THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MOROS UDAY ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

During an attack suddenly launched by a group of Moro bandits armed with
krises, bolos and revolvers at dam of November 10, 1942, against a detachment of
guerrillas stationed in the school building in the barrio of Dinas, Pagadian,
province of Zamboanga, and which lasted until about 10 o’clock in the morning of
said day, some members of the band, at about 6 o’clock of that morning, left the
attacking group and proceeded to the house of Rufino Hicten, about one hundred
meters from the school building. When the occupants of the house, Rufino Hicten,
his wife Maxima Ongue, and their two children, Dionisio and Necesia, saw the
onrushing Moros, they tried to escape, but unfortunately, only Dionisio, a young
man, succeeded in his attempt. Dionisio rushed to the nearby bushes and from his
hiding place he saw how Moros Usman, Cahal and Casam took turns in inflicting
mortal wounds upon his father, and thereafter, they with their arms hacked his
mother, and as the result of this sudden attack his parents lost their lives.
From his hiding place, which was only about fifteen meters distant from his
house, Dionisio also saw that Moro Uday was the one who was giving orders to his
companions. He witnessed the ransacking of his home by three other Moro
companions who stole therefrom personal belongings and cash of the total value
of P1,000, and, before leaving the premises, set fire to the house and forcibly
carried away with them his eleven year old sister Necesia.

When the Moros
had left, Dionisio emerged from his hiding place and found the dead bodies of
his parents. He notified the neighboring guerrillas accordingly and asked for
help. His parents were then buried. The next morning Dionisio reported the
matter to the commander of the guerrilla detachment and told him that he had
recognized Uday, Canal and Casam among those who had perpetrated the crime under
consideration.

The corresponding information was filed and after proper
proceedings, the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga proceeded with the trial
of only Moros Uday, Cahal and Casam, inasmuch as the other accused, Moros
Calamansing and Usman, died before the trial, and Moros Caring, Nandong and
Ugalingan were still at large. In view of the evidence taken, the court found
Uday, Casam and Cahal guilty of robbery in band with double homicide, instead of
brigandage with double murder as charged in the original information, and
considering the attendance of the aggravating circumstances of having committed
the crime by a band and the abuse of superior strength, and considering further
that the accused committed arson and kidnapped Necesia Hicten, the lower court,
although it said that the extreme penalty of death a.s provided by law should be
imposed, sentenced Uday, Casam and Cahal, each to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua, with the corresponding accessories, to indemnify
the heirs of Rufino Hicten and Maxima Ongue in the sum of P4,000, to pay said
heirs the amount of P1,000, the value of the personal belongings robbed by them
and their share of the costs.

Only Moro Casam has appealed, and in this
instance his counsel assails the correctness of the judgment of the trial court
on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence of the
prosecution.

From Our perusal of the record, We entertain not the least
doubt about the guilt of this appellant. The defense, concentrating its
attention on the testimony of Dionisio Hicten tried to show that he could not
have witnessed the tragedy during that morning of November 10, 1942 when said
witness saw how his father and mother were slain by the attacking Moros. It has
been shown that when the Hicten family sensing the approach of the Moros tried
to escape by hurriedly leaving their house, Dionisio, being at that time a young
man of about 18 years, was able to leave his house ahead of his parents and
sister. The latter were going down the stairway when they were met and attacked
by the incoming Moros, who set upon and hacked the spouses without giving them
any opportunity to save their lives. From his position of vantage, hidden in the
bush only about fifteen meters away from his house, he saw the part taken in the
attack by appellant and each accused. It was 6 o’clock in the morning when
Dionisio witnessed how Usman, Cahal and Casam, appellant herein, took turns in
mortally wounding his father and then turned their attention to his mother who
met a similar fate. He also testified that after ransacking their premises and
carrying away from it their personal belongings and money in cash they set fire
to the house and carried away with them his sister Necesia.

This
testimony of Dionisio Hicten is strongly corroborated by that of Eleno Fabriga
who was stopping at the house of Raymundo Ramonal situated near the house of
Hicten. Fabriga stated that upon noticing the coming of the Moros, he left the
house and hid himself in the nearby bushes and, while there, he witnessed the
onslaught by the Moros on the Hicten family, the ransacking of the house and the
burning of the same. A persistent questioning of this witness by counsel for the
defense, far from weakening his testimony, established the fact that not only
Dionisio Hicten but Eleno Fabriga had seen the furious attack of the Moros and
the individual participation of each accused, including this appellant, in the
killing, ransacking and burning of the house of Rufino Hicten.

Appellant
signed a confession, Exhibit A, whereby he admitted his participation in the
commission of the crime, bat at the trial he contended that it was secured by
means of violence and intimidation. This was promptly rebutted by the
prosecution through the testimonies of the justice of the peace of Pagadian and
of Captain Pablo Jose, both of whom verified the due execution and correctness
of the confession appearing in said Exhibit A. According to these witnesses the
document was read and translated to the appellant who was made to understand its
contents, after which Casam signed it freely and voluntarily. Questioned further
about the circumstances surrounding the preparation of Exhibit A, appellant
admitted that he had not complained to anyone, much less to his counsel, about
the alleged force and intimidation used to compel him to sign said
document.

As regards his alleged alibi, this appellant tried to prove
that since September, 1942, that is, about two months previous to the attack on
the guerrilla garrison and the killing of the Hicten spouses, he was a member of
a guerrilla unit. He could not, however, offer in evidence anything showing tJhe
issuance of some special order duly a signed by competent guerrilla officer
regarding his induction into the military service as such guerrilla member. The
only paper that he submitted in court was a supposed pass (Exhibit 5) signed by
one Major Mindalano and addressed to one Captain Kantoy, in Pagadian, Zamboanga,
recommending that the bearer “be given due recognition by your command whenever
they appear at your sector.” While it is true that that document is dated “22
April 1945,” more than two years after the concerted attack by appellant and his
other companions on the guerrilla detachment and the killing of the Hicten
spouses which took place on November 10, 1942, however, at the bottom of the
communication which embodies the pass there are signatures or notations made by
guerrilla officers regarding the fact that said document, Exhibit 5, had been
presented to them by bearer in May, 1945. Without casting any doubt as to the
authenticity of this pass or safe conduct, Exhibit 5 was evidently issued by
Major Mindalano, Major of Infantry of the USFIP guerrilla organization, not
before April 22, 1945; because, upon further examination of said Exhibit 5, We
find that the same is written on the back of a mimeographed copy of a
proclamation issued by General Douglas MacArthur from his headquarters,
Southwest Pacific Area, on the 29th day of December, 1944, which strengthens Our
conclusion that the alibi by means of which appellant Casam expected to show his
innocence in this case is absolutely groundless, not only for the reasons
already given, but because of the fact that this official copy of the MacArthur
proclamation could not have reached the theatre of operations in the Philippines
during the last war before the 29th of December 1944.

We, therefore,
logically conclude that appellant was not only a member of the group of Moros
who attacked the Hicten spouses at about 6 o’clock in the morning of November
10, 1942, murdered Rufino Hicten and Maxima Ongue, robbed the premises and
kidnapped Necesia Hicten, but also took an active part in the commission of
those criminal acts.

In view of the above, We hold that this appellant is
guilty of robbery with homicide as defined and penalized in Article 294,
paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code with reclusion perpetua to death,
regardless of the number of victims (People vs. Manuel, 44 Phil.
333).

In the imposition of said penalty We shall take into consideration
the attendance of the circumstances that the crime has been committed in band
and with treachery (U.S. vs. Perez, 32 Phil. 163; People vs.
Sawajan, 53 Phil. 689); that the fatal aggression by Casam and his companions on
their victims commenced when Rufino Hicten and Maxima Ongue were descending the
stairway of their house which is an integral part thereof (People vs.
Alcala, 46 Phil. 739). There being no mitigating circumstance which may
neutralize the effect of those aggravating circumstances, the penalty prescribed
by said provision of paragraph 1 of Article 294 should be imposed in its maximum
period.

In this connection, it should be stated that appellant was found
guilty by the trial court of slight illegal detention penalized in Article 268
of the Revised Penal Code with prision mayor. The Solicitor General recommends
that the maximum period of the penalty of prision mayor should be applied on
account of the presence of aggravating circumstances and that the corresponding
indeterminate penalty, should be imposed to consist of a minimum of not less
than 6 months and 1 day of prision correccional to a maximum of not
more than 12 years of prision mayor.

Notwithstanding what has
just been stated, We cannot disregard the fact that Moro Uday, who, according to
the evidence was the leader of the group of Moros who committed the offense in
question, was sentenced only to reclusion perpetua, and the judgment
became final because he did not appeal therefrom. In People vs. Sakam
(61 Phil 27) the Supreme Court, confronted with a situation similar to the one
now before Us, and believing that the ends of Justice will be served by the
affirmance of the judgment of the lower court, sentenced the appellant to
reclusion perpetua.

We hereby, therefore, affirm in toto the judgment of the lower court
which sentenced appellant to reclusion perpetua for the crime of
robbery with homicide; it being understood that this culprit, who has also been
found guilty of illegal detention under Article 268 of the Revised Penal Code,
shall likewise serve an indeterminate penalty of not less than 6 years and 1 day
to not more than 12 years of prision mayor. He shall pay the costs.

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