THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. DATUMANONG MONADI AND MASCARA MONADI, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

The four defendants in cases G. R. Nos. L-3770-71, namely, Datumanong
Monadi, Mascara Monadi, Racid Lucman, and Palawan Lucman, are appealing the
decision of the Court of First Instance of Lanao finding them guilty of the
crime of murder for the killing of Pangandaman P. Aguam (later to be
referred to as Pangandaman), and sentencing Palawan Lucman as principal
to the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and to indemnify the heirs of the
deceased in the amount of P2,000; and sentencing the other three defendants
Datumanong Monadi, Mascara Monadi and Racid Lucman as accomplices, each to an
indeterminate penalty of from six (6) years, one (1) month and eleven (11) days
of prision mayor to twelve (12) years, five (5) months and eleven days
of reclusion temporal and to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs
of the deceased in the sum of P2,000; and all four to pay proportionate
costs.

It is not disputed that on November 14, 1947, at about 7:30 p.m. as
Pangandaman was about to enter his house in Dansalan, Lanao, he was shot in the
back with a revolver, causing a mortal wound which resulted in his death a few
minutes later. The four appellants were charged separately in two informations.
First, Datumanong and his brother Mascara both surnamed Monadi and Moro Mapupuno
were charged with murder in Criminal Case No. 362 on March 27, 1948; later on
July 8, 1948, first-cousins Racid Lucman and Palawan Lucman were charged with
the same crime in Criminal Case No. 446. The two cases were tried jointly and
after the prosecution had rested its case, at the request of the prosecution
itself the case against Moro Mapupuno was dismissed for lack of evidence.
Extensive evidence was presented by the Government and the defense, the former
presenting 17 witnesses and later 3 rebuttal witnesses, and the defense
presenting about 29 witnesses.

According to the evidence and as found by the trial court in an exhaustive
and well-written decision penned by Judge Ramon 0. Nolasco, in the evening in
question Makasindig Umpat, Manking Aguam and Abdul Aguam, sister-in-law and
brothers, respectively, of the deceased were living in the latter’s house in
Dansalan, Lanao. At about 7:30 p.m. these three happened to be in the second
story of the house. Makasindig heard a knock at the door of the ground floor.
She hastened to answer it and opening the door she saw Pangandaman wiping his
shoes at the foot of the stairs preparatory to entering the house. At the same
time she saw the two brothers Datumanong and Mascara walk fast or run from under
the avocado tree in the yard, a few meters away from the door, toward two
gasoline drums standing near the stairs, and as they reached the same, she saw
Palawan Lucman stand up from behind the said two drums and with a revolver fire
the fatal shot hitting the deceased in the back. The Monadi brothers also aimed
their revolver at the deceased but because Makasindig shouted and cried for
help, they desisted and the three defendants fled. A few moments later, several
shots were heard from behind the house. Answering the cry for help for
Makasindig, Manking stood up from the table where he was at and because of the
shot or shots that he heard, he looked out the window and he saw five persons
running below, away from the house, all carrying revolvers. He recognized only
Racid Lucman and Palawan Lucman. He ran below and saw his brother sprawled below
the stairs. Makasindig informed him of the identity of the three men she had
seen but Manking told her not to reveal what she had seen to any one, not even
to the authorities because they (relatives of the deceased) would take care of
seeking revenge on the assailants. Makasindig and Manking carried the body of
the deceased inside the house. Abdul Aguam was in the toilet room upstairs when
he heard the shot and the cry for help. He hurriedly buttoned his pants, entered
the kitchen and looked out the window and he saw Racid Lucman followed by four
others among them Palawan Lucman, all running. As he descended to the ground
floor he saw Makasindig and Manking carrying the body of the deceased. It seems
that he was also informed of the identity of the three defendants seen by
Makasindig and he also enjoined her not to reveal their indentity because they
would take care of avenging the outrage. Condar Mama, a neighbor of the
deceased, also heard the shots. He went down his house and saw three persons in
the yard of the deceased but recognized none of them. Maungko Diro, another
witness for the Government stated that that evening he was walking along the
main road not far from the house of the deceased Pangandaman; in fact he could
see the house from where he was. As he reached a spot in front of the house of
one Sampaco Gubat he heard a shot followed by two other shots from the direction
of the house of Pangandaman. He stopped walking evidently to observe and later
saw Racid and Palawan running along a path from the direction of the house of
Pangandaman extending from the house of the deceased toward the main road; and
as the two defendants reached the highway he addressed Racid as Governor, the
latter being a Deputy Governor of the municipal district of Bayang, and asked
him where they came from. Racid curtly answered him with “Don’t ask us”. Just
then two other persons followed Racid and Palawan along the same path or trail.
Then Racid told those two to proceed to the lake; and “We will proceed to the
house of Damocao Alonto”.

In their defense appellants Datumanong and Mascara Monadi tried to prove by
their testimony and that of their witnesses that in the afternoon and the whole
evening of November 14, 1947, they were in the municipal district of Bayang
where they were then residing; that Bayang is on the farther side of the lake
(Lanao); that the only transportation then available from Bayang to Dansalan was
by boat and it would take several hours to travel the distance, and that
consequently, they could not possibly have been at the scene of the killing.
Racid and Palawan tried to prove that at the time that Pangandaman was killed,
they were in the house of Iki Alonto and Alauya Alonto. respectively, and that
upon being informed of the death of Pangandaman, they together with Atty.
Damocao Alonto and others hurried to the house of the deceased where they view
the body and later volunteered to join search parties that went around lake
Lanao in an effort to apprehend the perpetrators of the killing; that after a
fruitless search they returned to the house of the deceased around midnight and
Racid was even requested by the father-in-law of the deceased to look for a
truck to carry the dead body to the Municipal District of Ganasi where it was
buried the following day, Racid and Palawan attending the burial.

In the course of the hearing the trial judge made an ocular inspection of the
premises of the house of the deceased and he found that the two gasoline drums
from behind which Palawan shot at the deceased was only about one and half
meters from the door, easily visible from where Makasindig was standing at the
time of the shooting. Also visible was the avocado tree from under which the
Monadi brothers hurried to join Palawan behind the gasoline drums; that at the
time of the shooting, there was an electric bulb burning about 15 yards away and
another electric light inside the house near the door. The trial judge also
found that the houses of Iki Alonto and Alauya Alonto where Racid and Palawan
claimed to have been at the time that Pangandaman was killed were not so far
away, that is, they were only a few minutes walk from the house of the deceased
so that it was perfectly possible for these two defendants to have been near the
house of Iki Alonto and Alauya Alonto.

On the defense of alibi of the Monadi brothers, the trial court said that the
witnesses presented to prove alibi were closely related to them; besides, their
memory as to dates could not be relied upon for while they remembered Friday,
November 14, 1947, they could not however state with certainty other dates more
important to them and which concerned them personally, like the dates of the
births of their children or their marriages, and the court concluded: “In short,
their testimonies do not clearly and positively prove that the accused
Datumanong and Mascara Monadi were in the municipal district of Bayang on the
night in question.”

Pending appeal there was filed with us a motion for new trial on the ground
of newly discovered evidence which would consist of the testimony of several
witnesses who, if permitted to testify would say that two other persons not
included in the present case were the real killers of Pangandaman; that said
killers had confessed their crime to one of the proposed witnesses; that
defendants herein Racid and Palawan were among the first who rendered succor to
the victim (Pangandaman); and that all the prosecution witnesses were paid and
their testimonies fabricated, etc. The motion for new trial is accompanied by
affidavits of persons said to be willing to testify at said new trial. In the
first place, as well observed by the Solicitor General in his brief, the alleged
evidence is not really newly discovered evidence within the meaning of the law
because it could have been presented at the trial of the case, and that the new
trial sought would only serve to further delay the final disposition of this
case, and that furthermore, this so-called newly discovered evidence if allowed
to be presented would only affect the credibility of witnesses which has been
fully discussed by the trial court in its decision. Moreover, this is not the
first time that a motion for new trial of this nature has been presented to us.
We have considered similar motions for new trial where the very persons said to
be responsible for the commission of the crime, filed affidavits owning and
claiming the criminal responsibility, and yet we have almost invariably refused
to entertain and grant them, because of the inherent improbability of the
alleged new version of the commission of the crime, as well as the easiness and
facility with which such affidavits are obtained. For these reasons, we are
constrained to deny as we hereby deny the present motion for new trial.

The motive for the commission of the crime was in our opinion, duly
established by the prosecution. We quote with approval the findings of the trial
court on this point:

“Pangandaman P. Aguam and Rascid Lucman joined the guerrilla forces in Lanao
as first lieutenants. Pangandaman was promoted to captain, while Rascid remained
as First lieutenant. Pangandaman subsequently was made Assistant Chief of Staff
G-2 of the 108th Division under Col. Hodges, but Rascid was made Battalion
Commander only. When Rascid was proposed to be promoted to captain, Pangandaman
did not give his favorable recommendation thereto and his promotion was
disapproved. Immediately after the liberation and during the organization of the
Military Police Command in the Province of Lanao, Pangandaman, in his capacity
as Operations Officer, was directed to select ten (10) Moro Officers from the
Replacement Battalion in Camp Overton for integration in the Military Police
Command, Rascid Lucman was not selected by Pangandaman.

“At one time, Datu Umpat, father-in-law of Pangandaman, was shot and wounded
in Bayang, Lanao, by Barodi Monadi, a brother of Datumanong and Mascara Monadi
and a relative of Rascid and Palawan Lucman. Shortly thereafter, Barodi was shot
to death and as a consequence thereof, Ayonan Aguam, a son of Pangandaman and
three other relatives of said deceased, were accused in court in, connection
with the death of Barodi Monadi. (Criminal Case No. 141 of this Court.) In this
particular criminal case, the accused were acquitted execpt Rascal Dimalna, who
entered the plea of guilty. While the case was pending decision, Rascid Lucman
wrote a letter to the then presiding Judge of First Instance, of Lanao, Hon.
Felicisimo Ocampo, dated March 16, 1947, which has been marked as Exhibit H,
urging the conviction of the accused. A few months after, ‘that is on November
14, 1947, by way of revenge, the accused assaulted and fired at the deceased
Pangandaman F. Aguam, thereby causing his almost instantaneous
death.”

The determination of the guilt or innocence of appellants rests in large
measure upon the credibility of the witnesses presented by both parties. After
the hearing, and after the trial judge had observed the behavior and reactions
of said witnesses on the witness stand, he chose to accept the testimony of the
witnesses f6r the Government, considering them as more credible. We find nothing
in the record to warrant disturbing said finding and action of the lower court.
It will be remembered that each of the principal witnesses for the prosecution
does not pretend to have seen and recognized all the appellants; one witness saw
three men and recognized them all (Palawan, Datumanong and Mascara), two of said
witnesses claim to have seen five men running and recognized only two of them
(Racid and Palawan); and one witness recognized only two (Racid and Palawan) out
of the four men he saw hurrying from the direction of the house of the deceased.
If these witnesses for the Government had chosen to make an air-tight case and
clinch it for the prosecution, it would have been easy for them to have told the
court that they all saw only four persons and that they readily recognized said
four persons to be the appellants herein, this, without any fear of
contradiction or impeachment by the defense, and yet as already stated, they
actually testified as they did thereby rendering it more difficult for the
prosecution to sort out and correlate their different versions. This may
indicate that they were not rehearsed or taught to tell the same story.

After a careful appraisal of the evidence we agree with the trial court that
the guilt of the four appellants has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The
lower court as already stated, found that only Palawan who actually fired the
shot was responsible as a principal and that his co-accused should be considered
as mere accomplices. The Solicitor General disagrees with this appraisal of
criminal responsibility, he, believing that the four appellants should be held
responsible as principals. We are inclined to agree with the Solicitor General.
It is true that there was no direct evidence as to conspiracy among the four
appellants, but conspiracy can be inferred and proven by the acts of the accused
themselves when sai’d acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted
action, and community of interests. Here, the four appellants were seen together
at or near the scene of the crime, three of them at the scene itself, in fact
only about two meters from the man who was shot and killed by one of them. The
four of them, including Racid were seen running just behind the house of the
deceased and later two of them, Racid and Palawan, accompanied by two others
were seen and recognized running from the direction of the house of the deceased
toward the main road, and all that time these four accused were armed with
revolvers. As was said by this Court thru Mr. Justice Labrador in the case of
People vs. Panglina Mahlon, et al.,^[*] G. R. No. L-5198, April 17, 1953, on the
point of conspiracy:

“Actual cooperation with Sabtal and Mañon, the trigger men in the
assassination, is the only plausible or reasonable conclusion that can be
inferred from the fact that the three appellants were in company with Sabtal and
Mañon as they proceeded to the place where Lumundut was, and were armed with
blade instruments, as well as from the fact that they came back together from
the plaCe of the commission of the crime. The same inevitable conclusion is
obtained from the possession of the victim’s rifle by Mahlon as they came back.
If appellant merely approved of the assassination, it would not have been
necessary for them to join Sabtal and Mañon, and neither would they have carried
their weapons with them. * * All these acts of the appellants can point to no
other conclusion —that appellants conspired to commit the crime, and
are therefore all guilty as principals of the crime of murder were present at
the time of its commission, giving encouragement thereto by their armed
presence. It is unreasonable to presume that appellants were present only an
curious onlookers; possession of their weapons and company with the trigger men
just before and after the killing— all these are inconsistent with such an
assumption. On the other hand, these circumstances are not consistent with
innocence.”

Now, as to community of interests among the accused We start with the fact
that they are all closely related to each other by blood. Racid and Palawan are
first cousins, although many consider them as brothers. Datumanong and Mascara
are brothers. And the Lucmans and Monadis are relatives. It is not difficult to
see that the four of them had strong reasons to hate the family of the deceased
and to adopt measures, even ‘radical, to obtain revenge. The action of the
deceased while a guerrilla officer in blocking the promotion of Racid Lucman and
later failing to select him among the ten Moro officers for purposes of
integration, must have caused resentment in Racid who by the way seems to be the
most intelligent and active among the four accused and possibly the moving
spirit among them. He seems to be the one giving the orders although in the
actual killing, he was behind the scenes. Then, came the killing of Barodi
Monadi, brother of Datumanong and Mascara, wherein relatives of Pangandaman were
strongly suspected as the killers. In fact, Ayonan Aguam, the son of Pangandaman
was included among the four defendants accused in the murder case. Pending the
preparation and promulgation of the decision in that case Racid wrote Exhibit
“H” to Judge Ocampo who tried the case and later decided it, telling the Judge
that the four accused in that case were all guilty and urging their conviction.
However, three of the defendants therein were acquitted including Ayonan Aguam,
son of the deceased, and only Rascal Dimalna, a minor who pleaded guilty to the
charge was found guilty and he was not punished either because being a minor it
would appear that he was sent to the reformatory. All this, must have embittered
Racid and his co-accused, including the two brothers Datumanong and Mascala
Monadi who perhaps must have felt the death of their brother Barodi was not duly
avenged. On this point of the custom among the Moros in Lanao of taking the law
into their hands, preferring to adopt measures and avenge any outrage committed
on them or their kins, the trial court found this to be prevalent} at least at
the time, and this will explain why despite the investigation conducted by the
authorities, including the police and the Constabulary, the two criminal cases
in the lower, court accusing the four appellants herein were filed several
months after the killing.

In conclusion, we find the four appellants guilty as principals of the crime
of murder. With the modification that all four are to be sentenced to the
penalty of reclusion perpetua, and to jointly and severally indemnify
the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P6,000, the appealed decision is hereby
affirmed, with costs.

Bengzon, Acting C. J., Padilla, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo,
Labrador, Concepcion, and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concur. ‘

Judgment affirmed with modification.

^[*] 92 Phil., 883.