THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MANAUL KOMAYOG, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Manaul Komayog was prosecuted in the
Court of First Instance of Lanao charged with murder together with Mama Manaul,
his son, who was acquitted. The court found against Manaul Komayog and sentenced
him to reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in
the sum of P2,000.00, and to pay one-half of the costs.

Kasan Bongcarawan
was shot in the stomach as he was busy working In his farm and died from the
effects of the wound. The prosecution says Manaul Komayog killed the now
deceased; the defense says Mama Manaul did.

Sambatara Malomalo, a school
teacher, testifies that on June 22, 1946, as he was walking to the market in
Alog he heard “a firing;” he thinks he heard two shots. When he turned his head
in the direction of where the shots came from, he saw Manaul Komayog discharge
empty shells from his rifle, and flee with his companions, who were Mama Manaul,
Pindugar Atoy, Malican Pagalad and another man whose name he could not remember.
They ran towards barrio Calantai where there was a kota. When Kasan Bongcarawan
was shot, Manaul Komayog was less than 200 meters from him (witness), and the
distance between him and Kasan Bongcarawan was less than 200 meters. He hurried
towards the injured man to help him and found a big wound on the right side of
the stomach. When he reached the place where Kasan fell, two men, he thinks,
were already there, Arimao Tugaso and Dimanang Dida-ogon.

Arimao Tugaso
testifies that between 7 and 8 o’clock in the morning he was on his farm
planting rice. He saw Mama Manaul and Manaul Komayog walking along the river
bank followed by three other persons. When they reached the creek, Komayog fired
twice at Kasan Bongcarawan. He, witness, was about seven brazas from
Manaul Komayog when the latter opened fire while the distance separating him and
Kasan was more than ten brazas. He did not see anybody else shoot. Mama
Manaul, who was also carrying a firearm, was beside his father but the witness
did not see Mama use his gun. After shooting Kasan Bongcarawan, Manaul Komayog
shouted, “Let us run away. I hit,” and Komayog and his companions sped away
towards Calantai where there was a kota. He and three others carried
Kasan to his house.

Pitted against the preceding testimony is the
following evidence for the defense

Pendugar Ontong, mentioned by
Maloraalo as one of the men who was in the company of the defendants and who was
discharged on motion of the prosecution in the Justice of the Peace Court, said
that on the morning of June 22, 1946, he was in Kilausan, in the house of
Vice-Mayor Mendir, where he lived. Asked what happened on that date, he
answered, “The one who went to the scene said that Kasan was killed by Mama
Manaul.”

Maulod Bongo, another of the men said to have been with the
defendants, was put on the stand but was withdrawn when the Fiscal admitted what
the witness was going to say, namely, that the complaint against him was
dismissed by the Justice of the Peace on motion of the prosecuting
officer.

Macapangkat Pasaulan testifies that he knew Manaul Komayog; that
on June 22, 1944, in the morning, he was in the market at Alog in company with
Manaul Komayog, who, he said, had met him on the way and told him, “Macapangkat,
wait for me!”; that at the market, he and Komayog bought “carabao” and tobacco;
that when they were bargaining for carabao “a certain fellow arrived and shouted
that Mama Manaul, son of Manaul Komayog, killed somebody;” that upon hearing the
news, he and Manaul Komayog, upon his suggestion, went home and “saw a group of
people near our home. So, we thought that perhaps it was true that Mama had
killed someone.”

Anter Anderike testifies that he was a tobacco dealer;
that on Saturday, June 22, 1946, in the market at Alog, he sold tobacco to
Komayog and Macapangkat and heard people say that Mama had shot
Kasan.

Mama Manaul, 14 years old, testifies that he killed Kasan
Bongcarawan with a revolver because Bongcarawan approached him when he was
working on the land of his father telling him, “You get out, boy, from our land.
Don’t work there”; that Bongcarawan also said, “Are you not going to vacate our
land, or I will kill you?”; that he did not heed Bongcarawan’s threat and the
deceased fired at him with a revolver; that he was not hit and he drew his own
revolver and returned the fire; that he did not know where he hit Bongcarawan
because he ran away after firing at the deceased; that when he ran he threw the
revolver away because he was afraid; that Manaul Komayog was not with him,
having gone to the market at Alog.

Manaul Komayog testifies that Mama
Manaul shot and killed Kasan Bongcarawan; that he was in the market at Alog when
that incident happened, having heard of it only in the market.

We are
satisfied beyond doubt that Manaul Komayog was the killer. The three principal
government witnesses1 testimony is cogent and convincing in its details. The
crime was committed in buoad daylight and no question of mistaken identity or
improper motive is involved. Neither of the two eye-witnesses for the government
had any reason to pin the blame on the father instead of on his son if the
latter was really the author of the crime.

The cause of the trouble was
the fact that Kasan was tilling the land Komayog claimed to be his property.
Barely 13 years old and single handed, Mama Manaul would not likely have
challenged or defied the deceased. It is admitted that the latter was peacefully
working on his farm and did not seek the fight. Furthermore, no firearm: appears
to have been found on Kasan’s person or near him after he was shot, and no
question was asked the prosecution witnesses by the defense counsel about such
matter. The reason why Mama Manaul assumed full responsibility to the exclusion
of his father is easy to imagine. Being below 14 when the crime was committed,
he could claim exemption from criminal liability if pronounced to have acted
without discernment. The alternative was confinement in a reformatory school.
This, Mama Manaul admitted in court, he understood.

The Judgment of the
lower court is affirmed with costs of this instance.

Moran, C. J., Ozaeta, Paras, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor,
Reyes, and Torres, JJ., concur.