THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. GETULIO MASIN, JOSE TOFTTIOL, ALEJANDRO LAINA, SIMEON ARANAS, AMBROSIO MABASCUG, BASILIO MANGAO AND CIRILO ABOABO, DEF…

Acting under the influence of the superstition
that witcheries still exist these days, and under the absolutely
unfounded and erroneous belief that the spouses Santiago Vite and
Isabel Taal, together with the members of their family, were witches,
and that they were responsible for the death of Fermin Pabatan, husband
of the accused-Petra Tocmo, sometime prior thereto in the Province of
Bohol, the accused Getulio Masin, Jose Tongol, Alejandro Laina, Simeon
Aranas, Ambrosio Mabascug, Basilio Mangao and Cirilo Aboabo, after
conspiring to burn said family, actually killed the two spouses and
their nine-year old daughter named Bonifacia Vite, by first setting
fire to the house where said family lived and by beating them later
with iron bars and sticks as the three jumped out of the window one
after another to save themselves from the fire, throwing the girl
Bonifacia Vite alive into the fire together with the body of her
mother, in San Roque, within the barrio of Map-an, of the municipality
of Jimenez, Province of Occidental Misamis, on December 22, 1935.

The seven accused, after having been charged with triple murder in
only one information on January 10, 1936, in the Court of First
Instance of Occidental Misamis, together with Petra Tocmo, widow of
said Fermin Pabatan, with respect to whom the case was dismissed during
the trial upon petition of the fiscal and her defense counsel for lack
of evidence, were convicted of said three crimes. However, the lower
court, which took into consideration the mitigating circumstance of
lack of instruction in favor of the accused, confined itself to
imposing upon them only one penalty, to wit: reclusion perpetua
with the accessory penalties thereof upon the accused Getulio Masin;
and seventeen years, four months and one day of reclusion temporal
with, the accessory penalties thereof upon the other six accused, who
are Jose Tongol, Alejandro Laina, Simeon Aranas, Ambrosio Mabascug,
Basilio Mangao and Cirilo Aboabo, and all the seven to indemnify the
heirs of the three deceased jointly and severally in the sum of P1,000.
All appealed from their sentence and, although their attorney de oficio
makes no concrete assignment of error imputable to the lower court in
his brief before this court, he makes it understood that the lower
court should not have given credit to the witnesses for the prosecution
Vicencio Jabla and Marciano Mangao who testified against the
appellants, and that they should not be given credit now in the appeal,
being unworthy of credit, taking into consideration the fact that they
themselves were not free from the commission of the three crimes in
question.

The conclusions of fact summarized at the beginning are the same as
those of the lower court. They are certainly based on the testimony of
the said witnesses Vicencio Jabla and Marciano Mangao. After reading
the record, this court cannot but hold that the veracity of said
witnesses cannot be doubted because there are facts and circumstances
corroborating them. They testified that on occasions prior to the date
of the crime, Getulio Masin had told them, in the presence of the other
accused, that Fermin Pabatan’s death, which took place in the Province
of Bohol some time before, had been due to the witchcraft of the Vite
spouses; that at about 5 o’clock in the afternoon of December 22, 1935,
the accused gathered in Marciano Mangao’s house to drink “tuba” and on
said occasion Getulio Masin again mentioned that Fermin Pabatan’s death
had been caused by said two deceased spouses; that they agreed to meet
again as they in fact met again at the same place at 8 o’clock on the
night of said day, some armed with bolos, as Getulio Masin, and with
iron bars as Alejandro Laina, and others with sticks, in order to
decide definitely the elimination, by fire, of said spouses together
with their entire family, thereby ridding their barrio of witches and
witcheries; that they provided themselves with a can of gasoline for
said purpose; that from said place they went to the dwelling of their
intended victims and when they thought them to be asleep, Getulio Masin
ordered the opening of the can of gasoline brought by them and carried
by Simeon Aranas; that he ordered Vicencio Jabla to ignite the gasoline
after placing it under the eaves of. the house, which the latter did;
that to better assure the prompt burning of the house, Masin also
ordered Vicencio Jabla to spill the gasoline, which he did by knocking
down the can with a kick; that when the house was already in flames,
the inhabitants thereof woke up, and the girl Bonifacia was the first
to jump through the window; that she was received below with blows by
Alejandro Laina; that although she succeeded in getting up and in
fleeing from he-r aggressors, she did not escape death because Jose
Tongol, Alejandro Laina and Simeon Aranas overtook her, the latter
carrying her and throwing her into the fire; that when she momentarily
succeeded in leaving the fire, Simeon Aranas again carried her and
threw her back there; that when Isabel Taal, in turn, jumped through
the window, imitating her daughter,, she was likewise received with
blows by Basilio Mangao, Cirilo Aboabo and Ambrosio Mabascug, who hit
her on the head and on other parts of her body until she was dead,
carrying her later and throwing her into the fire; that while this was
taking place, Santiago Vite, from the window of the burning house,
implored the accused to spare his life, but instead of taking pity on
him, Jose Tongol told him to jump out of the window once and far all in
order that they might kill him; that Santiago Vite, harassed by the
fire upstairs and desiring to escape therefrom, jumped to the ground,
but Jose Tongol hit him on the head with the stick which he carried,
felling him to the ground; that while in such condition, he was
thrashed by Cirilo Aboabo, Basilio Mangao and Ambrosio Mabascug.

The triple murder was discovered on the following day and the
authorities, who went to the scene of the crime, found the burnt and
mutilated bodies of Isabel Taal and her daughter Bonifacia in the
middle of what was once their house then reduced to ashes. They also
found the body of Santiago Vite^ with his bamboo internode for mashing
“buyo” beside him, directly below a part of the former eaves of the
burnt house. In the autopsy performed by Dr. Jose Contreras, there were
discovered the facts stated by him in his report as follows:

“(a) A male cadaver, almost in the process
of putrefaction because of the third degree burn and found in a
kneeling position. The skin is completely burned that no signs of
external lesions could be determined. Fracture of the left side upper
mandibular bone. The left malar bone and the left maxillary bone
completely smashed, so that two pieces of the malar bone were detached.
This was presumably struck by some hard blunt instrument with force.
This will cause instant death. Fracture of the part of the left side of
the frontal bone and left parietal bone; right side of same, intact.
Left and right clavicle, intact. The thumb of the right hand is
missing. The 5th and 6th ribs of the left side, fractured, also struck
by force with some hard instrument. The 5th and 6th ribs of the right
side, intact. The tendon of Achillis of the left foot is cut,
presumably with sharp instrument, while that of the right side, intact.

“(b)
This is a female cadaver because some of the hairs are not completely
burned. Almost in the process of putrefaction. The forearms of both the
upper extremeties are extinguished, together with the left leg and also
the right thigh completely extinguished. The skin is burned that no
signs of external lesions could be determined. The upper and lower
mandibular bones are intact. There is complete fracture of the left and
right parietal bones. The blow must have been received at the left
side, by some hard instrument with force. Opening the fractured part,
there is found still hemorrhage of the brain of the left side and the
fracture of the right parietal bone must have been only a continuation
of that of the left side.

” (c) Another cadaver,
that of a child which is completely burned and the parts are separated
and it is almost impossible to find any lesions. The skull is
completely burned, including the face and both the extremities.”
(Exhibit H.)

It will be seen from the description of the fractures found in the
bodies of the Vite spouses, and from the burning of their house, that
they were actually hit on the head with hard and blunt instrument and
burned later, thereby corroborating the testimony of the witnesses
Jabla and Mangao. On the other hand, the very testimonies of the
accused Jose Tongol, Alejandro Laina, Getulio Masin, Ambrosio Mabascug,
Basilio Mangao, Simeon Aranas and Cirilo Aboabo corroborate the fact
that the seven, together with the two witnesses whose veracity is
questioned by them, were present at the scene of the crime while the
fire and the aggression committed against the Vite spouses and their
daughter Bonifacia were taking place,

Jose Tongol testified that it is true that they drank “tuba” in
Mariano Mangao’s house on the afternoon in question; that when the girl
jumped out of the window, she was hit with a stick but by no other than
the witness Vicencio Jabla himself; that the Vite spouses were likewise
hit, as their daughter, by said witness and by Mariano Mangao; and that
Bonifacia Vite was picked up by him when she was crawling after having
been hit by Jabla, but that Jabla took her from his arms in order to
throw her into the fire.

Alejandro Laina, in turn, testified that he had seen at the scene
of the crime not only his co-accused but also Vicencio Jabla and
Mariano Mangao, although he claims not to have witnessed how the crime
was committed. Simeon Aranas testified likewise.

Getulio Masin admitted having seen somebody drag the girl by the
hand and Vicencio Jabla throw her into the fire. He admitted further
that he had seen Alejandro Laina and Jose Tongol at the scene of the
crime.

Ambrosio Mabascug admitted having gone to the scene of the crime
but said that he did not reach the place where the burned house was
situated because at the chapel nearby he met Jose Tongol and Marciano
Mangao who told him not to tell anybody that the Vites had already been
burned and that he could then go home.

Basilio Mangao likewise admitted having gone to the scene of the
crime when the burned house was falling down; that he saw Vicencio
Jabla and Marciano Mangao there, and that after seeing them, he went
home without doing anything else.

Cirilo Aboabo confined himself to stating in his testimony that he
had not hit anybody, but did not deny having gone with his co-accused
from the house of Marciano Mangao to the place of the Vites for the
purpose of carrying out the plan premeditated by them, according to the
evidence for the prosecution.

It is evident that all the efforts of the accused were aimed at
laying the blame on the witnesses for the prosecution Vicencio Jabla
and Marciano Mangao, who, in fact, are mere youths of 25 and 24 years
of age, respectively, and of no consequence in their barrio.
Contrasting this circumstance and the fact that Getulio Masin was
lieutenant of the barrio where the triple murder was committed and that
he is 36 years of age; that Cirilo Aboabo and Basilio Mangao are 40 and
35 years of age, respectively; and that Alejandro Laina, is 26, Jose
Tongol 25 and Ambrosio Mabascug 26, it will appear clear that Vicencio
Jabla and Marciano Mangao could not have been the ones who led the
movement to eliminate the Vites or who eliminated them. The accused
being older in years, and Getulio Masin having held the office of
lieutenant of said barrio, could not have patiently stood idly without
taking any action against the two or without doing or saying anything,
as they allegedly did. They would have placed, them under arrest, or at
least, they would have prevented them from committing said act, if they
had not wanted to catch them and place them at the disposal of the
authorities.

The lower court, referring to said two witnesses for the prosecution, stated as follows:

“This court,, however, is not inclined to believe
and give any credit to the excuses of the witnesses Vicencio Jabla and
Marciano Mangao, in their desire to evade the criminal responsibility
they might incur, as their claim that their participation in the
commission of the crime was due to the threat against their lives on
the part of “the accused Getulio Masin, is highly improbable, if it is
considered, as the evidence shows, that the crime was committed by the
accused by mutual agreement with said witnesses for the prosecution.”

It is possible that the two witnesses may not be as innocent as
they claimed, but their complicity in the triple crime, if any, did not
render them incompetent to testify as witnesses in the case and does
not necessarily discredit their testimony, because, as already stated,
it has been corroborated in every detail not only by the other evidence
for the prosecution but also by the very testimony of the
accused-appellants. Complicity is no cause for discrediting the
testimony of a supposed accomplice or coauthor of the crime when, as in
the present case, it is corroborated in all respects, particularly when
there is no evidence to show that it was prompted by some improper or,
questionable motive (People vs. Bautista, 49 Phil., 389; People vs. Resabal, 50 Phil, 780).

On the other hand, the lower court substantially gave credit to
said witnesses and no sufficient reason exists to reverse or modify its
conclusions with respect to “the facts on which they testified, all the
witnesses in the case having appeared, as they did appear, before it,
and consequently its opportunity to examine them, observe their manner
and scrutinize their demeanor during the trial, for the purpose of
ascertaining the truth, was better and more ample (People vs. De Asis, 61 Phil., 384; People vs. Garcia, 63 Phil., 296).

By reason of the foregoing considerations, this court is convinced
of the guilt of the accused, but what is the nature of their
responsibility?

In the case of United States vs. Balaba (37 Phil., 260),
this court said that when an information charges more than one offense
and no objection is entered against tlie continuation of the trial upon
said information, the accused should be declared guilty of each and
every one of the offenses proven and imputed to him therein. The same
doctrine should be followed in this case because, it being alleged in
the information that three crimes were committed not simultaneously
indeed but successively, inasmuch as there was, at least, solution of
continuity between each other, the accused should be held responsible
for said three crimes. This court holds that the crimes are murder: one
committed on the person of Santiago Vite; another on that of Isabel
Taal, and another on that of the girl Bonifacia Vite. The first two
crimes are characterized by the qualifying circumstance of evident
premeditation and by the generic aggravating circumstances of
nighttime, dwelling and in band, with no mitigating circumstance except
that of lack of instruction, which may naturally be inferred from the
fact that the accused believed in witchery. The last crime is, in turn,
characterized by the qualifying circumstance of fire, and by the
generic aggravating circumstances of treachery, in band, nighttime and
cruelty, with no mitigating circumstance to offset them except lack of
instruction. In view of all these circumstances and of the so
frequently reiterated doctrine that once conspiracy is proven each and
every one of the conspirators must answer for the acts of the others,
provided said acts are the result of the common plan or purpose (People
vs. Dayug and Bannaisan, 49 Phil., 423: People vs. Chan Lin Wat, 50 Phil, 182; People vs. Daos, 60 Phil., 143; People vs.
Cu Unjieng, 61 Phil., 236, 906, and the authorities therein cited), it
would seem evident that the penalty that should be imposed upon each of
the appellants for each of their three crimes should be the same, and
this is the death penalty, because, much as one may wish, the
mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction would compensate only
one of the aggravating circumstances proven (arts. 248 and 64, rule 4,
Revised Penal Code). However, as there has been no unanimity among the
members of the court in the imposition of the death penalty, it is
inevitable to follow the provisions of section 138 of the Revised
Administrative Code, as amended by section 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 3,
that is: to impose upon the appellants the penalty next lower in
degree, or reclusion perpetua.

Wherefore, the appealed judgment is modified by sentencing the
appellants: (a) for the murder of Bonifacia Vite, to the penalty of reclusion perpetua
and to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs thereof in the sum of
P1,000, and (b) for the murder of Santiago Vite, to suffer the penalty
of ten years, which is one-third of the duration of reclusion perpetua
computed on the basis of thirty years, according to the provisions of
article 70 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Commonwealth Act
No. 217, refraining from imposing two-thirds of said penalty because in
so doing, the limit of the duration of the penalties that may be
imposed upon them for their said three crimes would be exceeded, which
duration should in no case exceed forty years (second to the last
paragraph of the above-cited article); and this court refrains from
imposing the penalty deserved by them for the murder of Isabel Taal,
for the same reasons just stated.

Each and every one of the appellants is further sentenced to
indemnify the heirs of the deceased Santiago Vite in the sum of P1,000,
and those of the deceased Isabel Taal in the same amount, jointly and
severally in each case, and to pay proportionately the costs of the
proceedings. So ordered.

Avancena, C. J., Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial, Laurel, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.