THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SOCORRO MONGAYA AND FELIPE MONGAYA, ALIAS JOSE MONGAYA, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Appeal from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Samar imposing upon the defendant Socorro Mongaya the penalty of reclusión
perpetua and upon defendant Felipe Mongaya, alias Jose Mongaya, an indeterminate sentence of from 12 years and 1 day to 17
years, 4 months and 1 day.

At about 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon of September 3, 1963, Juan Briones
was working in his ricefield in Barrio Lipata, Allen, Samar. 
The brothers Socorro Mongaya and Felipe Mongaya who, due to previous
incidents, harbored ill-feelings towards Angel Garcia, Sr., and his family, came passing by and asked Briones if he had seen Santos Garcia.  Briones asked why
they were looking for Santos
Garcia.  Socorro replied “If only I
will see him now, it will not last up to tomorrow morning, we will kill
him.” Briones followed the two brothers to the poblacion of Barrio Lipata
with the intention of warning Angel Garcia,
Jr., elder brother of Santos.  After crossing the bridge, Briones stopped by the
house of his son, Jesus, where he drank a glass of water and played for a short
time with his grandson.  But before he
went up the house of his son, he saw the Mongaya
brothers some distance from the bridge standing and looking around.

At about 6:00 o’clock P.M.,
he (Briones) went down the house of his son to go to the house of Angel Garcia, Jr.,
which was about one hundred meters further ahead.  When he reached the house of Gregorio Pollente, he heard someone groaning near a hill planted to
bananas.  As he cast his eyes in that
direction he saw Socorro Mongaya Stabbing with a
long-pointed weapon the chest of Santos Garcia while Felipe Mongaya
held the latter fast by the left arm.  Briones, seized with fear, scampered away towards the ricefield, and his home. 
While running he looked back and saw Santo staggering towards the house
of his brother, Angel, pursued by the two Mongaya
brothers.

Angel was in his house at the time and heard his brother Santos
utter, “I was stabbed by Socorro Mongaya and
Felipe Mongaya“. 
Beaming his flashlight on the stairs, he saw his brother bathed in blood. 
A short time later, Pelagio Pornelos, step-father of the Mongaya brothers,
arrived, went up the house and
told Angel Gar­cia, Jr., “You better not go out any more with
your family so that your life and the
lives of the members of your family will not be in danger”.  After delivering the warn­ing, he
left.  Also caught in the beam of Angel’s flashlight were Socorro, who
was holding a blood-stained, long-pointed weapon, and Felipe, both standing on
the stairs.  They also left immediately.          

At about the same time, Jose Macabare,
barrio Lieutenant of Lipata, was resting in his house, when Pornelos
arrived and informed him that Santos
had met with a mishap, namely, that he had been stabbed by his step-sons,
Socorro and Felipe.  Macabare
told Pornelos to go ahead to Angel Garcia’s house and
he would follow.  Macabare
went to Angel’s house and on seeing Santos Garcia lying in a prone position
with his abdomen bleeding, he placed his hand on Santos’
right shoulder and asked who wounded him. 
Santos replied that Socorro
wounded him while Felipe held him.  On
hearing this declaration, Macabare told Angel to put
it in writing.  Angel did so, and Macabare held the thumb of Santos
and placed the imprint of the latter’s thumb on the declaration.  Macabare then
affixed his sig­nature on the declaration as a witness.

Santos was then
placed on a jeepney and taken to the Allen
Emergency Hospital,
where he died.

The autopsy report shows that six stab wounds were inflicted on
the chest and abdomen of Santos Garcia, and that his death was caused by severe
hemorrhage due to the stab wounds.

The trial court, without giving legal reasons, found the two
defendants guilty of murder.

The first point for
determination, not discussed in the lower court’s decision, is whether there
was conspiracy between the two brothers. 
The point is a vital one because without conspiracy, the liability of
the defendants would not be that of principals, but individual, that is, each defendant would be liable only for his own acts.  Conspiracy means previous concert of criminal
design or participation in the same criminal intent.  The evidence shows that at about five o’clock in the afternoon, when the two Mongaya
brothers, who had been looking for Santos Garcia, came passing by the ricefield being tilled by Juan Briones,
Socorro asked the latter if he
had seen Santos Garcia; that when asked why they were looking for Santos
Garcia, Socorro replied:  “If only I will see him now, it will not last
up to tomorrow morning, we will kill him”; that the two brothers then
continued walking in the direction
of the poblacion,
Juan Briones following them at a distance with the
intention of going to the house of Angel Garcia, Jr. (Santos’ elder brother),
to inform him of the plan of the Mongaya brothers to
kill Santos; that on the way, Juan Briones stopped
for a while at the house of his way, son in order to drink a glass of water and
to play with his grandson; that he saw at a distance the Mongaya
brothers near the bridge and they appeared to be waiting for some­one; that at about six o’clock in the same afternoon he resumed walking
towards the house of Angel Garcia, Jr.;
that when he reached the house
of Gregorio Pollente, he heard someone groaning near
a hill planted to bananas; that casting his eyes in that direction he saw
Socorro Mongaya stabbing Santos Garcia with a
sharp-pointed weapon at the chest, while Felipe Mongaya
held Santos Garcia fast by the left arm; that seized with fear he scampered
away towards the ricefleld and his home; that while
running, he looked back and saw Santos Garcia staggering towards his elder
brother’s house pursued by Socorro
and Felipe.  These facts and circumstances clearly show
that there was previous concert of criminal design or participation in the same
criminal intent, which was conspiracy. 
In other words, the concerted acts performed by the defendants clearly
show their individual, direct participation in the execution of the crime,
which they had agreed to commit.

The second question for
resolution, on which the trial court made no finding, is whether there was
evident premeditation.  The facts
above-stated clearly show that the defendants had, under the circumstances,
sufficient time for full meditation and reflection; hence, there was evident
premeditation.

The trial court’s finding
that there was treachery is correct. 
Although Socorro Mongaya stabbed Santos Garcia
from in front, said victim could not defend him­self because he was held fast
by his left arm by Felipe Mongaya and because he had
no weapon.  The killing was committed in
such form and manner that there was no risk to the corporal integrity or the
lives of the killers.

Reviewing the case for the appellants, we find that their defense
of alibi is not worthy of serious considera­tion; that it is unnecessary
to resolve their contention that it was error for the lower court to admit in
evidence the alleged dying declaration of Santos Garcia, for the reason that
the testimonies of Juan Briones, Angel Garcia, Jr.,
and the Barrio lieutenant, Jose Macabare,
sufficiently proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of said appellants; that
the circumstances pointed out by appellants’ counsel to cast doubt upon the credibility of the said witnesses for the
prosecution are not of sufficient weight or importance to disturb the findings
of the trial court which found them and their testimonies worthy of credence.

The qualifying circumstance of treachery having elevated the
killing of murder, the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation should
be taken into account only as a generic aggravating circumstance calling for
the imposition of the penalty for murder in its maximum period, which is
death.  The death penalty should,
technically, be imposed upon appellant Socorro Mongaya,
but for lack of the necessary votes for the imposition of this penalty, considering
that said appellant was only 18 years old at the time of the commission of the
murder, he should be given the penalty of reclusión perpetua.  With respect to the other appellant,
Felipe Mongaya, considering that he was only 17 years
old when the murder was committed, a privileged mitigating circumstance under
Article 68 (2) of the Revised
Penal Code, he should be given the penalty one degree lower than the applicable
penalty and in relation to the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

The award of P6,000 as compensatory damages to the heirs of
Santos Garcia should be modified and raised to P12,000 (People vs. Pantoja, G.R.No. L-18793,
promulgated October 11, 1968).

PREMISES CONSIDERED,
the appealed judgment is hereby affirmed with respect to the penalty of reclusión
perpetua imposed upon Socorro Mongaya.  The appealed judgment is, however, modified with respect to the penalty
imposed upon Felipe Mongaya, alias Jose Mongaya, who is hereby given an indeterminate sentence of
from 10 years of prisión mayor
to 15 years of reclusión temporal.

With respect to the civil indemnity, the appealed judgment is
modified by raising the amount of compensatory damages to the heirs of Santos
Garcia from P6,000 to P12,000.

Costs against the appellants.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Sanchez,
Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.