THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. JUAN BANGUG, GABRIEL BANGUG, JOSE ANGOLUAN AND EUFRASIO CARABANGA, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

The record in this case has been elevated here for review.
Pursuant to law, the decision will be entitled “Per curiam,” and signed by all
the members of the court who are present.

The prosecution is for the crime of multiple murder with which
five persons were charged in the Court of First Instance of Bontoc. After trial,
the lower court found the accused guilty as charged and sentenced Juan Bangug,
Gabriel Bangug, Jose Angoluan, and Pascual Tulinao to the penalty of death, and
to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of Private Nabagtec in the amount
of P1,000, the heirs of Private Sison in the amount of P1,000, and the heirs of Igorot Tulang in the amount of P500, and sentenced Eufrasio Carabanga to eight
years and one day imprisonment, presidio mayor, with the accessory penalties,
with one-fifth of the costs against each defendant. As during the pendency of
the appeal Pascual Tulinao died, the case now only concerns Juan Bangug, Gabriel
Bangug, Jose Angoluan, and Eufrasio Carabanga.

On December 23, 1926, two
hunting parties, one from Ilagan, Isabela, and the other from Naguilian,
Isabela, were encamped in the region called Gulu or Cama, situated in the
subprovince of Bontoc. The party from Ilagan was composed of Juan Bangug,
Gabriel Bangug, Francisco Bangug, Jose Angoluan, Pascual Tulinao, and Eufrasio
Carabanga, and the one from Naguilian was composed of Antonio Mangadap, Juan
Gallina, Antonio Talusig and Federico Caoilan. On the day mentioned, two
Constabulary soldiers named Nabagtec and Sison accompanied by a cargador, an
Igorot named Tulang, arrived near the camps of the hunters. The two soldiers and
their cargador were then returning to their station at Natonin, Bontoc, from a
trip to Sili to escort Lieutenant Gloria of the Constabulary Medical Corps.

Once in the camp of the hunters from Ilagan, the Constabulary
soldiers examined the licenses of the shotguns, and after taking all the
ammunition, returned the guns to their respective owners, Juan Bangug and
Gabriel Bangug. The soldiers then told the hunters that they would be taken to
Natonin the next morning to answer for a violation of the hunting law in using
artificial lights. Later, about sunset, while the two soldiers and the Igorot
cargador were cooking their supper, the Ilagan hunters gathered together and
agreed to kill the two soldiers and the Igorot. Evidently the soldiers did not
notice the secret confab for after eating supper they laid down. The hunters
with the Igorot cargador slept inside the shed while the soldiers slept outside.
Sometime between midnight and 3 o’clock in the morning while the two soldiers
and the Igorot cargador were sleeping soundly, the murder was perpetrated.
First, Juan Bangug slipped up quietly and possessed himself of the carbines of
the Constabularymen. Then the soldiers and the Igorot were attacked by the
members of the Ilagan party, the latter being armed with the guns of the
soldiers and with bolos and lances. Although the soldiers put up the best fight
possible against hopeless odds, and although one of the soldiers succeeded in
wounding Francisco Bangug so seriously that sometime later he succumbed to his
wounds, within a short time the soldiers and the Igorot cargador were killed.
The horse of the Constabulary men was shot, the carbines were hid in the bushes,
and the three corpses were dragged a short distance and left.

Antonio Mangadap of the Naguilian hunting party, who saw most
of the tragedy, departed hurriedly on being threatened with death if he should
ever disclose the incident to any one. The members of the Ilagan hunting party
returned to their homes on December 25th and reported to the authorities the
death of Francisco Bangug, stating that he had fallen from his horse and
accidentally wounded himself with his lance. So the whereabouts of the missing
soldiers and the Igorot cargador remained a mystery until May, 1927, when
certain rumors were run down and investigated, with the result that suspicion
pointed to the Ilagan and Naguilian hunters. As a result of the investigation,
the members of the Ilagan party were identified and arrested. They were taken to
the scene of the crime, and there three human skeletons were found, which were
shown to be those of the two soldiers and the Igorot cargador.

These are the facts. They are as found by Judge Montemayor in a
splendidly prepared decision. They are as conceded by the attorney de oficio.
They are as presented by the Attorney-General. They stand in the record
uncontradicted. Their basis is found in the confessions of the accused, the
admissions in open court by the accused Eufrasio Carabanga, the testimony of the
eyewitness Antonio Mangadap, and the external circumstances which place the
facts beyond dispute.

Counsel de oficio, after a conscientious study of the record,
is led to assign two errors, viz., (1) The court erred in holding that the now
appellants Juan Bangug, Jose Angoluan, Gabriel Bangug and Pascual Tulinao
committed the crime of murder instead of homicide, and should therefore suffer
each and every one of them a capital punishment; and (2) in finding that the
appellants Gabriel Bangug, Jose Angoluan and Pascual Tulinao were not entitled
to the benefit of the provisions of article 11 of the Penal Code. In other
words, facts generally conceded, our task is narrowed down to a correct
application of the penal law to those facts.

The trial judge found that the crime was murder with the
concurrence of the circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation, and
nocturnity, but without the concurrence of the aggravating circumstance of
uninhabited place. The court further mentioned that in reality two crimes were
committed those of murder and assault against agents of authority. No mitigating
circumstance was found with reference to four of the defendants, but Eufrasio
Carabanga as an accessory was given a light sentence because of a failure of the
proof with reference to his agreement to the plan and because of his youth. In
effect and in result, the conclusions of the trial judge are substantially
correct, but will bear reexamination with reference to the proven facts and with
reference to the individual responsibility of each defendant.

The crimes were attended with the qualifying circumstance of
treachery, which classifies them as murders. That cannot be gainsaid. At the
time of the sudden and unexpected attack, the victims were in sound sleep and
practically defenseless. The further qualifying circumstance of evident
premeditation which now changes to an aggravating circumstance must be taken
into account for there was a concerted plan by the guilty parties and there had
elapsed sufficient time between its inception and its fulfillment for them
dispassionately to consider and accept the consequences. (U. S. vs. Dasal
[1903], 3 Phil., 6; U. S. vs. Pala [1911], 19 Phil., 190; U. S. vs. Cornejo
[1914], 28 Phil., 457; decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain of June 4, 1874,
May 9, 1877, December 26, 1887, September 1, 1893, November 10, 1894, November
16, 1900, November 23, 1900, November 21, 1901, and May 20, 1903; Albert, The Law
on Crimes, pp. 97-106.) The second aggravating circumstance that the crimes were
committed in an uninhabited place must also be taken into consideration. The
locality where the crimes were perpetrated was isolated, far from human
habitation and with two sheds used for hunting purposes. The fact that
occasionally persons passed there and that on the night the murders took place
another hunting party was not a great distance away, does not change the
characteristics attending this circumstance. It is the nature of the place which
is decisive. (Decision of the Supreme Court of Spain of November 13, 1890.) The
third aggravating circumstance of nocturnity cannot properly be applied as found
by the trial judge and as suggested by the Attorney-General because nighttime
here becomes a part of the treachery which was employed. (U. S. vs. Salgado
[1908], 11 Phil., 56; U. S. vs. Domingo and Dolor [1911], 18 Phil., 250.)
Finally, as to the commission of two crimes, while this may be true, inasmuch as
the crime of assault against agents of authority was not alleged in the
information, the accused may not be convicted of that offense.

The
second error assigned relates to the failure of the trial judge to find that the
accused were entitled to the benefits of the provisions of article 11 of the
Penal Code. This court has heretofore held that it is for the trial court rather
than the appellate court to determine the proper application of article 11 of
the Penal Code. This is so because the personal qualities and characteristics of
the accused are matters peculiarly cognizable by the trial court. And here we
have this finding: “The defendants are not natives of the Mountain Province.
They are not densely ignorant. In fact, two of them, Jose Angoluan and Gabriel
Bangug, possessed licenses to bear firearms. They are, therefore, not entitled
to the benefits of article 11 of the Penal Code.” This court is in no position
to reverse that finding. (U. S. vs. Elicanal [1916], 35 Phil., 209.)

These then are dastardly crimes deliberately planned and treacherously
committed in an isolated region where discovery was improbable. That is triple
murder and calls for the application of the maximum penalty provided by law.

Juan Bangug, it will be recalled, was sentenced to the death
penalty. That was right. He was one of the two defendants who told their
companions to kill the soldiers, who stole the guns of the soldiers in
preparation for the attack, who was a leader in the murder, and who was
described by the trial judge as “the most intelligent” of them.

Jose Angoluan was likewise given the death penalty. That also
was right. He, together with Juan Bangug, was one of the leaders who planned the
murder and who, making use of the guns, killed the Constabulary soldiers and the
Igorot cargador.

Gabriel Bangug was the third accused to receive the death
penalty. Here we entertain some doubt. In the first place, we have this
expression of opinion in Gabriel Bangug’s favor by the trial judge: “Of the four
defendants sentenced to capital punishment, Gabriel Bangug and Pascual Tulinao
(deceased), are, in the opinion of the court, the less guilty.” In the second
place, Gabriel Bangug was not identified by the eyewitness Antonio Mangadap as
an active participant in the crime. In the third place, while Eufrasio Carabanga
during the time he was on the witness stand pointed to Juan Bangug and Jose
Angoluan as the ones who committed the crime, the witness steadfastly refused to
include the name of Gabriel Bangug. And lastly, the various confessions of the
other accused may not legally be taken into account against Gabriel Bangug. All
the legitimate evidence which we have against him is that while protesting in
the beginning against the murders, he did not actively intercede for the
victims, and on his return to Isabela, connived at concealing the crimes. At
least, this makes Gabriel Bangug an accessory in the commission of each murder.

The remaining defendant, Eufrasio Carabanga, was a lesser
participant, and properly received a lesser penalty. As an accessory, he should
have been convicted thereof for each murder (U. S. vs. Balaba [1917], 37 Phil.,
260).

The judgment of the trial court in so far as it relates to the defendants
and appellants Juan Bangug and Jose Angoluan will be affirmed, and in so far as
it relates to Gabriel Bangug and Eufrasio Carabanga will be modified by
sentencing each of the two latter to eight years and one day imprisonment,
presidio mayor, for each of the three murders, with the accessory penalties. So
ordered with onefifth of the costs of this instance against each of the four
appellants, and with the remaining one-fifth of the costs de oficio.

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