THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JUAN C. MAGUDDATU, EDIPOLO L. MAGUDDATU, CHARLES A. MAGUDDATU, PEDRO MAGUDDATU AND ANTONIO CABAYU, ACCUSED WHOSE DEATH SEN…

This is an automatic
review of the decision of the Court of First Instance of Cagayan, finding
Pedro, Juan, Edipolo and Charles, all surnamed Maguddatu, and Antonio Cabayu
guilty of double murder, imposing on each of them two death penalties and
requiring them to pay solidarily the heirs of the victims, the brothers Rogelio
Ilac and Cesario Ilac, an indemnity of P50,000 (Criminal Case No. 183-S). Edipolo and Pedro died in prison on
September 29, 1976 and June 17, 1983, respectively.

There is no question as to the corpus delicti, the fact that the brothers, Rogelio Ilac and Cesario Ilac,
were maliciously killed in the evening of January 25, 1972 at Sitio Cabaritan, Barrio Dana-ili,
Abulug, Cagayan. The municipal health
officer examined the bloated cadavers which had floated in the river.

Rogelio, 26, widower, had four stab wounds in the right and left arms, in the clavicle and
abdomen, a gunshot wound in the lumbar, region and another gunshot wound in the
chest (Exh. B). The body was tied to a
fifty-pound cemented boulder placed on top of the abdomen. The wrists and ankle were tied with nylon
cords (Exh. C and D).

Cesario’s wrists, upper
extremities and ankle had ligature marks. He sustained a two-centimeter long wound in the abdomen. A steel hub of the tire of a six-by-six
truck weighing about 20 pounds was tied to his body (Exh. H and I).

There is no doubt that
the five accused were in­volved in the case. But how and why were the Ilac brothers killed? The trouble with this case is that the prosecution has two conflicting versions as to the
manner and motive for the killing.

The version adopted by the trial court and the Solicitor General
is based on the testimony of Reynaldo Ilac, 20, the brother of the victims, who was the only alleged
eyewitness of the killing.

Reynaldo’s narrative is contradicted by the extrajudicial confessions of
the five accused who reiterated their confessions on the witness stand (each
one testi­fied while the others were not present to dispel the impression of
collusion). The confessions were
offered in evidence by the prosecution as Exhibits K, L, P, Q and R.

Version of Reynaldo. –
Reynaldo testified that in the evening of January 25, 1972 while he and his two brothers were on their way home seven armed men, five of whom were the
accused and two were unidentified, accosted them. Rogelio, 26, and Cesario, 22, were en­circled by the men. Reynaldo, who was following his brothers,
was able to elude the men and hide in the coconut grove nearby.

He saw Cesario beaten
with their guns by Charles and Cabayu while the others took
their turns in mauling him. The two
unidentified assailants held the other brother, Rogelio, and jabbed him with
the barrel of their carbines. Juan beat
him with his carbine. The maltreatment
lasted for about six minutes.

Then, the assailants
dragged the two brothers to the house of a certain Iniang Ligates where they
stayed for a few minutes. They brought
the victims to their banca and headed northward. Reynaldo lost sight of them. He knew the Maguddatus and Cabayu because they lived in Barrio Centro,
Abulug.

Reynaldo, in his sworn statement
before a Constabulary sergeant and in his declaration in the preliminary
examination, intimated that the motive for the killing was the fact that he and
his brothers were from Barrio Bidduang, Pamplona, Cagayan (pp. 8 and 10, Record).

Iniang Ligates was not
presented during the trial by the prosecution to corroborate the testimony of
Reynaldo. Note that his own sworn
statement and testimony at the preliminary
examination have a significant
omission: he did not specify or describe the manner of the killing. The
assault and maltreatment were
not mentioned therein.

Version of the accused
in their confessions. – On the other hand,
according to the five confessions or
admissions of the accused, on the night in question, while
they were returning from Barrio Sirit, Abulug, where they attended a dance, and when the motorized banca wherein they
were riding was at Sitio Cabaritan, Barrio Dana-ili, they saw on the bank three
persons leading a carabao. Suspecting
them to be cattle rustlers, they stopped the banca and landed on the bank. Edipolo, armed with a bolo (duckial), pursued one of the three men whom he killed because he resis­ted. He
did not know the man’s name (he was Cesario Ilac).

Charles, armed with a carbine, and Juan, armed with a bolo (immuko), killed
their quarry whose name they also did not know (he was Rogelio Ilac). Pedro and Antonio chased the third
man who was able to escape.

Then, Charles, Juan and
Edipolo tied the two dead bodies with wire and nylon rope, weighted them with a
piece of cement and scrap iron, placed the cadavers in the boat and submerged
the same in the river near Sitio Gandia. The five accused are related to each other and to Mayor Inocencio
Maguddatu of Abulug.

Counsel for accused
Cabayu contends that the trial court erred in holding that he committed murder,
in not believing his confession and in not acquitting him. Accused Charles Maguddatu and Juan Maguddatu
argue that the trial court erred in not giving cre­dence to their plea of
self-defense, in holding that there was conspiracy, and that treachery, evident
premeditation, use of a motorized banca and cruelty are aggravating, in
imposing double death and, alter­natively, in not holding them guilty of homicide
only.

Ruling. – We
hold that the primary evidence in this
case consists of the confessions or admissions of the five accused
which should prevail over the uncorroborated testimony of Reynaldo Ilac. That testimony does not jibe with his own
affidavit and declaration during the preliminary examination.

Reynaldo did not state in
his affidavit and during his interrogation
by the municipal judge how the killings were perpetrated. This gives the clear impression that his testimony during the trial as to how his brothers
were killed was an afterthought. No other witness
confirmed his testimony on the killings. Such testimony cannot be considered as proof beyond reasonable doubt of
the guilt of the accused.

At first blush, the
confessions or admissions against penal interest may show conspiracy. The accused agreed to pursue the
three Ilac brothers: Edipolo going
after Cesario Ilac, Charles and Juan going after Rogelio Ilac, and Pedro and
Cabayu going after Reynaldo.

Yet this particular
arrangement, which was dictated by the behavior of the Ilac brothers, disclosed
individual and separate liability rather than collective responsibility. That is the peculiarity of this case.

Edipolo alone was
responsible for the killing of Cesario. Charles and Juan were responsible for the killing of Rogelio. Pedro and Cabayu have no criminal liability
at all because their prey was able to escape.

Even under the version
given by Reynaldo Ilac, treachery and evident premeditation cannot be appre­ciated
as qualifying circumstances. The
assault was made on the spur of the moment. Abuse of superiority would have been the proper qualifying circumstance
but said circumstance was not specifically alleged in the information.

No case for self-defense
is made out in the confessions of Edipolo, Charles and Juan. It is certain that the victims were unarmed.

For the killing of
Rogelio Ilac, Charles and Juan are guilty of homicide aggravated by abuse of
superiority, use of the motorized banca (in disposing of the corpse) and
cruelty. Weighting the victims’ bodies
with a cement boulder and hub cap and tying their
wrists and ankles with nylon cord and wire constitute an outrage on their corpses as contemplated in article 248(6) of the Revised Penal Code as distinguished from article
14(21) which speaks merely of deliberately augmenting the wrong done in the commission of the crime causing other wrong not necessary to its commission.

They are entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender to the authorities.

WHEREFORE, the trial court’s judgment is modified. For the homicide committed by Charles
Maguddatu and Juan Maguddatu, they are sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of
twelve yeas of prision mayor as minimum to twenty
years of reclusion temporal as maximum and to pay solidarily an
indemnity of twenty thousand pesos to the heirs of Rogelio Ilac.

Antonio Cabayu, whose guilt was not proven beyond reasonable
doubt, is acquitted. His immediate release is ordered unless he
is being held for some other crime. Costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, C.J., Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, Plana,
Escolin, Vasquez, Relova, and Gutierrez,
Jr., JJ., concur.

Teehankee, J., no part.

Makasiar, J., see dissent.

De Castro, J., on leave.

Melencio-Herrera, J., see opinion
below.