THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SENANDO PANGANIBAN, SAMSON PANGANIBAN, ELEUTERIO PANGANIBAN AND ROBERTO FLORES, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Appeal from a Judgment of conviction for the murder of Almaquio Martinez, appellants Senando
Panganiban and Samson Panganiban
having been found guilty as principals, the former sentenced to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua, and the
latter to suffer an indeterminate sentence of from, ten (10) years and one (1)
day of prision mayor as minimum, to
eighteen (18) years, two (2) months and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion
temporal as maximum, and appellants Eleuterio Panganiban and Roberto Flores as accomplices on whom were
imposed respectively the indeterminate penalty of from six (6) years and one
(1) day of prision mayor as minimum to
twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum
and the indeterminate penalty of from one (1) year, seven (7) months and eleven
(11) days of prision correccional
as minimum, to six (6) years and one (I) day of prision
mayor as maximum for appellant Flores, he being entitled to the
privileged mitigating circumstance of minority being only sixteen years of age
at the time of the commission of the offense, with each and everyone of the
above appellants being likewise sentenced to indemnify jointly and severally
the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P6,000.00 and with each one being
liable for one fourth of the costs.

There is no dispute as to the death of Almaquio
Martinez being due to acute hemorrhage arising from the multiple wounds
sustained by the injuries consisting of a total of nineteen wounds, seven
located on the head, ten on the right upper extremity, one on the lower
extremity, and one on the back with fractures on the skull, right arm and legs,
as well as contusions and abrasions on the left upper arm and the back.^[1]

It is indisputable likewise that what subsequently became a
guilty tragedy had its origin in a carabao owned by
the de­ceased, Almaquio Martinez, having been gored
by 2 carabao, belonging to one Rufino
Prado, which was then being tended by appellant
Samson Panganiban, with consequent damage to a
portion of the palay crop of former.  The incident took place on November 15, 1959 in Barrio San
Pedro, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro.  The matter
was sought to be settled by Emilio Lida, barrio
lieutenant of San Pedro, who, on November 17, 1959, drafted a document entitled
Kasunduan,^[2]
pursuant to which Samson Panganiban promised to lend
his carabao to Martinez while the injury lasted and
also to pay him one (1) cavan of palay
after harvest to compensate him for the loss of a portion of his crop.

It likewise appeared that it was not until November 24th that Almaquio Martinez could get hold of the carabao
owned by Samson Panganiban.  He tried to return it that afternoon of the
same day, but there was no one in the house of Panganiban
to receive it.  He brought it instead to
the barrio lieutenant, Lida, and left it under his
care for the night, promising to return in the morning expecting Samson Panganiban and his uncle, Eleuterio
Panganiban, one of the appellants, to meet him
there.  There was a misinterpretation of
such failure of the deceased to return carabao on
November 24th, Eleuterio Panganiban
thinking that in violation of the agreement, Martinez
deliberately hid the carabao.

The finding of the lower court as to the particulars pre­ceding
the fatal encounter could be briefly summarized thus:  At past noon, the next day, November 25th at
the yard of the barrio lieutenant, Lida, Eleuterio who was unarmed, Senando
Panganiban, another appellant, and Samson, each of
whom was armed with a bolo, and Roberto Flores, the last of the accused
appellants, who was holding a scythe and a piece of wood, were gathered.  At that time, the wife and daughter
respectively of the barrio lieutenant, Emilia Ganao and Milagros Lida, were in
the house, having returned from harvesting palay, the
wife then finishing her lunch while the daughter, who had just finished eating,
was sitting at the balcony reading comics. 
Appellants at the time were sitting on a pile of wood in the yard, about
17 meters away from the balcony.  The
deceased, Almaquio Martinez, soon made his
appearance.  He inquired from Emilia Gagnao, who was then by
the kitchen window, whether the barrio lieutenant was there.  Upon receiving a negative answer, he went to
the place where the four appellants were seated.

The version of the killing as accepted by the lower court could
be summed up thus:  The four appellants
stood up.  Eleuterio
Panganiban talked to Martinez,
while his three co-appellants surrounded the latter in a semi-circle.  They con­versed briefly.  Then Martinez
was heard be Milagros Lida saying in Visayan:  “Gindala ko diri para maayos
sang mahusay“, which means “I brought
it here so that the matter may be settled amicably”.   Without further ado, Eleuterio
Panganiban suddenly hit Martinez
on the face and knocked him down.  Then,
Roberto Flores, kicked him on the legs as a result of which Martinez
“was placed in a lying position face upwards.” From behind, Samson Panganiban hacked him on the nape with a bolo while almost
simultaneously, Senando Panganiban
struck him with his bolo on his right knee. 
Roberto Flores followed suit by clubbing the victim several times with a
piece of wood.  Samson and Senando continued the assault with their sharp boloes as he lay helpless on the ground.  During the gory incident, Eleuterio
Panganiban was heard shouting in Visayan
“Sigue, Samson, patia ninyo! Patia ninyo.”^[3]

There was testimony to the effect that Milagros Lida, filled with a deep sense of pity at seeing Samson Panganiban still continuing with his bolo thrusts on the
defenseless victim, shouted from the balcony “Samson, tama na, kaawa-awa naman
si Manong Making.”^[4]
Samson did pause for a while and glanced at the frightened Milagros, advancing towards
her with upraised bolo.  She promptly ran
inside the house and bolted the door after her. 
She was met at the door by her mother, who likewise saw what happened,
from her vantage point at their kitchen window. 
Samson Panganiban was by no means through; he
did use his bolo again on the prostrate body of Martinez.  Only then, in the company of the other three
appellants, did he leave the premises.

In their brief as appellants, the antecedents leading to the
death of Almaquio Martinez were set forth thus:  “At about 7:00
a.m. of November 25, 1949,
Eleuterio went to the house of the barrio lieutenant,
Emilio Lida, to find out why Martinez
brought their carabao to the said barrio
lieutenant.  Then Samson also
arrived.  At that time, Emilia Gagnao and Milagros Lida left their house to harvest palay.  The barrio lieutenant also left to look for
Martinez, while Eleuterio, Samson and Aladino Badi, who was called by
the barrio lieutenant to entertain the two, seated themselves in the balcony of
the house of Lida, conversing.  Emilia Lida arrived at about 9:00
a.m., saying that he could not find Martinez After which, he left
again to look for the latter.  The three
remained in the place talking up to 12:30 p.m.  When Lida did not
return, they went home.  Eleuterio and Samson went to the house of Samson in sitio Cambaroang which was about
one-half kilometer from Lida’s house.  They ate, after which, Eleuterio
took a rest, while Samson went to his field to clean the same.  Eleuterio then
returned to the house of Lida alone.  When he arrived in said house, nobody was in
the premises, so he sat on a sledge in the yard.  After clearing his field, Samson, with a
relative, accused Roberto Flores, proceeded to the house of Lida,
and on the way, they met Senando Panganiban
who was also going to the barrio lieutenant to look for his missing carabao.  When these
three arrived, there was nobody yet in the house as Emilia
Gagnao and Milagros Lida
were harvesting palay in Cambaroang
from 10:00 a.m. up to 3:00 p. m., together with Corita
Sualog, who took her lunch with the said mother and
daughter.  When Emilio Lida failed to arrive in his house, Eleuterio
instructed Flores to look for him, and he left.  After some moments, Martinez
came.  Eleuterio
was then seated on a sledge and Senando was behind
him, while Samson was near a well drinking.”^[5]

As to how the killing took place, appellants would impress upon
this Court that it happened thus: 
“Upon Martinez’
arrival, asked Eleuterio why they were there and in
reply, Eleuterio asked him why he brought the carabao to the barrio lieutenant.  Martinez
answered that he brought it there as they did not comply with the
agreement.  And then in a loud and angry
voice, he added, ‘You sons of prostitute, you are all good in amicable
settlement, I’m going to kill you and I am going to stay in Muntinlupa
for that.  Eleuterio
insisted that they settle the matter amicably. 
While they were conversing, Samson approached them and asked:  ‘Is it true that you promised to return the carabao after you are through making the furrow?’ Martinez
then answered:  ‘You are like that, sons
of prostitute.  Immediately after
uttering these words, Martinez
boxed Samson, but the latter was able to evade it.  Mart­inez
then took hold of the handle of his bolo as if he was going to draw the
same.  To defend himself, Samson hacked Martinez
with the bolo he was then carrying for fear that the latter would hack him
first.  As Martinez
drew his bolo (he was able to raise the bolo up to the level of his breast),
Samson did not stop hitting him.  He hit
him many times.  After the first blow of
Samson, Senando and Eleuterio
ran away for fear.  Eleuterio
did not deliver fistic blow to the deceased; Senando
also did not hack the victim on any part of his body; and Roberto Flores was
not at the scene of the crime when the incident happened.  During the incident Eleuterio
and Senando have no weapons.  When Eleuterio was
already far, he shouted at Samson to stop hacking the victim as the latter was
already dead.  After the incident Samson,
ran towards the pobla­cion and on the way he overtook
Eleuterio and Senando.  Samson accompanied by Eleuterio,
went to the municipal building and sur­rendered himself to the Chief of
Police.”^[6]

The lower court, after evaluating the evidence gave “full
weight and credit to the testimony of the State witnesses, which is probable,
clear and unbiased.”^[7]
The decision continues:  “There is
nothing in the records which shows that the witness for the prosecution – the
barrio lieutenant, his wife and his daughter could have been motivated by no
other desire than to tell the truth.  In
fact the barrio lieutenant is an elected public official and is pre­sumed to
have performed his functions regularly and well.  The two witness to the commission of the
crime, Milagros Lida, daughter of the barrio
lieutenant, and her mother, Emilia Gagnao, were undeniably at a vantage place in witnessing
the deadly assault by four accused on the deceased Almaquio
Martinez, as the daughter was in the veranda of their house overlooking the
yard where the crime took place, while the mother was at the window of the kit­chen
and there, was able to see very well the incident happening below the
house.”^[8]
Why their testimony should be believed was stressed by the lower court
thus:  “The testimony of mother and
daughter jibe with each other in all important details.  The deadliness of the attack of the said four
accused find corroboration in the great number of mortal wounds suffered by the
deceased Almaquio Martinez which were caused by sharp
bladed instrument.  On the head, he
suffered seven (7) wounds; on the right and left upper extremities he suffered
ten (10) wounds; and on the right lower extremity one wound.  There were contusions and fractures which
confirm the attack with blunt instruments. 
As the daughter the gruesome events, the court cannot help but be
impressed with her sincerity.  She was at
the time so overwhelmed by the recalling of the events that she sobbed on the
witness stand.”^[9]

The conclusion thus reached by the lower court must be
upheld.  It has, as was noted in People
v. Gumahin,^[10]
“in its favor the well-settled principle that as far as credibility is
concerned, the findings of the lower court which had the opportunity to see,
hear and observe the witnesses testify and to weigh their testimonies be
accorded the highest degree of respect by this Tribunal.” It is the rule then
for this Court to desist from “disturbing the conclusion of the trial
court concerning the credibility of the witnesses, * * *.”^[11]

In seeking a reversal, of the judgment of conviction, appellants
invoked the plea of self-defense in their two assigned errors although the very
wording of the first error assigned is quite indicative of their own lack of
complete belief in the plausibility of their plea as it is phrased in the
conditional, “the deceased could be the aggressor as he had a grudge
against, the appellants”, and the second merely would dispute the failure
of the lower court to give credence to their testimony that they acted in
self-defense.  In view of the number of
wounds of the deceased, nineteen (19) in number, the plea of self-defense
cannot be seriously entertained.  So it
has been constantly and uninterruptedly’ held by this Honorable Tribunal United
States vs. Gonzales,^[12]
to People vs. Constantino,^[13]
a span of sixty (60) years.

In the Gonzales case, the then Justice Torres considering ten
(10) wounds inflicted on the deceased correctly characterizes the allegation of
self-defense as “incredible because it is improbable.” In People v. Constantino, this Court, thru Justice Bengzon
had to reject the plea of self-defense which in his opinion was “belied
and negatived” by the “nature, number
and location of the decedent’s wounds”.  People v. Sornera,^[14]
speaks to the same effect thus: 
“The theory of self-defense on the part of Pablo is clearly negatived by the numerous (19) wounds inflicted upon
Felix.  Upon the other hand, such wounds
are indicative of aggression and of the participation therein of
appellant.  In another opinion of this
Court in People v. Mendoza,^[15]
it was persuasively stressed: 
“Finally, the number of wounds on the body of the deceased, and
their location as registered in the autopsy report, expose the inherent
weakness of the claim to self-defense. 
There were in all fifteen wounds, one in the neck, two in the abdomen,
seven in the chest and the others in the various parts of the arms”.  The two alleged errors assigned by appellants
therefore do not call for a reversal of, the judgment of conviction.

The lower court was correct in finding that the killing of the
deceased Almaquio Martinez constituted murder,
qualified by treachery.  The appropriate
penalty on each of the appellant as set forth in the opening paragraph of this
opinion, was meted out, Samson Panganiban being
entitled to the mitigating circum­stance of voluntary surrender and Roberto
Flores having in his favor the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.  With costs.

Reyes, J.B.L., (Acting C.J.), Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, and Angeles, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Exhibits A and C.

^[2]
Exhibit D.

^[3]
“Go ahead, Samson, kill him! kill him.”

^[4]
In rough translation: “That’s enough, Samson.  Have pity on Manong
Making (referring to the deceased.)

^[5]
Brief for the Appellants, pp. 4 and 5.

^[6]
Idem, pp. 5-6.

^[7]
Decision, Appendix to Appellants’ Brief, p. 33.

^[8]
Idem, pp. 33-34.

^[9]
Idem, at pp. 34-35.

^[10]
L-22357, October 31, 1967.

^[11]
People v. Orzame, L-17773, May 19, 1966, citing People v.
Lumayag, L-19142, March 31, 1965 and People v. Dayday,
L-20806, August 14, 1965.  See also People v. Tilaon,
L-14206, June 30, 1961 and
People v. Secapuri, L-17518, February 28,
1956.

^[12]
8 Phil. 443 (1907).

^[13]
L-23558, August 10, 1967.

^[14]
83 Phil. 548 (1949).

^[15] L-16392,
January 30, 1965.