THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MANDANGAN ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

This appeal has been brought to reverse a judgment of the Court of First
Instance of Sulu, finding the appellant, the Moro Mandangan, guilty of the
offense of robbery with homicide, with aggravating circumstances, and sentencing
him to undergo the penalty of death and requiring him, jointly and severally
with his three co-accused, to indemnify the heirs of the person slain in the
amount of P1,000, and requiring him to pay his proportional part of the costs of
prosecution. 

It appears that at about midnight on July 6, 1927, five persons, namely,
Hassim, Sailabi, Jahura, Abisaini and the appellant Mandangan, committed robbery
in the house of the Moro Maadil, situated in the sitio of Tagbak, municipal
district of Maimbung, in the Province of Jolo, upon which occasion they
appropriated and carried away clothes, jewelry, and other useful articles, of a
value of about P1,355.50. In connection with the commission of this offense the
Moro Maadil, one of the inmates of the house, and owner of the things taken, was
assaulted and slain.

Investigations which were promptly set afoot by the Constabulary authorities
after this crime was discovered led to voluntary confessions from Jahura,
Sailabi, and Hassim, which confessions were formally reduced to writing and
afterwards exhibited in evidence against them. For purposes of effective
prosecution of the case Abisaini was used as a witness for the Government, and
the case against him was dropped.

Upon hearing the cause Jahura, Sailabi, and Hassim, the three who had already
confessed, submitted a plea of guilty. Mandangan alone pleaded not guilty, and
the case was submitted upon proof against him alone.

The only direct witness against Mandangan was Abisaini, one of the principals
in the commission of the crime. His testimony was to the effect that the party
of robbers consisted of the five already mentioned, of whom three, namely,
Jahura, Sailabi, and Abisaini (the witness), entered the house of Maadil by
forcing the door and slew Maadil, as alleged in the complaint, at the same time
possessing themselves of the articles which were the subject of the robbery. The
same witness says that Mandangan and Hassim remained below While the robbery and
homicide was committed in order that they might not be recognized by Maadil.
Abisaini admits that Maadil was slain by himself and Jahura.

As this witness was confessedly one of the principal actors in the outrage,
his statements must be received with caution; but his testimony with respect to
the participation of the appellant in the offense is corroborated by the
irresistible fact that when search was made in the appellant’s house at the time
of his arrest, various articles of the stolen property, consisting of jewelry
and clothing, were found carefully secreted in and under said house. The
possession of these things by the appellant is inconsistent with his innocence;
and the proof in our opinion abundantly sustains the conclusion of the trial
court that the appellant was one of the five who participated in the crime.
Indeed, the attorney de oficio, representing the appellant in this court, is so
far impressed with the weight of the incriminatory proof, that he merely
requests the court to reduce the capital penalty to cadena perpetua, thereby
penalizing the appellant to the same extent only as the other three accused who
have not appealed.

In the estimation of the offense there can be considered against the
appellant the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity and the further
circumstance that the offense was committed in the dwelling of the injured
person. The further circumstance that the offense was committed by a band of
more than three armed men is supported only by the testimony of Abisaini, who
said that all five of the men concerned in the affair were armed. While there is
a probability that this statement is true, it is not corroborated by other
evidence and should not, we think, be estimated for the purpose of imposing the
death penalty, there being no corroboration from other sources than Abisaini. In
fixing the penalty for the appellant in this case the trial court undoubtedly
gave much weight to the fact that the appellant was, according to Abisaini, the
leader of the gang. If this fact were clearly shown, the court would be
abundantly justified in weighing it against considerations appealing to the
discretion of the court. But this fact also rests wholly upon the testimony of
Abisaini; and it is a notorious fact in human nature that a culprit, confessing
a crime, is likely to put the blame on others rather than himself. Even though a
court may well credit the statement of such a witness that other particular
persons were engaged in the crime, it is unsafe to accept, without corroborating
evidence, his statements concerning the relative blame to be attached to
different members of his gang. We are therefore constrained to hold, and more
readily because the point is one involving a capital sentence, that the
leadership of the band by Mandangan is not sufficiently proved to justify
appreciating this fact against the appellant. Abisaini himself admitted that he
and his companion Jahura inflicted the fatal blows on Maadil, and admits that
the appellant Mandaneran did not enter the house of the deceased but remained
outside with another.

The trial judge did not expressly give any of the accused the benefit of
article 11 of the Penal Code, as amended, or avail himself of the provisions of
law relating to crime in Mindanao and Sulu, for the purpose of mitigating the
penalty prescribed by law for any of the accused in this case; but in effect he
applied those provisions to Sailabi, Hassim, and Jahura in sentencing them to
cadena perpetua instead of death.

Under all the circumstances we are constrained to hold that the appellant
merits the same penalty as his companions, with the result that the penalty of
death imposed by the trial court will be reduced to cadena perpetua, with the
accessories appropriate to said penalty.

As thus modified, the judgment is affirmed. So ordered, with costs against
the appellant.

Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Romualdez, and
Villa-Real, JJ., concur.