THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. TOMAS DOMINGO 1ST ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

This is an appeal by the seventeen defendants from a judgment rendered by the
Honorable Francisco Santamaria, judge of the Third Judicial District, finding
Tomas Domingo the First, Tomas Domingo the Second, Catalino Domingo, Isidro
Domingo, and Teodorico Domingo guilty as principals of the crime of homicide and
sentencing each of them to imprisonment for a period of twelve years and one day
of reclusion temporal, with the accessory penalties provided by law,
and finding Luciano Tolentino, Policarpio Domingo, Donato Pascua, Rosendo
Quelnat, Servando Viernes, Anacleto Pascua, Cesareo Domingo, Geronimo Viernes,
Eugenio Julian, Marciano Mateo, Bruno Mateo, and Fortunato Mateo guilty as
accomplices of the crime of homicide, and sentencing each of them to
imprisonment for a period of six years and one day of prision mayor,
with the accessory penalties provided by law. The five principals were further
condemned jointly to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Pio Victoriano in the
amount of P1,000. Finally, each of the defendants was sentenced to pay one
seventeenth part of the costs. During the pendency of the appeal, Teodorico
Domingo died, and the appeal as to him has been dismissed with one seventeenth
part of the costs de officio.

We find the facts to be as follows: A certain piece of land in the
municipality of Piddig, Ilocos Norte, had been sought as a homestead by two
factions. In November, 1916, the property apparently was held in the name of
Caridad Bolibol, widow of Lorenzo Andres. Rice had been planted on the property
by the servants of the widow. Members of the opposing party, including Pio
Victoriano, coming upon the land on November 11, 1916, proceeded to harvest the
rice. The retainers of Caridad Bolibol offered objection but no serious trouble
ensued. That same night it is probable that the adherents of Caridad Bolibol
gathered at the house of Tomas Domingo the First, the lieutenant of the
barrio, and received instructions from him to meet early on the
following morning so as to kill their enemies from Laoag. At any rate, on the
following day, November 12, 1916, the seventeen defendants proceeded to the
field in question. Meeting Pio Victoriano and his companions, Tomas Domingo the
First exclaimed in a loud voice, “Here are the people of Laoag; take your clubs
and we will kill them all.” Thereupon, Tomas Domingo the First and those with
him attacked Pio Victoriano and his companions and so seriously assaulted
Victoriano as to cause his death soon after. Tomas Domingo the First, Tomas
Domingo the Second, Catalino Domingo, Isidro Domingo, and Teodorico Domingo were
those who struck Victoriano on the head and hit him after he was down. The other
twelve stood around, brandishing their clubs to keep their victim from
escaping.

The defendants tried to convince the lower court that four of their number
were attacked by four of the men of Laoag, that those four defendants in
self-defense each struck one of their adversaries, and that immediately each of
those four defendants was seized and held by two other defendants to prevent
further fighting. This story, however, is unreasonable, and is inconsistent with
the facts substantiated by numerous witnesses for the prosecution, and
corroborated by the statements of the defendants directly after the affray and
the presence of fourteen clubs picked up by the police in this field after the
fight. While there may be some question as to the exact cause and details of the
homicide, there is certainly none as to the criminal responsibility of the
defendants.

The lower court convicted the defendants of homicide qualified by no
aggravating circumstance and mitigated by the circumstance of lack of education.
It would be possible, in accordance with the proof, to find the defendants
guilty of murder because of the presence of premeditation. It might be possible
also to make use of the aggravating circumstance of advantage being taken of
superior strength. But there existing in the minds of a majority of the court
some doubt as to the concurrence of premeditation and of any aggravating
circumstance, such doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused: It results,
therefore, that the penalty imposed by the lower court on the four principals
and the twelve accomplices is in accordance with law. One exception to this
statement is regarding the order of the court that the principals pay jointly an
indemnity of P1,000 to the heirs of the deceased Pio Victoriano. Article 125 of
the Penal Code makes no such distinction between the civil liability of
principals and accomplices. Accordingly, this order of the lower court must be
modified so as to make the defendants and appellants liablejn solidum in the
order established in said article 125 to pay an indemnity of P1,000 to the heirs
of the deceased Pio Victoriano. Each defendant and appellant shall pay
one-seventeenth part of the costs of this instance with one-seventeenth part of
the costs declared de officio. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Johnson, Araullo, Street, and Avanceña,
JJ., concur.