G.R. No. L-5803. November 29, 1954

Narciso Umali, Epifanio Pasumbal, and Isidro Capino are appealing
directly to this Tribunal from a decision of the Court of First
Instance of Quezon province finding them guilty of the complex crime of
rebellion with multiple murder, frustrated murder, arson and robbery,
and sentencing each of them to “life imprisonment, other accessories of
the law, to indemnify jointly and severally Marcial Punzalan in the
amount of P24,023; Valentin Robles in the amount of P10,000; Yao Cabon
in the amount of P700; Claro Robles in the amount of P12,800; Pocho
Guan in the amount of P600; the Heirs of Domingo Pisigan in the amount
of P6,000; the Heirs of Vicente Soriano in the amount of P6,000; the
Heirs of Leocadio Untalan in the amount of P6,000; Patroman Pedro
Lacorte in the amount of P500; Lazaro Ortega in the amount of P300;
Hilarion Aselo in the amount of P300; Calixto Rivano in the amount of
P50; Melecio Garcia in the amount of P60; and Juanito Lector in the
amount of P90, each to pay 1/15 of the costs, without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency due to the nature of the principal
penalty that is imposed upon them.”

The complex crime of which appellants were found guilty was said to
have been committed during the raid staged in town of Tiaong, Quezon,
between 8:00 and 9:00 in the evening of November 14, 1951, by armed
men. It is not denied that such raid took place resulting in the
burning down and complete destruction of the house of Mayor Marcial
Punzalan including its contents valued at P23,023; the house of
Valentin Robles valued at P10,000, and the house of one Mortega, the
death of Patrolman Domingo Pisigan and civilians Vicente Soriano and
Leocadio Untalan, and the wounding of Patrolman Pedro Lacorte and five
civilians; that during and after the burning of the houses, some of the
raiders engaged in looting, robbing one house and two Chinese stores;
and that the raiders were finally dispersed and driven from the town
led by Captain Alzate.

To understand the reason for and object of the raid we have to go
into the political situation in Tiaong not only shortly before that
raid but one or two years before it. Narciso Umali and Marcial Punzalan
were old time friends and belonged to the same political faction. In
the general elections of 1947 Umali campaigned for Punzalan who later
was elected Mayor of Tiaong. In the elections of 1949 Punzalan in his
turn campaigned and worked for Narciso Umali resulting in the latter’s
election as Congressman. However, these friendly relations between the
two did not endure. In the words of Punzalan, Narciso Umali who as
Congressman regarded himself as the political head and leader in that
region including Tiaong, became jealous because of his (Punzalan’s)
fast growing popularity among the people of Tiaong who looked to him
instead of Umali for political guidance, leadership, and favors. In
time the strain in their relations became such that they ceased to have
any dealings with each other and they even filed mutual accusations.
According to Punzalan, in May 1950, Umali induced about twenty-six
special policemen of his (Punzalan’s), to flee to the mountains with
their arms and join the Huks, this in order to discredit Punzalan’s
administration; that he was later able to contact two of his twenty-six
policemen tried to persuade them to return to the town and to the
service, but they told him that they and their companions would not
surrender except with and thru the invention of Congressman Umali, and
so Punzalan had to seek Umali’s intervention which resulted in the
surrender of the 26 men with their firearms, claiming that they all
belonged to him from his guerilla days when was a colonel, and that
after liberation he had merely loaned them to the municipal authorities
of Tiaong to help keep peace and order; and that the refusal of
Punzalan to grant Umali’s request further strained their relations, and
that thereafter Umali would not speak to him even when they happened to
meet at parties.

On September 19, 1951, the Chief of Police of Punzalan disarmed
four of Umali’s men, including his bodyguard Isidro Capino who were
then charged with illegal possession of firearms. Umali interceded for
his men and Col. Gelveson, Provincial Commander, sent a telegram
stating that the firearms taken away from the men were licensed. As a
result the complaint was dismissed. This incident was naturally
resented by Umali and spurred him to have a showdown with Punzalan.

Then the elections of 1951 (November 13 approached and Punzalan ran
for reelection. To oppose him, and to clip his political wings and
definitely blast his ambition for continued power and influence in
Tiaong, Umali picked Epifanio Pasumbal, his trusted leader.

The pre-election campaign and fight waged by both factions—Punzalan
and Pasumbal, was intense and bitter, even ruthless. The election was to
be a test of political strength and would determine who was who in
Tiaong,—Umali or Punzalan. Umali spoke at political meetings, extolling
the virtues of Pasumbal and the benefits and advantages that would
accrue to the town if he was elected, at the same time bitterly
attacking Punzalan, accusing him of dishonesty, corruption in office,
abuse of power, etc. At one of those meetings he told the audience not
to vote for Punzalan because he would not sit for blood will flow, and
the he (Umali) had already prepared a golden coffin for him (Punzalan).
After denying the charges, in retort, Punzalan would say that Umali as
a Congressman was useless, and that he did not even attend the sessions
and that his chair in Congress had gathered dust, even cobwebs.

To help in the Umali-Pasumbal campaign, Amado Mendoza who later was
to play the role of star witness for the prosecution, was drafted. He
was a compadre of Pasumbal and had had some experience in political
campaigns, and although he was not exactly a model citizen, being
sometimes given to drunkness, still, he had the gift of speech and
persuasion. In various political meetings he delivered speeches for
Pasumbal. He was ever at the back and call of Umali and Pasumbal, and
naturally, he frequented the latter’s house or headquarters. The result
of the elections plainly showed that Punzalan was the political master
and leader in Tiaong. He beat Pasumbal by an overwhelming majority of
2,221 votes. Naturally, Umali and Pasumbal were keenly disappointed,
and according to the evidence, adopted measures calculated to frustrate
Punzalan’s victory, even as prophesied by Umali himself in on e of his
pre-election speeches about blood flowing and a gold coffin.

Going back to the raid staged in Tiaong on November 14, 1951, it is
well to make a short narration of the happenings shortly before it,
established by the evidence, so as to ascertain and be informed of the
reason or purpose of said raid, the person behind it, and those who
actually took part in it. According to the testimony of Amado Mendoza,
in the morning of November 12 th, that is, on the eve of the election,
at the house of Pasumbal’s father, then being used as his electoral
headquarters, he heard Umali instruct Pasumbal to contact the Huks
through Commander Abeng so that Punzalan will be killed. Pasumbal,
complying with the order of his Chief (Umali) went to the mountains
which were quite near the town and held a conference with Commander
Abeng. It would seem that Umali and Pasumbal had a feeling that
Punzalan was going to win in the elections the next day, and that his
death was the surest way to eliminate him from the electoral fight.

The conference between Pasumbal and Commander Abeng on November 12
th was witnessed and testified to by Nazario Añonuevo, a Huk who was
under Commander Abeng, and who later took an active part in the raid.
In the evening of the same day, Mendoza heard Pasumbal report to Umali
about his conference with Commander Abeng, saying that the latter was
agreeable to the proposition had even outlined the manner of attack,
that the Huks would enter the town (Tiaong) under Commander Lucio and
Aladin, the latter to lead the sector towards the East; but that
Commander Abeng had suggested that the raid be postponed because
Pasumbal may yet win the election the following day, thereby rendering
unnecessary the raid and the killing of Punzalan.

Continuing with the testimony of Amando Mendoza, he told the court
that as per constructions of Umali he went to the house of the latter,
in the evening of November 14th, the day following the election, with
the result of the election already known, namely, the decisive victory
of Punzalan over Pasumbal. He was told by Umali to come with him, and
Pasumbal and the three boarded a jeep with Pasumbal at the wheel. They
drove toward the Tiaong Elementary School and once there he (Mendoza)
was left at the school premises with instruction by Umali to wait for
Commander Abeng and the Huks and point to them the house of Punzalan.
After waiting for some time, Abeng and his troops numbering about
fifty, armed with garlands and carbines, arrived and after explaining
his identity and his mission to Abeng, he led the dissidents or part of
the contingent in the direction of Punzalan’s house and on arriving in
front of the bodega of Robles, he pointed out Punzalan’s house and then
walked toward his home, leaving the Huks who proceeded to lie flat in a
canal. Before reaching his house, he already heard shots, so, he
evacuated his family to their dugout in his yard. While doing so he and
his wife Catalina Tinapunan saw armed men in the lanzones grove just
across the street from their house belonging to the father of Umali,
and among these men they saw Congressman Umali holding a revolver, in
the company of Huk Commander Torio and about 20 armed men. Afterwards
they saw Umali and his companions leave in the direction of Taguan, by
way of the railroad tracks.

It would appear from the evidence that the raid was well-planned.
As a diversionary measure, part of the attacking force was deployed
toward the camp or station of the Army (part of the 8 th B.C.T.) in the
suburbs and the camp was fired upon, not exactly to destroy or drive
out that Army unit but to keep it from going to the rescue and aid of
the main objective of the raid. The rest of the raiding party went
towards Punzalan’s house and attacked it with automatic weapons, hand
grenades, and even with bottles filled with gasoline (popularly known
as Molotov’s cocktail). It was evident that the purpose of the attack
on Punzalan’s house was to kill him. Fortunately, however, and
apparently unknown to the attackers and those who designed the raid, at
six o’clock that morning of November 14 th Punzalan and his chief of
Police had left Tiaong to go to Lucena, the capital, to report the
results of the election to the Governor.

The attack on the house of Punzalan was witnessed and describe by
several persons, including policemen who happened to be near the house.
Policeman Tomas Maguare who was in front of the house saw Epifanio
Pasumbal, Isidro Umali (brother of Congressman Umali) and Moises
Escueta enter the gate of Punzalan’s house and take part in the firing.
Policeman Pedro Lacorte who was stationed as guard at the gate of Mayor
Punzalan’s house recognized defendant Isidro Capino as on of those
firing at the house. Lacorte said that he was guarding the House of
Punzalan when he suddenly heard shots coming from the sides of the
house and going over to the place to investigate, he saw armed men in
fatigue and shouting “burn the house of Mayor Punzalan”; that he was
hit on the left cheek and later Isidro Capino threw at him a hand
grenade and he was hit in the right forearm and in the right eye and
became permanently blind in said eye. Mateo Galit, a laundryman who was
sitting aside a jeep parked in front the house of Punzalan recognized
defendant Pasumbal as on of the attackers who, once in the yard said in
a loud voice as though addressing somebody in the house: “Pare, come
down.” Mrs. Punzalan who was then inside the house related to the court
that at about eight in the evening while she was resting she heard
shots and rapid firing. As a precaution she took her children to the
bathroom. Then she noticed that her house was being fired at because
the glass window panes were being shattered and she heard the explosion
of a hand grenade inside the house, followed by flares in the sala and
burning of blankets and mosquitoes in the bedrooms and she noticed the
smell of smoke of gasoline. Realizing the great danger, she and the
children ran out of the house and went to hide in the house of a
neighbor.

Nazario Añonuevo declared in court that he was a farmer and was
picked up and seized by Huk Commander Tommy sometime in August 1951,
and was taken to Mt. Banahaw in Laguna and mustered in the ranks of the
Huks; that just before the elections of November 13, 1951, he saw
Pasumbal come to the mountains near Tiaong and talk to Commancer Abeng;
that on November 14th by order of Commander Abeng he with other Huks
left Mt. Banahaw for Tiaong; that when they crossed the Osiw River
already near Tiaong, they were net by Pasumbal and Isidro Capino; that
when they were outskirts of the town, he and the party were told by
Commander Tommy to attack the 8th BCT camp in Tiaong to prevent the
sending of army help to the town proper; that he took no part in firing
on the camp which returned the fire in the course of which he was
wounded; and that because of his wound he could not escape with his
companions to the mountains when the Army soldiers dispersed and drove
them out of the town and so he was finally captured by said soldiers.

As to defendants Pasumbal and Capino, their participation in and
responsibility for the raid was duly established, not only by the going
of Pasumbal on November 12th to the mountains following instructions
of Umali, and conferring with Commander Abeng asking him to raid Tiaong
and kill Punzalan, but also by the fact that Pasumbal and Capino in the
afternoon or evening of November 14 th met the Huks at the Osiw River
as the dissidents were on their way to Tiaong and later Pasumbal and
Capino were seen in the yard of Punzalan firing at the house with
automatic weapons and hand grenades.

What about Umali? His criminal responsibility was also established,
tho indirectly. We have the testimony of Amado Mendoza who heard him
instructing Pasumbal to contact Commander Abeng and ask him to raid
Tiaong and kill Punzalan. The rest of the evidence is more or less
circumstantial, but nonetheless strong and convincing. No one saw him
take part in the firing and attack on the house of Punzalan; now was he
seen near or around said house. Because of his important position as
Congressman, perchance he did not wish to figure too prominently in the
actual raid. Besides, he would seem to have already given out all the
instructions necessary and he could well stay in the background.
However, during the raid, not very far from Punzalan’s house he was
seen in the lanzonesan of his father, holding a revolver and in the
company of about 20 armed men with Huk Commander Torio, evidently
observing and waiting for developments. Then he and his companions left
in the direction of Taguan.

Umali and Pasumbal, however, claim that during the raid, they were
in the home of Pasumbal in Taguan, about seven kilometers away from
Tiaong where a consolation party was being held. There is ample
evidence however to the effect that they arrived in Pasumbal’s home
only around midnight. An Army soldier named Cabalona who happened to be
in Pasumbal’s home arriving there earlier in the evening and who was
invented to take some refreshments said that he did not see the two men
until they arrived about midnight when the Army reinforcements from
Lucena passed by on their way to Tiaong. Thus, we have this chain of
circumstances that does not speak in favor of Umali, or Pasumbal for
that matter. But this is not all. There is the rather strange and
unexplained, at least not satisfactory, behavior of Umali and Pasumbal
that evening of November 14th. Assuming for a moment as they claim,
that the two were not in Tiaong at the commencement of the raid between
8:00 and 9:00 p.m., and during the whole time the raid lasted, and that
they were all that time in the home of Pasumbal in Taguan, still,
according to their own evidence, they were informed by persons coming
or fleeing from Tiaong that there was a raid going on there, and that
some houses were burning. As a matter of fact, considering the
proximity of Taguan to Tiaong, a distance of about seven kilometers and
the stillness and darkness of the night, the fire and the glow produced
by the burning of three houses and the noise produced by the firing of
automatic weapons and the explosion of hand grenades and bottles of
gasoline, could and must have been seen and heard from Taguan. The
natural and logical reaction on the part of Umali and Pasumbal would
have been to rush to Tiaong, see what had really happened and then
render help and give succor to the stricken residents, including their
own relatives. It would be remembered that the houses of the fathers of
Umali and Pasumbal were in Tiaong and their parents and relatives were
residing there. And yet, instead of following a natural impulse and
urge to go to Tiaong, they fled in the opposite direction towards
Candelaria. And Umali instead of taking the road, purposely avoided the
same and preferred to hike through coconut groves so that upon arriving
in Candelaria, he was wet, mud spattered and very tired. Had they
wanted to render any help to Tiaong they could have asked the police
authorities of Candelario to send a rescue party to that town. Or
better still, when the army reinforcements from Lucena sent at the
instance of Punzalan, who at about eight or nine that evening was
returning to Tiaong that there was fighting in the town, he immediately
returned to Lucena to get army reinforcements to relieve his town, was
passing by Taguan, where they were, Umali and Pasumbal could have
joined said reinforcements and gone to Tiaong. Instead the two
continued on their way to the capital (Lucena) where before dawn, they
went and contacted Provincial Fiscal Mayor, a first cousin of Umali,
and Assistant Fiscal Reyes and later had these two official accompany
them to the Army camp to see Col. Gelveson, not for the purpose of
asking for the sending of aid or reinforcement to Tiaong but presumably
to show to the prosecution officials, specially the Army Commander that
they (Umali and Pasumbal) had nothing to do whatsoever with the raid.
Umali said he was trying to avoid and keep clear to Tiaong because he
might be suspected of having had some connection with the raid and
might be the object of reprisal. As a matter of fact, according to
Umali himself, while still in Taguan that evening and before he went to
Candelaria, somebody had informed him that Col. Legaspi of the Army was
looking for him. Instead of seeking Col. Legaspi and find out what was
wanted of him, he left in the opposite direction and fled to Candelaria
and later to Lucena, and the next day he took the train for Manila.
This strange act and behaviour of the two men, particularly Umali, all
contrary to impulse and natural reaction, and what other people would
ordinarily have done under the circumstances, prompted the trial court
in its decision to repeat the old saying “The guilty man flees even if
no pursues, but the innocent stands bold as a lion.” We might just as
well reproduce that portion of the decision of the trial court, to wit:

“* * *. Considering the fact that Taguan is very
near Tiaong so that even taking it for granted as true, for the sake of
argument, that the said accused were really in the party of Pasumbal on
the night on question, that would not prevent them from being in Tiaong
between 8 and 9. Besides, why was it that night the hasag lamp was
replaced with candles when the reinforcements passed thru Taguan about
the midnight of November 14, 195. Why did Cong. Umali and company
instead of going to Tiaong which was the scene of the attack, hurried
towards Candelaria, after the reinforcement has passed and went to the
house of Felix Ona walking thru a MUDDY PATH under the coconut groves?
Why was Umali afraid to pass thru the provincial road and preferred a
muddy road instead? Was he trying to conceal himself? Why did Pasumbal
and company also go to the house of Ona? Why did they go to the house
of Felix Ona instead of going to the house of Manalo who could have
given them better protection? And again why did Cong. Umali and the
other co-accused repaired and sought an early hour to the Army
authorities, did they fear any reprisal? From whom? Why did Umali go to
Manila from Lucena on November 16, 1951? ‘The guilty man flees even if
no one pursues, but the innocent stands bold as a lion.’”

At first blush it would appear rather unbelieveable that Umali and
Pasumbal, particularly the former should seek the aid of the Huks in
order to put down and eliminate their political enemy Punzalan. It
would seem rather strange and anomalous that a member of Congress
should have friendly relations with the dissidents whom the Government
had been fighting all these years. But if we study the evidence, it
will be found that the reason and the explanation are there. As already
stated, during the Japanese occupation, to further the resistance
movement, guerillas were organized in different parts of the
Philippines. One of these was the guerrilla unit known as President
Quezon’s Own Guerrillas (PQOG) operating in the province of Tayabas
(now Quezon) and Laguna. Umali,l Pasumbal, Commander Abeng and even
Punzalan himself were officers in this guerilla unit, Umali attaining
the rank of Colonel, and Pasumbal and Punzalan that of
Lieutenant-Colonel, Pasumbal then being known as “Panzer”. After
Liberation, Abeng joined the dissidents, and became a Huk commander. It
was unnatural that Umali and Pasumbal should continue their friendship
and association with Commander Abeng and seek his aid when convenient
and necessary. Umali admitted that he knew Huk Commander Kasilag.
Graciano Ramos, one of the witnesses of the prosecution told the court
that way back in May 1950, in a barrio of San Pablo City he saw Umali
confer with Commander Kasilag, which Commander after the conference
told his soldiers including Ramos that Umali wanted the Huks to raid
Tiaong, burn the presidencia and kidnap Punzalan. Of course, the last
part of the testimony may be regarded as hearsay, but the fact is that
Umali conferred with a Huk Commander as early as 1950. Then we have the
fact that on November 18 of the same year Punzalan wrote to President
Quirino denouncing Congressman Umali for fraternizing with the Huks and
conducting a campaign among them in preparation for the elections the
following year. And we may also consider the fact that the town of
Tiaong stands at the foothills of Mt. Banahaw where the dissidents
under Commander Abeng, tommy, Lucio, Aladin, and others had their
hideout, so that it was not difficult for residents of Tiaong like
Umali and Pasumbal to communicate and even associate with the
dissidents in that region.

After carefully considering all the evidence in the case, we are
constrained to agree with the trial court that the three appellants are
guilty. Besides, the determination of this case, in great measure,
hinges on the credibility of witnesses. The learned trial court which
had the opportunity of observing the demeanor of witnesses on the stand
and gauging their sincerity and evaluating their testimony, decided the
Government witnesses, including Amado Mendoza, to be more credible and
reliable. And we find nothing in the record to warrant correction or
reversal of the stand and finding of the trial court on the matter. We
have not overlooked the rather belated retraction of Amado Mendoza made
on October 31, 1952, about a year and 9 months after he testified in
court. Considering the circumstances surrounding the making of this
affidavit or retraction, the late date at which it was made, the reason
given by him for making it and the fact that when he testified in court
under the observation and scrutiny of the trial court bearing in mind
that he was the star witness for the prosecution and his testimony
naturally extremely important, and the trial court after the
opportunity given to it of observing his demeanor while on the witness
stand had regarded him as a witness, sincere, and his testimony
truthful, and considering further the case with which affidavits of
retraction of this nature are obtained, we confess that we are not
impressed with such retraction of Mendoza.

The last point to be determined is the nature of the offense or the
offenses committed. Appellants were charged with the and convicted of
the complex crime of rebellion and multiple murder, frustrated murder,
arson and robbery. Is there such complex crime with multiple murder,
etc.? While the Solicitor General in his brief claims that appellants
are guilty of said complex crime and in support of his stand “asks for
leave to incorporate by reference” his previous arguments in opposing
Umali’s petition for bail, counsel for appellants consider it
unnecessary to discuss the existence or non-existence of such complex
crime, saying that the nature of the crime committed “is of no moment
to herein appellants because they had absolutely no part in it
whatsoever.” For the present, and with respect to this particular case,
we deem it unnecessary to decide this important and controversial
question, deferring its consideration and determination to another case
or occasion more opportune, when it is more directly and squarely
raised and both parties given an opportunity to discuss and argue the
question more adequately and exhaustively. Considering that, assuming
for the moment that there is no such complex crime of rebellion with
murder, etc., and that consequently appellants could not have been
legally charged with, much less convicted of said complex crime, and
the information should therefore, be regarded as having charged more
than one offense, contrary to rule 106, Section 12 and rule 114,
Section 2(e), of the Rule of Court, but that appellants having
interposed no objection thereto, they were properly tried for and
lawfully convicted if guilty of the several, separate crimes charged
therein, we have decided and we rule that the appellants may properly
be convicted of said several and separate crimes, as hereinafter
specified. We feel particularly supported and justified in this stand
that we take, by the result of the case, namely, that the prison
sentence we impose does not exceed, except perhaps in actual duration,
that meted out by the Court below, which is life imprisonment.

We are convinced that the principal and main, tho not necessarily
the most serious, crime committed here was not rebellion but rather
that of sedition. The purpose of the raid and the act of the raiders in
rising publicly and taking up arms was not exactly against the
Government and for the purpose of doing the things defined in Article
134 of the Revised Penal Code under rebellion. The raiders did not even
attack Presidencia, the seat of the local Government. Rather, the
object was to attain by means of force, intimidation etc. one object,
to wit, to inflict an act of hate or revenge upon the person or
property of public official, namely, Punzalan who was then Mayor of
Tiaong. Under Article 39 of the same Code this was sufficient to
constitute sedicion. As regards the crime of robbery with which
appellants were charged and of which they were convicted, we are also
of the opinion that it was not one of the purposes of the raid, which
was mainly to kidnap or kill Punzalan and destroy his house. The
robberies were actually committed by only some of the raiders,
presumably dissidents, as an afterthought, because of the opportunity
offered by the confusion and disorder resulting from the shooting and
the burning of three houses, the articles being intended presumably to
replenish the supplies of the dissidents in the mountains. For these
robberies, only those who actually took part therein are responsible,
and not the three appellants herein. With respect to the crime of
multiple frustrated murder, while the assault upon policeman Pedro
Lacorte with a hand grenade causing him injuries resulting in his
blindness in one eye, may be regarded as frustrated murder; the
wounding of Ortega, Aselo, Rivano, Garcia and Lector should be
considered as mere physical injuries.

The crimes committed are, therefore, those sedition, multiple
murder, arson, frustrated murder and physical injuries. The murders may
not be qualified by evident premeditation because the premeditation was
for the killing of Punzalan. The result was the killing of three others
not intended by the raiders (People v. Guillen, 47 O.G. No. 7, p. 3433
and People v. Mabug-at, 51 Phil. 967). The killing may, however, be
qualified by treachery, the raiders using firearms against which
victims were defenseless, with the aggravating circumstances of abuse
of superior strength. The three murders may be punished with the
penalty of death. However, because of lack of necessary votes, the
penalty should be life imprisonment.

We deem it unnecessary to discuss the other points raised by the appellants in their brief.

In conclusion, we find appellants guilty of sedition, multiple
murder, arson frustrated murder and physical injuries. For the crime of
sedition each of the appellant is sentenced to five (5) years of prision correccional and
to pay a fine of four thousand pesos (P4,000.00); for each of the three
murders, each of the appellants is sentenced to life imprisonment and
indemnify the heirs of each victim in the sum of P6,000.0; and for the
arson, for which we impose the maximum penalty provided in Article 321,
paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code, for the reason that the raiders
in setting fire to the buildings, particularly the house of Punzalan,
they knew that even and actually saw an old lady, the mother of
Punzalan, at the window, and in view of the aggravating circumstances
of nighttime, each of the appellants is sentenced to reclusion perpetua
and to pay the indemnities mention in the decision of the lower court.
It shall be understood, however, that pursuant to the provisions of
Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code the duration of all these
penalties shall not exceed forty (40) years. In view of the heavy
penalties already imposed and their duration, we find it unnecessary to
fix and impose the prison sentences corresponding to frustrated murder
and physical injuries; however, the sums awarded the victims (Locarte,
Ortega, Aselo, Rivano, Garcia and Lector), by the court below will
stand. With these modifications, the decision appealed from is hereby
affirmed, with costs.

Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ. concur.

Mr. Justice Labrador did not take part.