THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. FELIX MAGPANTAY AND EUGENIO ALCARAZ, ACCUSED AND APPELLANTS.

REYES, J.B.L., J.:

Review of the decision of the Court of First Instance of Oriental Mindoro, in
its Criminal Case No. R-1788, for multiple murder, sentencing the accused,
Arnulfo Estabaya, to the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and imposing on the
other accused, Felix Magpantay and Eugenio Alcaraz, the death penalty; ordering
them to pay, jointly and severally, the heirs of each of the ten deceased
persons named in the information the sum of P6,000.00, and to pay the
proportionate costs. The dispositive portion of the decision states, in addition
to the foregoing, that “the penalties herein imposed are subject to the
provision of Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code in case of commutation of
penalties”, and that the accused shall be credited with one-half of their
respective preventive imprisonment.

The indictment, under date of 19 January 1960, to which these three accused
pleaded guilty, charges them as follows:

“That on or about the 2nd day of June, J950, at 7:30 o’clock in the evening,
more or less, in the barrio of Villa-pagasa, municipality of Bongabon, province
of Oriental Mindoro, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused. Felix Magpantay, Arnulfo Estabaya, Eugenio
A1cazar and Catalino Fajardo, all provided with unlicensed carbine rifle caliber
.30 conspiring and confederating together, mutually helping one another and
acting in common accord, with treachery and evident premeditation and the
decided purpose to kill, taking advantage of the darkness of the night and their
superior strength, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously way laid, ambushed,
attacked, assaulted and shot Lope Cadacio, Emillio Claveria, Doroteo Malabanan,
Albino Sarian, Rosendo Raes, Ignacio Francisco, Hermogena Atilano, Catalino
Gervacio, Filomeno Macalalad and Alejandro Fernandez with their said carbine
rifles, while the victims were riding in a passenger-jeep bearing Plate No.
TPU-14016, and inflicting upon them several gunshot wounds in the different
parts of their bodies which caused their instantaneous death.

“That in the commission of the crime, the qualifying circumstance of
treachery and the generic aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation,
and taking advantage of their superior strength, are present.

“Contrary to law.”

The fourth accused Catalino Fajardo having pleaded not guilty, the decision
under review was rendered with respect only to those named heretofore. The
judgment considered two aggravating circum- stances, those of evident
premeditation and superior strength, as present in the commission of the crime;
Arnulfo Estabaya was, however, credited with the mitigating circumstances, those
of plea of guilty and voluntary surrender, while Magpantay and Alcaraz were
credited with one mitigating circumstance, that of having pleaded guilty.

In addition to their plea of guilty, each of the three accused, Magpantay,
Alcnraz and Estabaya, insists on the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender. Magpantay claims, in addition thereto, lack of instruction. Estabaya
adduced no evidence when the fiscal admitted that his surrender was voluntary.

In support of their claim for additional mitigation, Magpantay and Alcaraz
declared that, after committing the crime, at about 7:U0 in the evening of 2
June 1959 they went for the purpose of surrendering, to a certain Labo, a former
barrio lieutenant of Villapagasa. They met him at about ten o’clock that same
night. Labo refused to accept their surrender because he was no longer the
incumbent official of the barrio; whereupon, Mappantay requested him to send
word to the municipal mayor, Angel Rodriguez.

The accused then proceeded to barrio Rosacara, but the barrio lieutenant
there also refused to accept their surrender on the ground that the crime was
committed outside his territory. Magpantay requested him to fetch the mayor. The
trio then proceeded to barrio Sapang Dagat, and from there Catalino Fajardo this
co-accused had been with Magpantay and Alcaraz) prepared a letter to PC Sgt.
Araman.

From Villapagasa to the poblacion of Bongabon is a distance of about
13 kilometers; Rosacara is farther by some kilometers. The route taken by the
accused from the scene of the crime was away from the poblacion and
towards the mountains. . On the second day of the incident, the accused had been
informed that PC soldiers had been issued orders to kill them at sight.

Mayor Rodriguez of Bongnbon was informed of Magpantay’s desire to surrender
to him at about seven o’clock in the morning of 10 June 1959. He reported the
matter to the PC detachment in Bumagui and to Colonel Ver. That same morning
Magpantay, in tears and without a firearm, surrendered to the mayor in a sitio
of Villapagasa, about two kilometers inland from Liberty Sawmill. Thereafter,
the mayor delivered custody of Magpantay to Colonel Ver at the sawmill where he
had waited, as pre-arranged with the mayor.

Sgt. Araman, P.C., received Fajardo’s note of surrender on the 11th of June,
referred it to the provincial commander, contacted Fajardo and Alcaraz on the
12th, slept with, them that same night, and on the following morning, on their
way to the poblacion, the sergeant delivered the accused to his
superiors. The accused then handed over their carbines.

Testifying in rebuttal for the prosecution, Sgt. Exequiel, Martinez asserted
that civilians had informed the PC, of the whereabouts of the accused and that
the area was cordoned with 160 soldiers. Said witness opined that this
contingent provided no means of escape to the accused. When and how the area was
cordoned was not touched upon, nor did he explain how escape had become
impossible. Nor was it established that the accused knew’ of their Aliened
encirclement and that it prompted them to surrender in earnest.

We agree with herein appellants Alcaraz and Magpantay that the court below
should have appreciated in their favor the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender Not only was there failure to prove that they felt that they had no
other alternative course; but the fact that the PC authorities had waited at a
designated place for the mayor to bring Magpantay down shows that they
con-informed to his offer of voluntary surrender PC Colonel. Vcr waited at the
sawmill to receive the surrender and not to capture him. The same thing can be
said of appellant, Alcaraz, because the PC had prior knowledge of his offer to
surrender when, on receipt of Fajardo’s letter, Sgt. Araman referred it to the
provincial commander; nor can it be contented that the P.C. officers and men
effected a capture when they met Sgt. Araman and accused Alcaraz and Fajardo,
already peacefully on their Way to the poblacion.

The flight of the accused from the scene of their crime to the mountains
cannot be taken as belying their bona fide intention to surrender,
because the evidence is unrebuted that they did earlier take steps to surrender.
After “ommitting the crime, they defied no law or agent of authority, and when
they did surrender, they did so with neekness and repentance.

Appellant Alcaraz, undisarmed, slept with Sgt. Araman in an isolated place;
had ho been wanting in sincerity, Alcaraz, together with Fajardo, could easily
have overpowered the sergeant, hut did not do so. On the following morning, when
the trio met the constabulary men on the way to the poblacion, Alcaraz
surrendered himself and his rifle without any trouble.

We find no particular reason, however, to disturb the trial court’s rejection
of Magpantay’s alleged lack of instruction as a mitigating circumstance. His
answer to the questions propounded to him show that he understood the
significance of his acts, notwithstanding his illiteracy (People vs. Ripas, et
al., 95 Phil. 63; People vs. Sari, L-7169, May 30, 1956).

The narration of the commission of the crime in the information avers five
(5) circumstances which may qualify or aggravate the crime, namely: treachery,
evident premeditation, superior strength, noclurnity, and band. However, in the
succeeding paragraph, it specifies only the qualifying circumstance of treachery
and the generic aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and superior
strength, without alleging anew the other circumstances. In view thereof, the
Solicitor-General believes that only evident premeditation and abuse of superior
strength should be taken into account in deter- mining the penalty to be
imposed, “since the view more favorable to the accused is that they had in mind”
these two aggravating circumstances, which were reiterated by the fiscal in the
paragraph following the narration of the commission of the crime “presumably for
emphasis or clarification”. To this view we agree. This separate specification
certainly could have misled the accused and diverted their attention from the
other aggravating circumstances included in the detailing of the crime. Under
the circumstances, appellants in all probability pleaded guilty upon the
estimation that the two aggravating circumstances stressed in the last portion
of the iiifonruitio” could be, and were, neutralized by their voluntary
surrender and plea of guilty. The doubt should be resolved in favor of the
accused, considering that they were in no way to blame for the ambiguous terms
in which the information is couched.

Wherefore, the appealed judgment is affirmed, in so far as it finds the
accused truilly of ten (10) separate murders, and modified by declaring that the
aggravating circumstances of premeditation and superior strength were balanced
by the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of guilty.
Consequently, the penalty should be that of the imprisonment (reclusion
perpetua) for each offense, to be successively served up to the maximum
limit of forty (40) years imprisonment provided by Article 70 of the Revised
Penal Code.

The solidary civil indemnity of P6,000.00 for each one of the ten persona
slaughtered, payable to the respective heirs, is also affirmed. Each appellant
shall pay one fourth of the costs.

Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Barrera, Parades, Regala, Makalintal,
Bengzon, J. P. and Zaldivar, JJ. concur.