THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE VS. SULAMAN, SONTOT, ASLAL AND TANDJILON, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

The herein appellants were convicted of murder and sentenced by the
Court of First Instance of Zamboanga to life imprisonment, to jointly
and severally indemnify the respective heirs of Valente and Ananias de
los Santos in the sum of P1,000, and each of the accused to pay
one-fifth of the costs.

The case having been appealed to this court, the attorney de oficio for the appellants found no error in the sentence appealed from, and has so stated in this instance.

This is true. In view of the testimony of Sacalol, a companion of
the defendants when the crime was committed, and excluded from the
information to serve as a witness for the prosecution; of Santiago de
los Santos, a companion of the deceased; of Maulani who saw and spoke
to one of the deceased shortly after the assault; and in view of the
affidavits of the appellants themselves (Exhibits A, B, C, D) wherein
they admit having killed the deceased, we have no doubt but that the
crime committed is murder, and that the appellants are criminally
liable therefor.

Their denial during the trial of the case, when they took the
witness-stand in their own behalf is inadequate; and the alibi they
tried to establish by their own testimony and that of witnesses Iman,
Tajali, Kolokee and Marahajah Keseng is untrue and hence does not
exonerate them.

It is sufficiently proven that the accused are the slayers of the
brothers Valente and Ananias, surnamed De los Santos, and that the
crime was treacherously carried out, whence both the information and
the judgment appealed from correctly deem it murder, the injured
parties having been caught unprepared in the assault (arts. 403 and 10,
circumstance 2, Penal Code).

The Attorney-General points out two aggravating circumstances:
evident premeditation and uninhabited place. As to the first, we do not
think it proven in the record that from the time the defendants
conceived the idea of killing the victims until they carried out such
intention, they had time to reflect sufficiently and to desist from
their purpose, had they heeded the voice of conscience.

As to the circumstance of uninhabited place, we find it proven,
considering the place where the crime was committed and the defenseless
state of the persons assaulted. But said circumstance does not, in this
case, increase the penalty to be imposed, to its maximum degree, taking
into account section 106 of the Administrative Code of Mindanao and
Sulu, cited by the Attorney-General in his brief, which the court below
doubtless applied to the defendants in imposing upon them the penalty
of life imprisonment only.

We agree with the Attorney-General’s recommendation that the accused
be also sentenced to the accessory penalties provided by law.

Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed, it being
understood that the defendants are sentenced jointly and severally to
indemnify the heirs of deceased Valente de los Santos hi the sum of
P1,000, and the heirs of deceased Ananias de los Santos in the sum of
P1,000, and to suffer the accessory penalties prescribed by article 54
of the Penal Code, with the costs of both instances against the
appellants. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Street, Villamor, Johns, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.