THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF, VS. MARIANO TENORIO ALIAS MAGIN, DEFENDANT.

The death penalty having been imposed upon the defendant, his case
is before the Court for review and judgment pursuant to section 9, Rule
118, of the Rules of Court.

At about 5:30 o’clock in the afternoon of 5 April 1959 in the tennis
court of the plaza of Caoayan, Ilocos Sur, as a peace rally went on,
Mariano Tenorio alias Magin, a 23year old fisherman, stabbed
once with a 10-inch pointed bolo attorney Maximino Bello, former
governor of Ilocos Sur, inflicting a chest wound which caused his
death. On the same day, Leopoldo Pascua, the chief of police of
Caoayan, filed in the Justice of the Peace Court a complaint charging
Mariano Tenorio alias Magin with the crime of murder for the
death of attorney Maximino Bello (crim. case No. 530). On 10 April 1959
the accused waived in writing his right to a preliminary investigation
and would enter his plea in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur;
whereupon, the Justice of the Peace Court of Caoayan forwarded the case
to the Court of First Instance. On 15 April 1959 the provincial fiscal
Juvenal K. Guerrero filed an information charging Mariano Tenorio alias
Magin with the crime of murder attended by the qualifying circumstance
of evident premeditation and two aggravating circumstances, namely,
treachery and contempt of or insult to public authorities (crim. case
No. 3598).

On 16 April 1959, the day set for his arraignment, Mariano Tenorio alias Magin appeared without a lawyer. So, before arraignment the Court asked him whether he desired to have an attorney de oficio. The Court appointed attorney Loreto Roldan as counsel de oficio
after the.defendant had expressed his desire to have one. To afford the
accused and his counsel an opportunity to confer with each other, the
Court continued the arraignment to 11:55 o’clock a.m. At the resumption
of the arraignment, attorney de oficio Loreto Roldan stated
that after full explanation of the gravity of the offense charged and
the penalty that could be imposed on him the defendant was willing to
enter a plea of guilty, but prayed that, together with such plea, the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender be taken into
consideration. As voluntary surrender had to be proved on the same day and the next day, the Court-heard the evidence to establish it.
After hearing or trial, on 20 April 1959 the Court ruling that—

x x x the accused is not entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender. The accused did not surrender
voluntarily. He was cornered inside the fenced tennis court by two
policemen one chasing him from behind and the other whom he met face to
face. Thus, the accused had no other alternative but to throw away the
murderous weapon and submit to the authorities.

rendered judgment as follows:

WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Mariano Tenorio alias
Magin guilty of murder qualified by evident premeditation defined and
penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. In the
commission of the crime, the aggravating circumstances of treachery and
that the offense was committed in contempt of or with insult to the
public authorities—ironically during a peace rally—are present.
However, one of these aggravating circumstances is compensated by the
plea of guilty made by the accused. As these is one more remaining
aggravating circumstance, the maximum penalty prescribed by law should
be imposed. Therefore, the Court is constrained to sentence, as it
hereby sentences, the accused Mariano Tenorio alias Magin to suffer the supreme penalty of death, with the accessory penalties prescribed by law, and to pay the costs.

No amount of indemnity is provided in the decision as the right to file a civil action has been reserved.

x x x

After plunging the bolo into the victim’s chest, the defendant ran
toward the west in the middle aisle between the rows of benches
(Exhibit A). Then he ran northward toward the bamboo fence of the
tennis court facing the municipal building. Upon reaching a point about
four meters from the north-and-west corner of the fence, he saw
patrolman Isidro Cadaoas, a witness for the defendant, who, coming from
the municipal building, had just gone over the fence. Immediately, the
defendant threw away his bolo and raised his two hands. Patrolman
Cadaoas then drew his revolver. At that moment, patrolman Eduardo
Quatchon with drawn gun was about four meters behind the defendant.

The finding that the defendant “did not surrender voluntarily,”
because “he was cornered inside the fenced tennis court by two
policemen one chasing him from behind and the other whom he met face to
face,” cannot be sustained, because while running Away from where he stabbed the deceased up to the point near the bamboo fence where he
met patrolman Cadaoas, the defendant did not look or turn his face
back, so that he did not know that patrolman Eduardo Quatchon was
chasing him. That the accused did not look back was testified to by
patrolman Quatchon himself, a rebuttal witness for the prosecution. In
fact, even patrolman Isidro Cadaoas also did not notice that patrolman
Quatchon was running after the defendant as the people at the rally
scampered. If the defendant wanted to run away or escape, he would not
have run to the municipal building among many people who could easily
have stopped and subdued him, but even instinctively he could have run
toward the southeast opening of the fence, on the south of the stage,
thereby avoiding the crowd of people who attended the rally. Also the
fact that on seeing patrolman Cadaoas who had not even drawn his gun
the defendant threw away his bolo, raised his two hands, offered no
resistance and said to the patrolman “here is my bolo, I stabbed Atty.
Bello,” is indicative of his intent or desire to surrender voluntarily
to the authorities.

The claim that the aggravating circumstance of contempt of or insult
to public authorities did not attend the commission of the crime is
without merit. A public peace rally was going on at the place where the
defendant stabbed attorney Maximino Bello. Many people were present.
Among the public authorities present were Acting Provincial Governor
Manuel Villanueva, Mayor Isidoro Querubin of Caoayan, Judge Antonio
Quirino and municipal secretary Benjamin Quindipan. All these were
seated on an elevated stage easily seen or viewable by the public. The
place of the rally and of the crime was a public plaza, directly
opposite the municipal building of Caoayan. The defendant’s denial that
public authorities were there present cannot be accepted. Moreover, a
plea of guilty is an admission of the aggravating circumstances alleged
in the information.

The defendant must be credited with two mitigating circumstances, to
wit: plea of guilty and voluntary surrender. As these two offset the
two aggravating circumstances of treachery and contempt of or insult to
public authorities alleged in the information, the penalty for the
crime of murder for which the defendant is responsible must be imposed
in its medium period.

THEREFORE, pursuant to article 248 in relation to article 64 of the
Revised Penal Code, the judgment under review is modified and the
defendant Mariano Tenorio alias Magin is sentenced to reclusion perpetua, the accessories of the law, with costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, and De Leon, JJ., concur.
Reyes, J.B.L., J., took no part.