THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. AQUILINO ARAGON AND RAMON LOPEZ, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

For having killed their principal teacher at the Masbate National
Agricultural School, these two appellants were tried and found guilty
of murder. They were consequently sentenced to life imprisonment and to
pay solidarily to the heirs of the deceased P6,000.00, and to defray
the costs.

We find them guilty too, but only of homicide, and in view of the
circumstances, we considerably reduce their term of imprisonment.

On January 12, 1956, these young men between 17 and 18 years of age,
clubbed and hammered to death one Gabino G. Buhay, 55, Acting Principal
Teacher of the said school, where they were students. The wounds found
on the cadaver proved that such maltreatment caused his demise.

The accused Aquilino Aragon declared under oath that while he and
his co-accused Ramon Lopez were sleeping in their cottage in the school
campus, at Mandaon, Masbate, at about eleven that morning, Buhay
violently kicked him. He rose to his feet only to be roughly pushed
against the wall. Then Buhay kicked Ramon Lopez. In retaliation, the
latter picked up a piece of wood and tried to hit Buhay. The latter
grabbed the wood and attempted to hit Lopez in turn. It was then that
he (Aragon) picked up a hammer, and struck Buhay on the head, even as
Lopez retaking the piece of wood beat Buhay twice, knocking him down.
Then both students left the place, and surrendered to Policeman
Felixberto Laguerta in the market of the town.

Ramon Lopez testified to the same effect.

Policeman Laguerta swore that, when the two defendants surrendered
to him, they admitted having killed their principal teacher because he
had kicked them while they were both sleeping.

On the other hand, all the prosecution could prove by its witnesses
was that the students “fought” with their principal teacher. Nilo
Vargas, the only eye-witness declared that, while on his way to his
cottage that morning, he saw Buhay quarreling in the cottage with Lopez
and Aragon, one armed with a wooden cudgel and the other with a hammer,
and that he hurried to report “the fight” to a teacher by the name of
Pedro Panganiban. Indeed, the latter swore that Vargas came and
reported to him that there was a “fight” between the above-mentioned
parties.

His Honor, the judge of Masbate Province, discounted the story of
the defense. He concluded that the attack was premeditated and
treacherous. If the deceased had kicked the accused, he explained, he
(Buhay) “could not have lessened his awareness to the danger of
retaliation from the students whom he kicked. The two accused, as was
said, are young and teenagers. They could not have thought of immediate
retaliation against the principal of their school upon being kicked off
their bodies by the deceased and even if they could not think immediate
retaliation, they could not have effectively attacked the deceased as
to successfully disable him. The number of wounds sustained by the
deceased unmistakably shows the suddenness and violence of the attack
made on his person. The Court believes that the two accused were lying
in ambush against the deceased and when the latter inserted his head
through the door into the room where the accused had their sleeping
quarters, one must have struck him with the piece of wood which made
him dizzy and fall down to the floor. At this stage, the two accused
struck him several times with the weapons whieh they have in their
possession until he lost consciousness. * * *.”

It is quite probable that His Honor was unduly influenced by the
affidavit of Silvestre Legal, accompanying the original complaint, to
the effect that both defendants had tried to convince him the night before
that “if Mr. Buhay enters our cottage that night on inspection, we will
kill him”. However, that affidavit was not introduced as evidence. And
Legal, while on the witness stand, neither ratified his affidavit nor
said anything about the point.

Of course, there is some measure of plausibility to the inferences
and assumptions of the judge. But the version of the accused is also
plausible considering specially that the deceased was admittedly prone
physically to chastise (with kicks and fist blows) the students to
impose discipline, and the defendants apparently played truant: instead
of attending the classes that morning, they slept in their quarters. In
the circumstances, it is more consonant with the theories underlying
our criminal procedure to accept—though reluctantly—the defendants’
account.^[1] In fact, the
Solicitor-General’s brief states that “the assault launched by the
appellants against the principal was spontaneous and done on the spur
of the moment when they were awakened from their sleep by the kiek
given them by the deceased.”

Therefore, not murder, but homicide is what these defendants
committed. They could not plead self-defense, be cause at no time were
their lives endangered, the kicks and blows being known to them as a
mere disciplinary measure, excessive though it may be.^[2]

In Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, homicide is punished with
reclusion temporal. As the offenders were, at the time of the killing
between 17 and 18 years of age, under Article 68 of the same Code, the
next lower penalty prision mayor^[3]
should be imposed in the proper period. There were two mitigating
circumstances: voluntary surrender and provocation. On the other hand,
the resulting insult to the offended party on account of his rank
(principal of the school) aggravated the offense.^[4]
The proper period then would be prision mayor in its minimum. Applying
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the appellants should be sentenced to
imprisonment for not less than three years of prision correccional^[5] nor more than eight years of prision mayor.

Modified as to the personal penalty, the appealed judgment is affirmed in all other respects. So ordered.

Paras C. J., Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.
Padilla and Endencia, JJ., took no part.

---

^[1] Their story may not be
entirely believed, because, if as they say. Buhay got the wooden piece,
it is amazing that none of them suffered any contusion; strong and
robust as the latter was (43 t.s.n.)

^[2] U. S. vs. Carrero, 9 Phil., 544; U. S. vs. Pirmo, 37 Phil., 183; People vs. Yuman, 61 Phil., 786.

^[3] People vs. Fulgencio, (L-5370) promulgated November 10, 1952.

^[4] U. S. vs. Cabiling; 7 Phil., 469.

^[5] People vs. Gonzales, 73 Phil., 549.