THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. LT. JG BERGUNIO LUNA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Lt. Bergunio Luna, Sgts. Dominador Bautista and Victor Lopez, Datu
Jainal, Dayani Joe and Christian Luis were accused of triple murder for
the death of Mustapha Ilahan, Suyoc Ilahan and Abdulmunap Ilahan before
the Court of First Instance of Sulu under a single information.
Subsequent to the filing of said information, the provincial fiscal
moved to discharge accused Bautista and Lopez to be utilized as
government witnesses, followed by another motion seeking the dismissal
of the charge against Lopez upon the ground that after a thorough
investigation he found no sufficient evidence to secure his conviction.
The trial court granted the two motions, ordering the discharge of
Bautista so he may be utilized as a government witness, and dismissing
the case against Lopez for insufficiency of evidence. As the other
accused except Luna, remained at large, the case proceeded only with
regard to the latter.

Upon arraignment, Luna entered a plea
of not guilty. After trial, he was found guilty of the crime charged
and, accordingly, sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua, to
indemnify the heirs of the three deceased in the amount of P4,000.00
for each of them, with the accessories of the law, and to pay the
proportionate costs of the proceedings. Luna interposed the present
appeal.

As narrated in the government’s brief, the case for
the prosecution is as follows: About the first week of February, 1954,
Datu Ilahan, an octogenarian, went to Lamitan, Basilan City, to visit a
son. He was not able to reach the place because on the way the
residents of Tabuan Island told him that that place was being attacked
by the marines. Hence he went home straight to Bongao, his residence,
where he was informed by Datu Wagas that his place was attacked by the
marines. He hurried home where he was met by his wife who informed him
that their children Mustapha and Suyoc and grandson Abdulmunap, whose
ages ranged from 12 to 19 years, were taken by the marines. Abdulmunap
who was then living with his mother Dayang Bibi, a widow, together with
his uncles Mustapha and Suyoc, asked the permission of Dayang Bibi to
go to a neighboring island to buy some food. That was the last time
Dayang Bibi saw her son.

When the three boys failed to come
home the next day, Dayang Bibi went to Buan and was informed by the
residents thereat that they were taken by the marines to Bongao. Two
days thereafter, Dayang Bibi proceeded to Bongao and inquired from one
Sgt. Kandero about their whereabouts who told her that they were taken
by the marines. Subsequently thereafter, Dayang Bibi met Datu Jainal
who told her not to waste her time looking for her son because he and
his two uncles were taken by the marines who tied stones on them and
dropped them into the sea. This information almost tore apart the
disconsolate mother.

Meanwhile, Datu Ilahan made the same
inquiries in Bongao and was similarly informed by Sgt. Kandero that he
has investigated the Ilahan boys and his grandson Abdulmunap and that
the trio was taken to a coast-guard cutter by the marines. While said
datu was strolling in Bongao, he met Datu Jainal, son of Datu Maulana,
who bore a grudge against him because of land conflict that arose
between them when Jainal tried to grab a portion of Ilahan’s land. This
grudge notwithstanding, Datu Jainal told Datu Ilahan to desist from
looking for his children as they were already killed by the marines who
tied stones on them and dropped them into the sea near the Island of
Bato-Bato. Upon receiving this information, Datu Ilahan reported the
same to Captain Tandico who thereupon made an investigation of the
incident which culminated in the prosecution at bar.

During
the first week of February, 1954, the Philippine Navy, with a
complement of marines, was then engaged in a punitive operation against
Moro bandits infesting the waters of Sulu. Among the officers engaged
in said operation was Sgt. Bergunio Luna who was then in charge of a
detachment of marines on board a landing mechanized craft (LCM). He had
under him some 30 enlisted men and non-commissioned officers among them
Sgts. Dominador Bautista and Victor Lopez. This unit was at first
bivouacked in Buan, municipality of Balimbing, province of Sulu.
Subsequently, Luna’s unit was ordered to proceed to Bongao together
with some Moro civilians to act as guides among whom were Datu Jainal,
Luis and Dayani Joe, and the three Ilahan boys already mentioned above.
On their way to Bongao, they dropped anchor at Bato-Bato Island on
orders of Lt. Luna and the Moro guides Luis and Dayani Joe disembarked
and picked up some big stones.

Thereafter, they proceeded on
their way to Bongao. Then the LCM slowed down on orders of Lt. Luna,
and guides Luis and Dayani Joe approached the three Ilahan boys and
proceeded to tie their hands and feet, Dayani Joe at the same time
telling them in their own dialect, “You killed my younger brother.”
After they finished tying the trio, Luis and Dayani Joe helped each
other in bringing them to the left side of the landing craft where Luis
got a piece of electric wire and with it tied a heavy stone to the
victims to serve as weight. Thereafter, Luis cold-bloodedly pushed them
one after another into the open sea who because of the weight they were
carrying went into the bottom and disappeared. While such dastardly act
was being undertaken, Lt. Luna and Datu Jainal were inside the craft
conversing, the latter categorically assuring the former that the three
boys were bandits and that if they would not be killed they (the boys)
would certainly kill them. After the trio had disappeared swallowed by
the waters of the sea, Lt. Luna assembled his men and told them not to
reveal to anybody the killing of the Ilahan boys or else they will be
shot, adding that “Dead men tell no tales.”

Appellant on the
other hand, testified as follows in his own defense: That since May,
1953, he was a commissioned officer of the Philippine Navy with the
rank of Lieutenant Junior Grade; that he started his military career in
the Armed Forces of the Philippines ten years before his commission;
that he has never been charged with any violation of army regulations
or of the Articles of War except in the present case; that during the
months of January and February, 1954, he was assigned to the Sulu Sea
Frontier as part of a task force at the head of a detachment of
Philippine marines with station at different places of Tawi-Tawi Island
group in connection with the apprehension of bandits and the
suppression of smuggling and piracy; that his immediate commanding
officer then was Captain Liwanag; that sometime in the said months of
January and February, while his detachment was bivouacked in Ungos
Matata, Tudubas, Sulu, he received an order from his commander to
withdraw from the place and report to the headquarters at Bongao; that
upon arrival thereat, he was given a new assignment to operate in
Dungon for the apprehension of bandits in the area; that in compliance
therewith, he and his men took a navy ship to the vicinity of Langoyan
proper; that from Langoyan his unit took an overland trail utilizing
the services of civilian volunteers as guides to Dungon passing through
thick forests to their destination; that from Dungon his unit proceeded
to Buan using a landing mechanized craft (LCM) and stayed in Buan for
about three days; that from this latter place, his detachment went to
Bongao on the same craft negotiating the waters of Sulu sea in a
showering and gloomy day; that due to the bad weather condition,
appellant stayed for the most part of the trip inside the
canvass-covered compartment of the craft; that later on he fell asleep
and came to know when he woke up while the craft was nearing Bongao
that the same stopped at the Island of Bato-Bato; that as they were
about to land at Bongao, appellant assembled his men to give them the
necessary briefing in accordance with standard operational procedure to
check them and see if they are all present and accounted for; and that
it was only when he was summoned for investigation by a Board of
Inquiry of the Philippine Navy that he came to know of the
disappearance on board his craft of the three Ilahan boys who were
allegedly tied and thrown overboard.

On the strength of the
evidence extant in the record submitted by the prosecution, there can
be no doubt that the three Ilahan boys were deprived of their lives in
a cold-blooded manner in the waters of Sulu sea while they were on
board the mechanized landing craft ferrying a marine detachment
commanded by appellant who was then the highest officer on board when
their hands and feet were tied and their bodies weighted with heavy
stones and then pushed one by one into the sea who because of the
weight they were carrying immediately sank and disappeared. There is
also ample evidence that while the three victims were being prepared to
be thrown into the sea, appellant and Datu Jainal who were barely 10
feet away were conversing with each other, the latter assuring the
former that those three boys were bandits and that if they would not be
killed they (the boys) would certainly kill them. The foregoing facts
have not been denied by appellant whose principal defense consists in
affirming that he was not aware of such happening because at the time
the ugly event was being carried out, he was taking a nap because of
combat fatigue. But such defense is so flimsy to merit any credence
considering that he was then the highest officer on board and in
command of the marine detachment that was then being ferried and as
such could not but take notice of such a happening during that trip.
Moreover, they find support in substantial testimonial evidence which
the trial court found to be trustworthy.

Thus, Sgts.
Bautista and Lopez, who were two of the enlisted men under the command
of appellant on board the mechanized craft, categorically asserted that
it was he who ordered the craft on the way to Bongao from Buan to stop
at the Island of Bato-Bato where the two guides Luis and Dayani Joe
landed and picked up the heavy stones used as weights on the three
victims. Again, these witnesses testified that they saw appellant
conversing with his co-accused Datu Jainal while the three victims were
being tied preparatory to their being dumped into the sea with Jainal
telling appellant that it is better to have said boys killed as
otherwise they might kill them and that it was appellant who ordered
the slowing down of the craft in the middle of the sea in order that
the three boys may be thrown overboard. These two witnesses as
subordinates of appellant had no ill motive to testify against him,
which makes their testimony worthy of credence. In fact, they were so
found by the trial court. There can, therefor, be no doubt as regards
his guilt.

Counsel for appellant, however, disagrees with
such finding and in his brief assigns 16 errors which in his opinion
were committed by the trial court. But, stripped of unnecessary
details, and reduced to bare essentials, the same may be boiled down to
the following points: (a) questions of credibility of witnesses; (b)
correctness of the finding of the trial court that the three victims
were the missing Ilahan boys; (c) the corpus delicti has not
been established by the prosecution; (d) the discharge of accused Sgt.
Bautista from the information to be used as a state witness and the
dismissal of the information against accused Sgt. Lopez for
insufficiency of evidence, are erroneous; (e) that defense witness Sgt.
Million’s testimony is adverse to the defense; and (f) conspiracy among
appellant and the other accused may be inferred from certain proven
facts and circumstances.

We will briefly discuss these points.

With regard to the question of credibility, the same is merely
predicated on alleged inconsistencies and contradictions apparently
incurred by the principal witnesses for the prosecution, Sgts. Bautista
and Lopez, which, it is claimed, tend to destroy their entire
testimony. On this point, the trial court, considering its opportunity
for observation, is in a better position to evaluate the evidence. It
said on this matter: “The defense cited alleged contradictions of
witnesses for the prosecution as a ground, of acquittal. A careful
examination however, of their testimonies reveals that said testimonies
agree on material points. While it may be true that there were certain
contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses for the prosecution, yet
the Court believes that they were not the result of deliberate
falsehood.” To the same effect is the following observation of the
Solicitor General: “While it is true that these two witnesses who were
admittedly noncommissioned officers serving in the same marine
detachment under appellant on board the LCM during the open-sea triple
killing at bar, may have enmeshed themselves in contradictions on some
minor and inconsequential matters as pointed out by the appellant, said
inconsistencies, trivial as they are cannot affect their positive and
categorical assertions in their testimony in chief as regards the
manner the killing took place and appellant’s active participation as
co-conspirator therein. Besides, the testimony alone of said witnesses
is not the sole basis for appellant’s conviction.” We agree to the
foregoing observations both of the trial court and of the Solicitor
General.

The argument that there was no sufficient evidence
to show that the three Moros were dumped into the sea were the Ilahan
boys has no merit. A careful examination of the voluminous evidence on
record submitted both by the prosecution as well as by the defense
points unmistakably to the unremitting conclusion that said three Moros
were the Ilahan boys who were investigated by Captain Liwanag for
complicity in the commission of banditry in the region but who were
later released because they were proven to be too young to be involved
in such depredatory activities. That such is the fact is also implicit
from the mocking attitude of Datu Jainal who, upon being inquired by
his former enemy Datu Ilahan as to the whereabouts of said boys, made
the sarcastic remark that he was wasting his time looking for them
because they were already dumped into the sea by the marines while on
board of a mechanized landing craft. And while such is the contribution
of the prosecution, the defense did not help any in dispelling the
alleged doubt, for it merely contended itself with stating that
appellant was not in any way aware of the disappearance of the three
boys because he was deeply asleep.

The foregoing also disposes of the claim that the corpus delicti
has not been proven for it is an undeniable fact that the three Ilahan
boys were dumped into the sea and since then were seen no more.
Evidently, they are dead. The defense did not present any proof to the
contrary.

It is true that there is no clear showing of any
motive on the part of appellant to deprive the three boys of their,
lives, but such is not necessary if there is enough evidence to
establish guilt. Nevertheless, here it may be said that what may have
impelled appellant to conspire with his co-accused to kill the boys or
give his assent thereto is the friendly influence exerted upon him by
his civilian guide Datu Jainal who was actuated by revenge against Datu
Ilahan, father of the two victims and grandfather of the third. This
grudge was engendered when before the last war a land conflict arose
between them when Datu Jainal tried to grab a portion of the land of
Datu Ilahan, a matter which among Moros is serious enough to give rise
to a bloody incident.

As regards the contention that the
trial court erred in ordering the discharge of Sgt. Bautista to be used
as a state witness and the dismissal of the information against Sgt.
Lopez for insufficiency of evidence, suffice it to state that we see no
error in such action because such matters devolve exclusively upon the
public prosecutor. The trial court merely acted upon a motion filed by
the provincial fiscal who must have taken such move after having found
that there are sufficient reasons in law to have Sgt. Bautista utilized
as a state witness and the charge against Sgt. Lopez dismissed for lack
of sufficient evidence. There is no showing that said official has
failed to do his duty.

The trial court properly found that
there was conspiracy for it is evident from the mass of evidence
appearing in the record that the killing of the three boys was
committed by appellant and his co-accused in a manner that shows a
concerted action on their part. The fact that the landing craft stopped
at Bato-Bato Island to get heavy stones to be used on the three victims
and that thereafter the craft stopped in the middle of the sea where
the victims were tied, weighted and dumped into the sea, while
appellant and his co-accused Datu Jainal were conversing as regards the
character of the three victims, can point to no other conclusion than
that they acted in unison in the accomplishment of their unholy
purpose. Such establishes conspiracy.

The crime of which appellant was found guilty is punishable by reclusion temporal
to death for each of the three murders. Considering that the crime was
committed with the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation,
with no mitigating to offset it, the penalty should be imposed in its
maximum period, or death. However, for lack of sufficient number of
votes, the Court decided to impose upon appellant merely the penalty of
reclusion perpetua.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against appellant.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Gutierrez David, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.