THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. TEODORICO EMPEÑO, AURELIO EMPEÑO, CECILIA ARCHETA, JESUFIN OR PEPING VERDADERO AND APOLONIO EMPEÑO, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Direct appeal, taken by defendants
Aurelio, Teodorico and Apolonio,
all surnamed Empeño, and Cecilia Archeta
and Jesufin Verdadero,
alias Peping, from a decision of the Court of First
Instance of Cagayan, the dispositive
part of which reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the Court
finds all the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of one murder
defined and penalized under Art. 248, of the Revised Penal Code, with respect
to the killing of Jaime Amilagan and another murder,
under the same article of the same Code, with respect to Ernesto Amilagan, and hereby sentences:

“(a)  Aurelio Empeño to
reclusion perpetua each in the two murders;

“(b)  Teodorico Empeño to reclusion perpetua each
in the two murders;

“(c)  Cecilia Ancheta to
reclusion perpetua each in the two murders;

“(d)  Jesufin or Peping Verdadero to reclusion perpetua each in the two murders; and

“(e)  As to Apolonio Empeño, being a minor, the Court hereby commits this
accused to a Correc­tional Institution, until he shall come of age, when, if
the said institution should find him to have con­ducted himself very well as a
good and law-abiding citizen, he may be released if so recommended ac­cordingly.  This boy should not spend the rest of his
life confined behind bars for having only followed his parents whom he owes love and loyalty; this should atenuate or mitigate the gravity of his act.

“All accused are to pay jointly and severally the heirs of the
deceased Jaime and Ernesto Amilagan, in the amount of
P6,000.00 in each case, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency.  All the accused are entitled
to one-half of their preven­tive imprisonment, being detained prisoners.

“All to pay corresponding proportionate costs of these
proceedings.”

The victims in this case, Jaime Amilagan and his brother Ernesto Amilagan,
had filed the application for pasture-lease agree­ment No. 22449, covering a
public land of about 200 hectares, in the Sitio of Daga, Municipality of Coner,
Province of Apayao, which Rogelio T. Cardenas, the
Acting Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau of Lands, had recommended for
approval.  Defendants Teodorico
Empeño and his wife Cecilia Archeta,
as well as their sons Aurelio and Apolonio Empeño and their son-in-law Jesufin
(Peping) Verda­dero, in
turn, held a small parcel of land which the Amilagans
claim to be within the area covered by their aforementioned appli­cation.  It appears that sometime before December 6,
1961, Teodorico Empeño had
made a “kaingin” in said parcel of land, in
view of which, he was, on December 6, 1961, accused of illegal “kaingin“, upon the recommendation of the
aforementioned Rogelio T. Cardenas.  The Empeños, in turn, filed a complaint against the Amilagans for the destruction of the corn of the former by
the cows of the latter.  Ap­parently,
these incidents had induced the Empeños to enclose
the area held by them with a barbed wire fence, which was broken, however, by
the Amilagan brothers, on June 11 or 12, 1965, in
order that their cows could pass through and go to the place where they were
sche­duled to be branded, on June 13, 1965.

On June 12, 1965, at 3 p.m., as
Jaime and Ernesto Amilagan, together with Pascual Contreras, Aurelio Balunsat,
Deogracias de Leon, Federico Amilagan
and Juanito Catnae were
walking single-file along a trail passing through a hilly place, covered
thickly by tall grass, coming from the corral of said brothers, defendant
Cecilia Archeta stopped them and asked Ernesto Amilagan why he had des­troyed said fence.  Ernesto answered that he had done so to let
his cows pass, in going to the branding place the next day.  Cecilia then remarked, in a loud voice,
“you are very tough,” whereupon Aurelio Empeño
emerged from the west side of the trail and forth­with gave Jaime Amilagan a bolo slash on the left side of the head.  Almost at the same time, Teodorico
Empeño came out of the tall grasses and immediately
swung his bolo at Ernesto Amilagan, who, in his
attempt to evade the blow, tripped over a muddy hole and fell down on his
face.  Thereupon, Aurelio hacked him on
the right side of the head.  Similarly, Teodorico swung his bolo at Ernesto, whereas Cecilia
clubbed him on the back, and, with a bolo slash, wounded two (2) of his
fingers.  At this juncture, Jesufin Verdadero and Apolonio Empeño appeared from
different directions and swung their respective bolos at Ernesto, whom Jesufin wounded on the upper part of the breast, near the
thorax, and Apolonio on the left leg.  Moreover, Teodorico
gave Ernesto another bolo slash on the left forearm.  The Amilagan
brothers died on the spot, due to hemor­rhage.

The defense maintains that the
injuries sustained by both had been inflicted by Aurelio Empeño
single-handedly and acting in self-defense. 
It tried to prove that, as Aurelio was fetching one of his carabaos, which was tied to a tree, in the afternoon of the
occurrence, Jaime Amilagan came and, immediately,
wounded him with a bolo slash, in his left forearm; that, thereupon, he
(Aurelio) drew out his own bolo and swung it at Jaime’s head; that Ernesto Amilagan then approached and attacked him with his
(Ernesto’s) bolo; that he (Aurelio) evaded the bolo slashes given by Ernesto
and reciprocated the same with his (Aurelio’s) own bolo, thereby inflicting
several wounds upon Ernesto; and that Teodorico Empeño, his wife Cecilia and their son-in-law, Jesufin Verdadero, were then
working on the concession of one Pacis, who was Jesufin’s landlord, about two (2) hours’ walk from the
scene of the occurrence.

Furthermore, Apolonio
Empeño – then below sixteen (16) years of age –
testified that, after taking his meal, on June 12, 1965, he went in search of
one of his carabaos, which he was unable to locate,
because, at about 3 p.m., Sgt. Taliping came and
invited him to go back to his house; that, on the way thereto, they met Aurelio
Empeño, who was wounded and drenched in blood, and ex­plained
that he had been wounded by Jaime Amilagan; and that,
thereupon, Taliping brought him and Aurelio to their
hut, near which they found the dead bodies of two (2) persons.

In this connection, it should be
noted that the theory of the defense is based mainly upon the testimony of the
defendants, where­as the version of the prosecution is supported by the
testimony of Pascual Contreras and Deogracias de Leon, who were with the Ami­lagan
brothers at the time of the occurrence and were corroborated by Sgt. Taliping.  After
analyzing the evidence, His Honor, the Trial Judge, in a carefully written
decision, accepted the version of the prosecution and found that of the defense
unworthy of cre­dence.  Indeed, the
defense maintains that the occurrence was triggered by Jaime Amilagan, who had allegedly attacked Aurelio Empeño and wounded him, on the left arm, with a bolo.  Sgt. Taliping
positively testified, however, that, when he met Aurelio Empeño,
that afternoon, immediately after the occurrence, he did not have any injury in
the body.  Then, also, Sgt. Taliping testified that, upon being informed by Aurelio Balunsat that there had been some killings in the ranch of
the Amilagans, he (Taliping)
proceeded thereto im­mediately; that, on the way, he met Apolonio
Empeño, whose clothes were stained with blood; that Apolonio was, moreover, carrying a blood stained bolo;
that, upon being asked to explain his condition, Apolonio
replied that he, his father Teodorico, his mother
Cecilia, his brother Aurelio, and his brother-in-law Jesufin
Verdadero, had killed Jaime Amilagan
and Ernesto Amilagan. 
Besides, Aurelio ad­mitted that the Amilagans
had no possible reason to try to kill him.

On the other hand, there is ample
evidence to the effect that the defendants harbored ill-feelings towards the Amilagan brothers, not only because the latter had
succeeded in securing a favorable indorsement of
their application for a pasture-lease agreement cov­ering an extensive area,
which included the land held and cultivated by the Empeños,
but, also, because the Amilagans had thrown down
their (Empeños) fence, apart from seeking their
prosecution for illegal “kaingin“.

The theory of the defense is
further weakened by the circumstance that the testimony of the defendants is
inherently incredible, for Apolonio Empeño would have Us believe that he did not even know the
names of the two (2) dead persons he found at the scene of the occurrence and
that he had never seen them before, although they were, in fact, neighbors.

Upon the evidence on record, We
are fully satisfied that, enraged at the destruction of their fence by the Amilagans, the de­fendants herein, armed with bolos, waited
for them, taking cover behind clumps of tall grass surrounding the trail
leading to the hut of the Amilagans, and that, as the
latter passed by that trail, in the afternoon of the occurrence, the Empeños, acting in concert with each other, attacked and
killed the Amilagan brothers in the manner testified
to by the witnesses for the prosecution. 
Having thereby acted with treachery, the crime perpetrated by the defen­dants
is that of double murder, committed by a band and with abuse of superior
strength, which are, however, offset by the mitigating circumstance of passion
and obfuscation, justifying the imposition of the penalty prescribed for said
offenses in its medium period, or life imprisonment, which is the penalty meted
out in the deci­sion appealed from.  The
same should, however, be modified insofar as the indemnity is concerned, which
should be increased to P12,000.00 for each of the offenses aforementioned.^[1]

With this modification, the
decision appealed from should be, as it is hereby affirmed, therefore, in all
other respects, with costs against the appellants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Reyes, Dizon, Makalintal,
Zaldivar, Fernando, Teehankee,
and Villamor,
JJ., concur.

Barredo, J., took no part.

Castro, J., on official leave.

^[1] People
v. Pantoja, G.R. No. L-18793, Oct.
11, 1968; People v.
Sangaran, G.R. No. L-21757, Nov.
26, 1968; People v.
Gutierrez, G.R. No. L-25372, Nov. 29, 1968; People v. Buenbrazo,
G.R. No. L-27852, Nov. 29, 1968; People v. Bakang,
G.R. No. L-20908, Jan. 31, 1969; People v. Labutin,
G.R. No. L-23513, Jan. 31, 1969; People v. Acabado,
G.R. No. L-26104, Jan. 31, 1969; People v. Vacal,
G.R. No. L-20913, Feb. 27, 1969; People v .Gonzales, G.R. No. L-23303-04,
May 20, 1969;
People v. Tapac, G.R. No. L-26491, May 20,
1969.