THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. BANDALI TAGACAOLO, BANCIL BANDALI, AND SUGANDIL TAGACAOLO, DEFENDANTS, BANDALI TAGACAOLO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

In the morning of June 13, 1951, Hoc Hong, alias Yap Kiana, his
wife, Sumanbuyan Tagacaolo, Segundo Bancil and Marcos Lampiada were found dead
in the house and store of said spouses, at Sanghai, municipality of Malita,
province of Davao. The deceased had multiple wounds, which are described in the
medico-legal report (Exhibit A) as follows:

“1. Hoc Hong, alias Yap Kiana (Chinese).—(a) A poorly-built in
structure, 48 years, male, married, merchant, born at Amoy, China, was already
found in the stage of rigor mortis, soaked with great quantity of clotted blood
assuming a prone position. The face appears quite indistinguishable as the
region of the face was macerated due to several inflicted wounds received.

(b) Wound, incised, neck, base, slightly in the oblique direction,
having sharp cleancut edges and totally cut. The organs involved and cut were
the esophagus, treachea, all principal blood vessels, nerves of the neck.

(c) Wound, face, multiple, which makes the appearance of the face
appears macerated, as wounds received were running in all directions. That cause
of death was instantaneous due to the fatal wound of the neck, which hemorrhage
was the secondary cause.

“2. Sumanbuyan Tagacaolo (Native)—(a) A well-built
individual and yound being 16 years, female, married and wife of Hoc Hong
alias Yap Kiana, one of the deceased, and from Moti, Malita, Davao, was
already in stage of rigor mortis, soaked with enormous quantity of clotted
(blood) assuming a semi-recumbent position.

(b) Wound, back, lumbar region, penetrating. Internal organs were
seen bulging. It measures 5 inches in length and having a clean-cut edge.

(c) Wound, fore-arm, right, totally cut.

(d) That cause of death was instantaneous which hemorrhage was the
secondary cause.

“3. Marcos Lampiada (Chinese Mestizo).—(a) A well-built in
structure, 15 years, male, single, and from Sanghai, Malita, Davao. That the
body was already in the stage of rigor mortis, soaked with clotted blood and
assuming the semi-recumbent position. (b) Wound, neck, totally cut. It involved
the base of the neck, cutting all principal blood vessels and nerves, esophagus
and treachea of the neck.

(c) Wound, hand, left, totally removed.

(d) Wound, incised, shoulder, left. It measures 4 inches in length
and 2 inches in depth.

(e) Wound, incised, shoulder, left. It measures 2.5 inches in length
and 1 inch in depth.

(f) That the cause of death was instantaneous and that hemorrhage
was the secondary cause.

“4. Segundo Bancil (Native).— (a) A well-developed
individual, 13 years, male, single, and from Sanghai, Malita Davao, was found in
the stage of rigor mortis soaked with clotted blood in great quantity.

(b) Wound, neck, totally cut, at the base of the neck.

(c) Wound, incised, multiple (4 in number), arm, right.

(d) That cause of death was instantaneous, and that hemorrhage was
the secondary cause.”

The bodies of Yap Kiana and Marcos Lampiada were on their respective mats,
about 3 meters away from each other, in a recumbent position, indicating that
they were attacked while asleep. Sumanbuyan Tagacaolo and Segundo Bancil were
about 6 meters and 3 feet, respectively, away from Yap Kiana. Moreover, the sum
of P150.00 and several articles the value of which aggregate P500.00, more or
less, had disappeared from the house. After due investigation by the
authorities, Bandali Tagacaolo, Bancil Bandali and Sugandil Tagacaolo were
accused of robbery with quadruple homicide. Upon arraignment, Bancil Bandali –
hereinafter referred to, for the sake of brevity, as Bancil – pleaded guilty and
was sentenced accordingly. Then, his co-defendants, Bandali Tagacaolo and
Sugandil Tagacaolo, who had entered a plea of not guilty, were tried separately.
In due course, the Court of First Instance of Davao thereafter rendered judgment
acquitting Sugandil Tagacaolo, for insufficiency of the evidence, with one-third
of the costs de oficio, and finding Bandali Tagacaolo guilty, beyond
reasonable doubt, as charged, and sentencing him to life imprisonment, with rhe
accessory penalties provided by law, and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased
in the sums of P3,000 and P650, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, as well as to pay one-third of the costs. Bandali Tagacaolo,
hereinafter referred to as Bandali, has appealed from this decision, and the
only question for determination before us is the sufficiency of the evidence to
warrant his conviction.

Upon a review of the record, we are satisfied that the issue must be answered
in the affirmative. It appears that Bandali is the father of his co-defendant
Bancil, who had pleaded guilty to the charge and is now serving the
corresponding sentence. Both lived in the former’s house in Malita, Davao,
together with Juan Mamat, alias Lumomban a son-in-law of Bandali and
brother-in-law of Bancil. Mamat testified that Bandali and Bancil left their
common dwelling on June 12, 1951, at about 6:00 p.m.; that said defendants did
not sleep in the house that evening; that they returned thereto on June 13,
1951, at about 4:00 a.m.; that Bandali then brought with him the ‘patakia” (a
container for chewing beetlenut and tobacco) Exhibit G, a firearm and a bolo;
that Bancil was then carrying a shotgun, which, later on, turned out to have
been taken from Yap Kiana, that upon inquiry by Mamat, appellant herein said
that Exhibit G had come from Yap Kiana, whom they had killed that night; and
that Bandali, however, warned him against reporting it to anybody.

This testimony was partly corroborated by Tumalasik Tagacaolo, who asserted
positively that the “patakia”, Exhibit G, is his property; that, sometime before
the occurrence, he delivered it, by way of pledge, to Yap Kiana; and that it was
supposed to be in the possession of Yap Kiana, at the time of his death, he
(Tumalasik) having failed to redeem it. Moreover, it is not disputed that when
the house of Bandali was searched by members of the police force, Exhibit G was
found inside his pillow, mixed kapok.

Upon the other hand, the evidence for the defense consisted merely of the
testimony of appellant to the effect that he had not committed the crime
charged; that he bought Exhibit G from Tumalasik; and that the incriminating
testimony of his son-in-law, Juan Mamat, was prompted by his alleged wish to
appropriate a land belonging to him (appellant). Clearly, however, this
testimony is insufficient to offset the evidence for the prosecution or to
impair either its credibility or its weight. To begin with, the alleged sale of
Exhibit G by Tumalasik is negated by the testimony of the latter, who had no
possible motive to commit perjury. Indeed, had Exhibit G been purchased by
appellant, he would not have hidden it inside his pillow.

Secondly, the improper motive imputed to Mamat can not be regarded as an
established fact, considering that appellant’s testimony is uncorroborated and
naturally biased, and that if, as the defense would have us believe, be was
advised by Mamat of his intention to appropriate said land, appellant would not
have allowed Mamat to continue living in his (appellant’s) house.

Thirdly, the testimony of Mamat was corroborated by that of Tumalasik, by the
fact that Exhibit G had been concealed by appellant inside his pillow, antf by
the circumstance that appellant had to resort to perjury in order to explain his
possession of said object, which Yap Kiana held at the time of his death.

There can be no doubt, therefore, about appellant’s guilt. Inasmuch as the
offense was commited with the aggravating circumstances of treachery, night
time, and dwelling of two of the victim, it becomes necessary to determine
whether the penaly of reclusion perpetua to death provided by law (Art.
294, par. 1, of the Revised Penal Code) should be imposed in its maximum period.
Considering, however, that appellant is an illiterate member of the
non-Christian tribes and that the number of votes necessary to mete out the
death sentence is lacking, the proper penalty is life imprisonment although a
member of the Court believes that, in view of the conditions under which the
offense was perpetrated, appellant shou!d never be pardoned and the decision
appealed from should be modified accordingly. Furthermore, the indemnity of P650
therein provided should be understood to be due to the heirs of the spouses Hoc
Hong, alias Yap Kiana, and Sumanbuyan Tagacaolo, to whom the stolen
property obviously belongs.

Thus modified as to the penalty, and with the aforementioned clarification as
regards the indemnity, said decision is hereby affirmed, therefore, in all other
respects, with costs against the defendant-appellant. So ordered.

Pablo, Acting C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo,
Labrador and Reyes, J. B. L., JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed with some modification.