telesforo Dasal should be convicted as coprincipal of the crime of murder and
condemned to the penalty of death, to be executed in the interior of the prison and in the
manner prescribed by article 101 of the Penal Code, the crime having been committed prior to
the passage of Act No, 451 of the Civil Commission. In case said defendant Dasal should be
pardoned, he should be condemned to the accessory penalties of absolute perpetual
disqualification,and subjection to the vigilance of the authorities during his lifetime, unless
these accessory penalties should be remitted in the pardon of the principal penalty. The other
defendants found guilty as accomplices, Benigno Parra, Pablo Concepcion, Gregorio Ahnondia,
Pedro Rodriguez, Emilio Lebiga, and Rufino de Jesus, should each be condemned to the penalty
of seventeen years of cadena temporal, to the accessories of civil interdiction during
the period of the principal penalty and to absolute perpetual disqualification and subjection
to the vigilance of the authorities during their respective lives. The said defendants,
including the said Dasal, are further condemned to the payment, pro rata or in solidum, of
1,000 Insular pesos to the heirs of the deceased, Antonio Agudo, without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, owing to the gravity of the principal penalty, and to the
payment each of one thirty-fifth part of the costs of both instances. The defendants Ciriaco
Silva, Mamerto Avelilla, Manuel Kaon, Luis Taunson, Mariano Gunao, Vicente Gallardo,
Marcelo Bertos, Severino Damagat, Pio Tionson, Victorino Villacarlos, Antonio
Villamor, Dionisio de la Cruz, Cipriano Rizado, Francisco Mendoza, Felipe Almendras,
Estanislao de Castro, Macario Arevalo, Luis Dialao, Eugenio Olores, Damian Oseson, Antonio
Villagracia, Tranquilino Aga, and Juan Briguela are acquitted. The case is finally dismissed with
respect to Isidro del Valle, Tiburcio Soriano, and Exequiel Perez, deceased, with the remaining
costs of both instances do oficio, including the share thereof pertaining to Carlos Septimo and
Damaso Sopgang, as to whom the case was dismissed during the trial. At the expiration of the
usual period the cause will be remanded to the court below, accompanied by a certified copy of
this decision for the execution of the judgment. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Mapa and McDonough, JJ., concur.

Johnson, J., did not sit in this case,

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC
G.R. No. L-57292 February 18, 1986

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
JULAIDE SIYOH, OMAR-KAYAM KIRAM, NAMLI INDANAN and ANDAW JAMAHALI, accused-
appellants.

ABAD SANTOS, J.:

This is an automatic review of the decision of the defunct Court of First Instance of Basilan,
Judge Jainal D. Rasul as ponente, imposing the death penalty.

In Criminal Case No. 318 of the aforesaid court, JULAIDE SIYOH, OMARKAYAM KIRAM, NAMLI
INDANAN and ANDAW JAMAHALI were accused of qualified piracy with triple murder and
frustrated murder said to have been committed according to the information as follows:

That on or about the 14th day of July, 1979, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, viz., at Mataja Is., Municipality of Lantawan, Province of
Basilan, Philippines, the above named accused, being strangers and without
lawful authority, armed with firearms and taking advantage of their superior
strength, conspiring and confederating together, aiding and assisting one with
the other, with intent to gain and by the use of violence or intimidation against
persons and force upon things, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, fire their guns into the air and stop the pumpboat wherein Rodolfo
de Castro, Danilo Hiolen, Anastacio de Guzman and Antonio de Guzman were
riding, traveling at that time from the island of Baluk-Baluk towards Pilas,
boarded the said pumpboat and take, steal and carry away all their cash money,
wrist watches, stereo sets, merchandise and other personal belongings
amounting to the total amount of P 18,342.00, Philippine Currency; that the said
accused, on the occasion of the crime herein above-described, taking advantage
that the said victims were at their mercy, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously, with intent to kill, ordered them to jump into the water,
whereupon, the said accused, fired their guns at them which caused the death of
Rodolfo de Castro, Danilo Hiolen, Anastacio de Guzman and wounding one
Antonio de Guzman; thus the accused have performed all the acts of execution
which would have produced the crime of Qualified Piracy with Quadruple
Murder, but which, nevertheless, did not produce it by reasons of causes in
dependent of their will, that is, said Antonio de Guzman was able to swim to the
shore and hid himself, and due to the timely medical assistance rendered to said
victim, Antonio de Guzman which prevented his death. (Expediente, pp. 1-2.)

An order of arrest was issued against all of the accused but only Julaide Siyoh and Omar-kayam
Kiram were apprehended. (Id, p. 8.)

After trial, the court a quo rendered a decision with the following dispositive portion.

WHEREFORE, in view of the fore going considerations, this Court finds the
accused Omar-kayam Kiram and Julaide Siyoh guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of Qualified Piracy with Triple Murder and Frustrated Murder as
defined and penalized under the provision of Presidential Decree No. 532, and
hereby sentences each one of them to suffer the supreme penalty of DEATH.
However, considering the provision of Section 106 of the Code of Mindanao and
 Sulu, the illiteracy or ignorance or extreme poverty of the accused who are
members of the cultural minorities, under a regime of so called compassionate
society, a commutation to life imprisonment is recommended. (Id, p. 130.)

In their appeal, Siyoh and Kiram make only one assignment of error:

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-
APPELLANTS OMAR-KAYAM KIRAM AND JULAIDE SIYOH HAS BEEN PROVED
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. (Brief, p. 8.)

The People's version of the facts is as follows:

Alberto Aurea was a businessman engaged in selling dry goods at the Larmitan
Public Market, in the province of Basilan (pp. 2-3, tsn). On July 7, 1979 and on
July 10, 1979, Antonio de Guzman, Danilo Hiolen, Rodolfo de Castro and
Anastacio de Guzman received goods from his store consisting of mosquito nets,
blankets, wrist watch sets and stereophono with total value of P15,000 more or
less (pp. 4-6, tsn). The goods were received under an agreement that they would
be sold by the above-named persons and thereafter they would pay the value of
said goods to Aurea and keep part of the profits for themselves. However these
people neither paid the value of the goods to Aurea nor returned the goods to
him (pp. 6-7, tsn). On July 15, 1979, Aurea was informed by Antonio de Guzman
that his group was held up near Baluk- Baluk Island and that his companions
were hacked (p. 8, tsn). On July 16, 1979, the bodies of Rodolfo de Castro, Danilo
Hiolen and Anastacio de Guzman were brought by the PC seaborne patrol to
Isabela, Basilan (pp. 17-18, 29, tsn). Only Antonio de Guzman survived the
incident that caused the death of his companions.

It appears that on July 10, 1979, Antonio de Guzman together with his friends
who were also travelling merchants like him, were on their way to Pilas Island,
Province of Basilan, to sell the goods they received from Alberto Aurea. The
goods they brought with them had a total value of P18,000.00 (pp- 36-37, tsn).
They left for Pilas Island at 2:00 p.m. of July 10, 1979 on a pumpboat. They took
their dinner and slept that night in the house of Omar-kayam Kiram at Pilas
Island (pp. 37-38, tsn).

The following day, July 11, 1979, de Guzman's group, together with Kiram and
Julaide Siyoh, started selling their goods, They were able to sell goods worth P
3,500.00. On July 12, 1979, the group, again accompanied by Kiram and Siyoh,
went to sell their goods at another place, Sangbay, where they sold goods worth
P 12,000.00 (pp. 40-42, tsn). They returned to Pilas Island at 5:00 o'clock in the
afternoon and again slept at Kiram's house. However that night Kiram did not
sleep in his house, and upon inquiry the following day when Antonio de Guzman
saw him, Kiram told the former that he slept at the house of Siyoh.

On that day, July 13, 1979, the group of Antonio de Guzman went to Baluk-Baluk,
a place suggested by Kiram. They were able to sell goods worth P3,000.00 (pp.
43-46, tsn). They returned to Pilas Island for the night but Kiram did not sleep
with them (p. 47, tsn).

The following day, July 14, 1979, the group again went to Baluk-Baluk
accompanied by Kiram and Siyoh (pp. 48, 50 t.s.n), They used the pumpboat of
Kiram. Kiram and Siyoh were at that time armed with 'barongs'. They arrived at
Baluk-Baluk at about 10:00 o'clock in the morning and upon arrival at the place
 Kiram and Siyoh going ahead of the group went to a house about 15 meters
away from the place where the group was selling its goods (pp. 50-53, tsn).
Kiram and Siyoh were seen by the group talking with two persons whose faces
the group saw but could not recognize (pp. 53-54, tsn). After selling their goods,
the members of the group, together with Kiram and Siyoh, prepared to return to
Pilas Island. They rode on a pumpboat where Siyoh positioned himself at the
front while Kiram operated the engine. On the way to Pilas Island, Antonio de
Guzman saw another pumpboat painted red and green about 200 meters away
from their pumpboat (pp. 55, tsn). Shortly after" Kiram turned off the engine of
their pumpboat. Thereafter two shots were fired from the other pumpboat as it
moved towards them (pp. 57-58, tsn). There were two persons on the other
pumpboat who were armed with armantes. De Guzman recognized them to be
the same persons he saw Kiram conversing with in a house at Baluk-Baluk Island.
When the boat came close to them, Kiram threw a rope to the other pumpboat
which towed de Guzman's pumpboat towards Mataja Island. On the way to
Mataja Island, Antonio de Guzman and his companions were divested of their
money and their goods by Kiram (pp. 59-61, tsn). Thereafter Kiram and his
companions ordered the group of de Guzman to undress. Taking fancy on the
pants of Antonio de Guzman, Kiram put it on. With everybody undressed, Kiram
said 'It was good to kill all of you'. After that remark, Siyoh hacked Danilo Hiolen
while Kiram hacked Rodolfo de Castro. Antonio de Guzman jumped into the
water. As he was swimming away from the pumpboat, the two companions of
Kiram fired at him, injuring his back (pp. 62-65, tsn). But he was able to reach a
mangrove where he stayed till nightfall. When he left the mangrove, he saw the
dead bodies of Anastacio de Guzman, Danilo Hiolen and Rodolfo de Castro. He
was picked up by a fishing boat and brought to the Philippine Army station at
Maluso where he received first aid treatment. Later he was brought to the J.S.
Alano Memorial Hospital at Isabela, Basilan province (pp. 66-68, tsn).

On July 15, 1979, while waiting for the dead bodies of his companions at the
wharf, de Guzman saw Siyoh and Kiram. He pointed them out to the PC and the
two were arrested before they could run. When arrested, Kiram was wearing the
pants he took from de Guzman and de Guzman had to ask Pat. Bayabas at the
Provincial Jail to get back his pants from Kiram (pp. 69-72, tsn).

Antonio de Guzman was physically examined at the J.S. Alano Memorial Hospital
at Isabela, Basilan and findings showed: 'gunshot wound, scapular area, bilateral,
tangenital' (Exh. C, prosecution). (pp. 134-136, tsn). Dr. Jaime M. Junio,
Provincial Health Officer of Basilan, examined the dead bodies of Rodolfo de
Castro and Danilo Hiolen and issued the corresponding death certificates (Exhs.
D and E, prosecution). (pp. 137-138; 140-141, tsn). (Brief, pp. 5-11.)

As can be seen from the lone assignment of error, the issue is the credibility of witnesses. Who
should be believed Antonio de Guzman who was the lone prosecution eye-witness or Siyoh and
Kiram the accused-appellants who claims that they were also the victims of the crime? The trial
court which had the opportunity of observing the demeanor of the witnesses and how they
testified assigned credibility to the former and an examination of the record does not reveal
any fact or circumstance of weight and influence which was overlooked or the significance of
which was misinterpreted as would justify a reversal of the trial court's determination.
Additionally, the following claims of the appellants are not convincing:

1. That if they were the culprits they could have easily robbed their victims at the Kiram house
or on any of the occasions when they were travelling together. Suffice it to say that robbing the
victims at Kiram's house would make Kiram and his family immediately suspect and robbing the
victims before they had sold all their goods would be premature. However, robbing and killing
the victims while at sea and after they had sold all their goods was both timely and provided
safety from prying eyes.

2. That the accused immediately reported the incident to the PC. The record does not support
this assertion. For as the prosecution stated: "It is of important consequence to mention that
the witness presented by the defense are all from Pilas Island and friends of the accused. They
claimed to be members of retrieving team for the dead bodies but no PC soldiers were ever
presented to attest this fact. The defense may counter why the prosecution also failed to
present the Maluso Police Daily Event book? This matter has been brought by Antonio not to
the attention of the PC or Police but to an army detachment. The Army is known to have no
docket book, so why take the pain in locating the army soldiers with whom the report was
made? (Memorandum, p. 7.) And Judge Rasul also makes this observation: "..., this Court is
puzzled, assuming the version of the defense to be true, why the lone survivor Antonio de
Guzman as having been allegedly helped by the accused testified against them. Indeed, no
evidence was presented and nothing can be inferred from the evidence of the defense so far
presented showing reason why the lone survivor should pervert the truth or fabricate or
manufacture such heinous crime as qualified piracy with triple murders and frustrated murder?
The point which makes us doubt the version of the defense is the role taken by the PC to whom
the report was allegedly made by the accused immediately after the commission of the offense.
Instead of helping the accused, the PC law enforcement agency in Isabela, perhaps not crediting
the report of the accused or believing in the version of the report made by the lone survivor
Antonio de Guzman, acted consistently with the latter's report and placed the accused under
detention for investigation." (Expediente, pp. 127-128.)

3. That the affidavits of Dolores de Guzman, wife of the deceased Anastacio de Guzman, and
Primitiva de Castro, wife of the deceased Rodolfo de Castro, state that Antonio de Guzman
informed them shortly after the incident that their husbands were killed by the companions of
Siyoh and Kiram. The thrust of the appellants' claim, therefore, is that Namli Indanan and
Andaw Jamahali were the killers and not the former. But this claim is baseless in the face of the
proven conspiracy among the accused for as Judge Rasul has stated:

It is believed that conspiracy as alleged in the information is sufficiently proved

in this case. In fact the following facts appear to have been established to show
clearly conspiracy: A) On July 14, 1979, while peddling, the survivor-witness Tony
de Guzman noticed that near the window of a dilapidated house, both accused
were talking to two (2) armed strange-looking men at Baluk-Baluk Island; B)
When the pumpboat was chased and overtaken, the survivor-witness Tony de
Guzman recognized their captors to be the same two (2) armed strangers to
whom the two accused talked in Baluk- Baluk Island near the dilapidated house;
C) The two accused, without order from the two armed strangers transferred the
unsold goods to the captors' banca; D) That Tony de Guzman and companion
peddlers were divested of their jewelries and cash and undressed while the two
accused remained unharmed or not molested. These concerted actions on their
part prove conspiracy and make them equally liable for the same crime (People
vs. Pedro, 16 SCRA 57; People vs. lndic 10 SCRA 130). The convergence of the will
of the conspirators in the scheming and execution of the crime amply justifies
the imputation of all of them the act of any of them (People vs. Peralta, 25 SCRA,
759). (Id., pp. 128-129.)

4. That there is no evidence Anastacio de Guzman was killed together with Rodolfo de Castro
and Danilo Hiolen because his remains were never recovered. There is no reason to suppose
that Anastacio de Guzman is still alive or that he died in a manner different from his
companions. The incident took place on July 14, 1979 and when the trial court decided the case
on June 8, 1981 Anastacio de Guzman was still missing. But the number of persons killed on the
occasion of piracy is not material. P.D. No. 532 considers qualified piracy, i.e. rape, murder or
homicide is committed as a result or on the occasion of piracy, as a special complex crime
punishable by death regardless of the number of victims.

5. That the death certificates are vague as to the nature of the injuries sustained by the victims;
were they hacked wounds or gunshot wounds? The cause of death stated for Rodolfo de Castro
and Danilo Hiolen is: "Hemorrhage due to hacked wounds, possible gunshot wounds." (Exhs. D
and E.) The cause is consistent with the testimony of Antonio de Guzman that the victims were
hacked; that the appellants were armed with "barongs" while Indanan and Jamahali were
armed with armalites.

WHEREFORE, finding the decision under review to be in accord with both the facts and the law,
it is affirmed with the following modifications: (a) for lack of necessary votes the penalty
imposed shall be reclusion perpetua; and (b) each of the appellants shall pay in solidum to the
heirs of each of the deceased indemnity in the amount of P30,000.00. No special
pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin Gutierrez, Jr., Dela Fuente, Alampay and Patajo,
JJ., concur.

Aquino, C.J., took no part.

Teehankee, J., for affirmance of death sentence.

Separate Opinions

CUEVAS, J., dissenting:

considering the gravamen of the offense charged the manner by which it was committed, I vote
to affirm the death penalty imposed by the trial court.

Separate Opinions

CUEVAS, J., dissenting:

considering the gravamen of the offense charged the manner by which it was committed, I vote
to affirm the death penalty imposed by the trial court.