THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. SANDAL, ARIMAO, LONSING, MAMA, AND PAMPANG, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

The Moros Sandal, Arimao, Lonsing, Mama, and Pampang appeal from the judgment
of the Court of First Instance of Lanao convicting them of murder committed on
the 18th of February, 1929, upon the person of Eleno Lamorena, and sentencing
each of them to twenty years of cadena temporal, with the accessories of law, to
indemnify the heirs of the deceased jointly and severally in the amount of
P1,000, and to pay their proportional part of the costs.

On the date mentioned, in Abaga, District of Monungan, Province of Lanao,
Inambar, a Moro woman, heard the appellant Sandal call the deceased, and later
saw them engaged in conversation. While the two were talking, appellant Pampang
went up to them and with a hammer struck the deceased on the back of the neck,
felling him to the ground. Sandal and the, rest of the appellants, Lonsing,
Arimao, and Mama, then closed in on the fallen man beating him to death.

Moro Dimaponong testified that early in the morning of that day, he saw
Eleno, the deceased, in Tomas Permites’ warehouse, while the appellants were
nearby constructing a house. When witness returned to the warehouse, he saw
neither the deceased nor the defendants where he had seen them before. On that
night as he was going home, witness saw appellants near a sawmill, carrying the
corpse of Eleno, which they threw into the river. During the inquiry made by the
Constabulary lieutenant into Eleno’s disappearance, Dimaponong testified to this
effect, and the corpse was found in that part of the river indicated by him.

Doctor Pablo Hamoy in the morpost-tem examination found the following
lesions: The right side of the neck and the right shoulder were bruised; the
neck was fractured and the right shoulder dislocated; the right eye was bruised;
marked cyanosis and acute hemorrhage of both eyes which were somewhat sunken;
marked cyanosis of the lips with the incisors jutting forward and loose cyanosis
and hemorrhage of the gums, and hemorrhage of the nose; cyanosis of the whole
face, a wound in the left arm and forearm, and a contusion on the breast and
abdomen.

The following facts of record explain the motive of the assault: When Tomas
Permites went to Manila to look after certain matters he left Eleno in charge of
his interests in Monungan. While Permites was in Manila, the appellants caused
some injuries to his carabaos, as a result of which Eleno had a dispute with
them. Eleno sent word of what had happened to Permites in Manila, and when the
latter returned to Monungan, he verified the facts and filed a complaint against
the appellants. Eleno was to be the principal witness, and the defendants knew
it.

The appellants denied the facts set forth and attempted to prove an
alibi.

Upon consideration of the evidence for both sides, we agree with the
conclusion of the trial court that the appellants killed Eleno in the manner
described above. The court below did not err in weighing the evidence.

Another assignment of error alleged by the appellants in this instance deals
with the trial court’s refusal to admit a certain witness presented by the
defense. The court took this stand for the reason that this witness had been
present during the hearing notwithstanding the court’s order that all witnesses
leave the court room. Under such circumstances it lies within the court’s
discretion to admit or reject the testimony of the witness. And although we are
of opinion that the court below should have admitted the testimony of this
witness, especially when he stated that he did not hear what the other witnesses
testified, yet there is nothing to show that this error has affected the
appellants’ defense. There is nothing to show what this witness would have
testified if admitted, and so it cannot be held that his failure to testify has
materially affected the appellants’ defense.

The appellants also assign as an error the fact that the trial court failed
to require the fiscal to exhibit the testimony given by the witnesses during the
preliminary investigation conducted by the justice of the peace. But the only
effect of this failure was to entitle the defense to adduce secondary evidence
touching the testimony of said witnesses, for the purpose of attacking their
veracity, should they have been presented as witnesses during the trial.

Neither did the trial court commit an error in refusing the defense an
extension of time to present Doctor Feliciano, for this is a matter wholly
within the court’s discretion, the abuse whereof has not been shown, especially
in view of the fact that it was not informed of the nature of this witness’s
testimony.

Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the
appellants. So ordered.

Street, Villamor, Ostrand, Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ.,
concur.

Johns, J., dissents.