THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. BLAS ABLAO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. BLAS ABLAO, FELIX ARCILLA AND MODESTO MANGUBAT, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

BENGZON, J.:


<div align="justify>

Review of a judgment imposing the death penalty upon Bias Ablao, Felix
Arcilla and Modesto Mangubat.

These three together with David Cotauco, Jr., were charged with murder and
double frustrated murder committed, according to the information, as
follows:

“>

The crime was committed with the aggravating circumstances of superior
strength and nighttime.”

David Cotauco, Jr., died December 26, 1957.

Upon arraignment in the Camarines Norte court of first instance, Bias Ablao,
55, and Felix Arcilla, 56, after expressly waiving their right to counsel,
pleaded guilty.

Modesto Mangubat denied all responsibility; and was accordingly given a trial
during which his co-accused Arcilla and Ablao and other witnesses testified for
the prosecution. He claimed he had nothing to do with the crime. Nevertheless,
the judge found him guilty, and in one decision, sentenced the said three
defendants to suffer the extreme penalty, and to indemnify the heirs of the
deceased in the sum of three thousand pesos. They were also required to pay
P600.00 to Maria Vargas, in addition to the costs.

The record shows that early in the morning of December 23, 1957, the three
prisoners were drinking wine in the store of one Manuel Dinka, in the
municipality of Mercedes, province of Camarines Norte. There they agreed and
planned to raid the house and store of Leoncio Egos, which was located about 300
meters away, near the seashore. Accordingly, they proceeded to the place, and
there Modesto and Bias entered the kitchen door. Arcilla stood guard at that
entrance, armed with a piece of wood. Upon discovering Leoncio Egos asleep,
Modesto Mangubat stabbed him several times with a knife (balisong). A son of
Leoncio, Dominador, eleven years old, was awakened and shouted. Whereupon, Bias
Ablao struck him with a hammer even as Mangubat stabbed him several times too.
That was not all; Mangubat went to another bed and stabbed Leoncio’s wife, Maria
Vargas, who was also hit by Ablao. Result: Leoncio Egos died soon after; his
wife and son sustained several wounds, which would have produced death had it
not been for the timely medical services they received from Drs. Ramos and
Gaerlan at the provincial hospital. Several canned goods disappeared from the
store together with Maria Vargas’ money amounting to P600.00, Modesto took from
her “aparador.”

Apprehended after four days at the indication of the injured boy, these
prisoners were investigated, and then brought to the justice of the peace and
the Clerk of Court before whom they voluntarily signed statements revealing
their complicity in the bloody depredation. (Exhs. A, B, B-I and II)

Whereupon, this prosecution started on January 7, 1958, before the justice of
the peace court, with a complaint subscribed by Capt. Jose N. Bolinao of the
Philippine Constabulary. In his order forwarding the case to the court of first
instance, the justice of the peace stated that these three defendants pleaded
guilty to the charge of robbery with murder and double frustrated murder.

In the face of above facts, the court rendered judgment as herein stated. The
record was forwarded for revision pursuant to Rule 118, sec. 9.

The attorney appointed by this Court to represent the interests of the three
defendants, has filed a brief practically admitting the main facts found by the
trial court as herein set forth, but ascribing errors in the appreciation of the
circumstances affecting the criminal liability of the accused.

There is no doubt about the guilt of Bias Ablao and Felix Arcilla. On January
17, 1958, when they were arraigned, they pleaded guilty to the charge. At the
beginning of the trial of Mangubat on January 29, same year, the court explained
to them the probable consequences of their plea; nevertheless, they reiterated
in open court, their admission of guilt previously made. Moreover, declaring for
the prosecution, they described with reluctance their respective acts of
commission and/or co-operation, although Bias claimed he was “ordered” by
Mangubat to hit the boy and his mother, whereas Arcilla claimed he was
threatened with a balisong by Mangubat to join the nocturnal
expedition. Needless to say, the “order” was no excuse. And as to the alleged
threat, Arcilla could have left after Mangubat and Bias had entered the house;
instead he stood guard at the door, wielding a club obviously to prevent others
from helping the victims or to inform his companions of the arrival of any
outside help.

Mangubat asserted he and Cotauco, Jr., had joined his two co-defendants that
night, at the Iatter’s invitation, and in the belief they were going to have a
drink; and that he merely stayed outside the house of Egos, with David Cotauco,
Jr, His story, however, flatly contradicts the version given by his two
co-defendants, who should be presumed to have told the truth, because they could
have expected no possible gain, since they had repeatedly admitted their guilt.
Besides, he was positively identified by Leoncio Egos as the assailant of his
unfortunate father, and of himself.

The crime was robbery with homicide.^[1]

We agree to the contention of the counsel de oficio that there was
no evident premeditation, nor unlawful entry. In fact, the Solicitor General’s
brief admits error in the matter. We also think nocturnity should not be another
aggravating circumstance, not for the reason indicated by counsel de
oficio, but for the reason that it is imbibed in the circumstance of
treachery which necessarily must be taken into account because two armed men
attacked a sleeping person, and a boy. Against the accused must also be
considered the circumstance of dwelling, and disregard of the sex of one of the
offended parties.

On the other hand, the accused Ablao and Arcilla are entitled to the
mitigation of plea of guilt. And all the three accused have in their favor the
circumstance of intoxication, inasmuch as the evidence shows they had been
drinking wine in the store of Dinka, immediately before committing the
crime.

There is thus a majority of aggravating circumstances. However, due to lack
of sufficient votes, the death penalty may not be imposed. Instead, the
prisoners will be Confined for life. Thus modified, the judgment of the court
below is affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

Paras, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera,
Gutierrez David, and Paredes, JJ., concur.

Judgment modified.

---

^[1] Art. 294, Revised Penal Code;
People vs. Manuel, 44 Phil., 333; People vs. Mantawar, 80 Phil., 817.