THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ANGELITO GUARDO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, ANGELITO GUARDO, CATALINO GIPAL AND MAXILIANO GIPAL, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

Angelito Guardo, Catalino Gipal and Maxiliano Gipal together with
Margarito Bolabog, Paquito Herandoy and Justo Constantino were charged with
murder in the Court of First Instance of Surigao del Norte (Criminal Case No.
3789).  After due trial upon a plea of
not guilty the court found Angelito Guardo, Catalino and Maxiliano Gipal guilty
as charged, but acquitted the three other defendants for in­sufficiency of
evidence, the dispositive portion of the de­cision being as follows:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court finds the accused
Angelito Guardo, Catalino Gipal and Maxiliano Gipal guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime charged.  Angelito
Guardo having appeared the most guilty is hereby
sen­tenced to an imprisonment for the rest of his natural life.  Maxiliano Gipal to an imprison­ment of
seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one
(1) day to twenty (20) years; Catalino Gipal to an imprisonment of twelve (12)
years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal and all three (3) accused to
indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of Three Thousand (P3,000.00) Pesos in equal shares of P1,000.00 each, and to pay
the costs of the proceedings also in
equal shares.  The guilt of Justo
Constantino not having been proved beyond all reasonable doubt is hereby adjudged not guilty of the
offense and hereby acquits him.  Paquito
Herandoy and Margarito Bolabog are hereby declared acquitted on reasonable doubt.

SO ORDERED.”

From the foregoing
decision Guardo and the Gipals interposed
the present appeal.

The prosecution evidence
shows that Maxiliano Gipal and the deceased
Apolinario Edradan had quarrelled on several occasions prior to the fatal
incident of December 9, 1963.  As a
result of one of their quarrels Maxiliano charged Apolinario with slight
physical injuries before the Justice of the Peace Court of Surigao,
Surigao.  The case, however, was
dismissed.

On the evening of December 9, 1963, while Apolinario was taking his supper at
his mother’s home in Surigao, appellant Catalino Gipal, Jr., and Paquito
Herandoy arrived to invite him – at the
instance of Maxiliano – to go with them to a place known as Riverside, to meet the latter.  Apolinario accepted their invitation.

Prosecution witness
Teresita Casura testified that at about 11;00 o’clock that evening, while she
was out looking for Apolinario at the
request of the latter’s grandmother, she saw him being mauled by all the defendants at Gonzales St. near appellant Guardo’s
store; that she saw Guardo stab the deceased with a small bolo at
the center of the breast, as a result of which the latter fell to the ground
face upwards; that while he was in this
position, Guardo stabbed him again on the breast; that he was then dragged
by the shoulders by Catalino Gipal and
Guardo to the latter’s place, all of them followed by Maxiliano Gipal who was
holding a paddle; that once there, Guardo stabbed the deceased twice; that upon
witnessing all these, she
immediately reported the incident to the victim brother, Sabiniano
Edradan, who repaired to the scene of crime where he found his brother mortally
wounded.  He was then taken to the
hospital where he died.

Another eye-witness to the fetal incident was Candido Ronquillo who testified that,
while standing at the corner of Gonzales end Rojas streets looking for his son,
he saw Maxiliano Gipal hit
Apolinario Edradan with a paddle on the dorsal portion of his neck; that
thereupon, Catalino Gipal stabbed
Apolinario with a small bolo on the right arm, followed by more bolo thrusts by Margarito Bolabog and Justo
Constantino on different parts of the victim body, after which he was dragged
to Guado’s store where latter
mortally stabbed the deceased twice.

A post mortem examination
made by Dr. Lourse H. Panaligan showed that the victim sustained numerous
wounds in different parts of the body and that his death was due to “shock
secondary to internal and external hemorrhage due stabbed wound on the chest”.

The assignment of errors made in appellants’ brief assail the
sufficiency of the prosecution evidence to establish their guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, claiming that the
trial court erred: firstly, in finding that the wound suffered by the deceased Edradan on the neck was
caused by a paddle used by Maxiliano
Gipal; secondly, in finding that before said deceased was stabbed
to death, appellants rained fist blows upon him; thirdly, in finding that
Catalino Gipal stabbed the deceased on the latter’s right arm; fourthly, in
giving full credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, and
lastly, in not
finding that Angelito Guardo was “the sole author of the death of the
deceased”.

We find all the above
contentions to be not well founded.

As the lower court held,
the motive for the killing of the deceased
Apolinario Edradan was
well established because the prosecution
evidence – practically uncontradicted is to the effect that before he was fatally assaulted there had been several quarrels between him and
Maxiliano Gipal.  The latter must have felt that he was the aggrieved party because he took Edradan
to court.  This feeling must have been aggravated by the fact
that the case was dismissed.

That the appellants (and their co-accused in the lower court who
were acquitted) had conspired together, to kill Edredan is shown by the fact
that upon direction of Maxillano his brother Catalino and Paquito Herandoy, a
laborer working in a launch belonging to the former, invited Edradan to go with
them for the purpose of meeting Maxiliano at a place known as Riverside.  But apparently even before reaching that
place, the Gipal brothers, Angelito Guardo and other persons assaulted him with
fist blows first and ended up by attacking him with a paddle and bladed
weapons.  According to the testimony of
the eye witnesses mentioned heretofore, Guardo inflicted upon Edradan two
mortal stab wounds; Maxiliano Gipal hit him with a paddle on the neck, while
Catalino Gipal also stabbed him with a small bolo on the right arm.  While we have noticed some inconsistencies
between their respective testimony, we do not consider
them sufficient to weaken the prosecution’s case, much less to show bias and
improper motives on the part of said two eye witnesses.

The fact that Angelito Guardo admits thee he was the only one who killed Edradan is clearly a mere attempt to save his
co-appellants.  It is furthermore belied
by the fact that the deceased suffered multiple wounds caused by different
weapons.

Considering the evidence of record, it is clear that the crime
committed by appellants was that of murder, qualified by treachery, and
aggravated by nocturnity and the use of superior strength.  The imposable penalty, therefore, is
reclusion temporal in its maximum period, to death, and as the three appellants
have common responsibility because of the clear evidence of conspiracy, they
should suffer the same penalty.  However,
for lack of the necessary number of votes to impose the same, each one of the
appellants is hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

THUS MODIFIED, the appealed decision is affirmed in
all other respects.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro,
Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.