THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. FELIPE KALALO ET AL., DEFENDANTS. FELIPE KALALO, MARCELO KALALO, JUAN KALALO, AND GREGORIO RAMOS, APPELLANTS.

On November 10, 1932, the herein
appellants Felipe Kalalo, Marcelo Kalalo, Juan Kalalo and Gregorio
Ramos, were tried in the Court of First Instance of Batangas jointly
with Alejandro Garcia, Fausta Abrenica and Alipia Abrenica in criminal
cases Nos. 6858, 6859 and 6860, the first two for murder, and the last
for frustrated murder. Upon agreement of the parties said three cases
were tried together and after the presentation of their respective
evidence, the said court acquitted Alejandro Garcia, Fausta Abrenica
and Alipia Abrenica, and sentenced the appellants as follows:

In case No. 6858, for the alleged murder of Marcelino Panaligan, to seventeen years, four months and one day of reclusion temporal,
with the corresponding accessory penalties, and to indemnify the heirs
of the said deceased Marcelino Panaligan in the sum of P1,000, with the
costs.

In case No. 6859, for the alleged murder of Arcadio Holgado, to seventeen years, four months and one day of reclusion temporal,
with the corresponding accessory penalties, and to indemnify the heirs
of the aforesaid victim, the deceased Arcadio Holgado, in the sum of
P1,000, with the costs.

In the third case, that is, No. 6860, wherein the court a quo
held that the crime committed was simply that of discharge of firearms,
not frustrated murder, the appellant Marcelo Kalalo was sentenced to
one year, eight months and twenty-one days of prision correccional
and to pay the proportionate part of the costs of the proceedings.
Felipe Kalalo and Juan Kalalo, as well as their co-accused Fausta and
Alipia Abrenica, Gregorio Ramos and Alejandro Garcia, were acquitted of
the charges therein.

The accused in the aforesaid three cases appealed from their
respective sentences assigning six alleged errors as committed by the
trial court, all of which may be discussed jointly in view of the fact
that they raise only one question, to wit: whether or not said
sentences are in accordance with law.

A careful study and examination of the evidence presented disclose
the following facts: Prior to October 1,1932, the date of the
commission of the three crimes alleged in the three informations which
gave rise to the aforesaid three cases Nos. 6858, 6859 and 6860, the
appellant Marcelo Kalalo or Calalo and Isabela Holgado or Olgado, the
latter being the sister of the deceased Arcadio Holgado and a cousin of
the other deceased Marcelino Panaligan, had a litigation over a parcel
of land situated in the barrio of Calumpang of the municipality of San
Luis, Province of Batangas. On September 28, 1931, and again on
December 8th of the same year, Marcelo Kalalo filed a complaint against
the said woman in the Court of First Instance of Batangas. By virtue of
a motion filed by his opponent Isabela Holgado, his first complaint was
dismissed on December 7, 1931, and his second complaint was likewise
dismissed on February 5, 1932. Marcelo Kalalo cultivated the land in
question during the agricultural years 1931 and 1932, but when harvest
time came Isabela Holgado reaped all that had been planted thereon.

On October 1, 1932, Isabela Holgado and her brother Arcadio
Holgado, one of the deceased, decided to order the aforesaid land
plowed, and employed several laborers for that purpose. These men,
together with Arcadio Holgado, went to the said land early that day,
but Marcelo Kalalo, who had been informed thereof, proceeded to the
place accompanied by his brothers Felipe and Juan Kalalo, his
brother-in-law Gregorio Ramos and by Alejandro Garcia, who were later
followed by Fausta Abrenica and Alipia Abrenica, mother and aunt,
respectively, of the first three.

The first five were all armed with bolos. Upon their arrival at the
said land, they ordered those who were plowing it by request of Isabela
and Arcadio Holgado, to stop, which they did in view of the threatening
attitude of those who gave them said order.

Shortly after nine o’clock on the morning of the same day, Isabela
Holgado, Maria Gutierrez and Hilarion Holgado arrived at the place with
food for the laborers. Before the men resumed their work, they were
given their food and not long after they had finished eating, Marcelino
Panaligan, cousin of said Isabela and Arcadio, likewise arrived. Having
been informed of the cause of the suspension of the work, Marcelino
Panaligan ordered said Arcadio and the other laborers to again hitch
their respective carabaos to continue the work already began. At this
juncture, the appellant Marcelo Kalalo approached Arcadio, while the
appellants Felipe Kalalo, Juan Kalalo and Gregorio Ramos, in turn,
approached Marcelino Panaligan. At a remark from Fausta Abrenica,
mother of the Kalalos, about as follows, “what is detaining you?” they
all simultaneously struck with their bolos, the appellant Marcelo
Kalalo slashing Arcadio Holgado, while the appellants Felipe Kalalo,
Juan Kalalo and Gregorio Ramos slashed Marcelino Panaligan, inflicting
upon them the wounds enumerated and described in the medical
certificates Exhibits I and H. Arcadio Holgado and Marcelino Panaligan
died instantly from the wounds received by them in the presence of
Isabela Holgado and Maria Gutierrez, not to mention the accused. The
plowmen hired by Arcadio and Isabela all ran away.

Arcadio Holgado’s body bore the following six wounds, to wit:

“1. A cut wound on the ulnar side of right arm near the wrist, cutting the ulnar bone completely and, the radius partially.

“2. A cut wound on the anterior upper portion of the left arm measuring
about 7 cm. long and 5 cm. wide extending to the bone and cutting the
deltoid muscle across.

“3. A penetrating wound on the left
chest just below the clavicle going thru the first intercostal space
measuring about 3 cm. long and 2 cm. wide.

“4. A wound on
the left side of the back about 20 cm. long following the 10th
intercostal space and injuring the lung, diaphragm, stomach and large
intestine.

“5. A small superficial cut wound about 2 cm. long and 1/2 cm. wide situated on the inner side of the right scapula.

“6. A superficial wound barely cutting the skin, about 4 cm. long in
the lumbar region just to the right of the spinal column.” (Exhibit I.)

Marcelino Panaligan’s body, in turn, bore the following fourteen wounds, to wit:

“1. A penetrating cut wound in the epigastric
region of the abdomen measuring about 7 cm. long and 3 cm. wide cutting
the omentum and injuring the lower portion of the stomach and a portion
of the transverse colon, but no actual perforation of either one of the
two organs.

“2. A cut wound on the head just above the forehead about 6 cm. long and 4 cm. wide lifting a portion of scalp as a flap.

“3. A cut wound on the left side of the head measuring about 7 cm. long and 2 cm. wide.

“4. A cut wound about 12 cm, long across the face just below the eyes
extending from one cheek bone to the other, perforating the left antrum
and cutting the nasal bone.

“5. A cut wound on the anterior
portion of the left forearm extending to the bone with a flap of skin
and muscle which measures about 12 cm. long and 6 cm. wide.

“6. A cut wound across the dorsal side of the right hand about 5 cm. long and 2 cm. wide cutting the bones of the hand.

“7. A superficial wound about 6 cm. long and 4 cm. wide and 2 cm. deep situated in the left axilla.

“8. A cut wound about 6 cm. long and 2 cm. wide situated over the left scapula.

“9. A cut wound on the right shoulder about 6 cm. long passing near the
inner angle of the scapula cutting the muscles of the shoulder.

“10. A cut wound about 7 cm. long and 3 cm. wide situated near and almost parallel to the inner border of the right scapula.

“11. A wound on the back of the head, oval in shape, about 10 cm. long and 5 cm. wide from which a flap of scalp was removed.

“12. A wound across the back and left side of the neck about 12 cm.
long and 7 cm. deep cutting the vertebral column together with the
great arteries and veins on the left side of the neck.

“13. A wound about 15 cm. long and 4 cm. wide on the left side of the back.

“14. A small wound on the left thumb from which a portion of the bone and other tissues were removed.” (Exhibit H.)

The above detailed description of the wounds just enumerated
discloses—and there is nothing of record to contradict it—that all of
them were caused by a sharp instrument or instruments.

After Arcadio Holgado and Marcelino Panaligan had fallen to the
ground dead, the appellant Marcelo Kalalo took from its holster on the
belt of Panaligan’s body, the revolver which the deceased carried, and
fired four shots at Hilarion Holgado who was then fleeing from the
scene in order to save his own life.

The appellants attempted to prove that the fight, which resulted in
the death of the two deceased, was provoked by Marcelino Panaligan who
fired a shot at Marcelo Kalalo upon seeing the latter’s determination
to prevent Arcadio Holgado and his men from plowing the land in
question. No such firing, however, can be taken into consideration, in
the first place, because of the existence of competent evidence such as
the testimony of Maria Gutierrez, who is a disinterested witness, which
corroborates that of Isabela Holgado in all its details, showing that
the said deceased was already lying prostrate and lifeless on the
ground when the appellant Marcelo Kalalo approached him to take his
revolver for the purpose of using it, as he in fact did, against
Hilarion Holgado; in the second place, because the assault and
aggression of the said appellant were not directed against said
Marcelino Panaligan but exclusively against Arcadio Holgado, the
evidence of record on this point being overwhelming, and if his claim
were true, he naturally should have directed his attack at the person
who openly made an attempt against his life; in the third place,
because the evidence shows without question that Panaligan was an
expert shot with a revolver, and among the eight wounds that the
appellant Marcelo Kalalo received (Exhibit 3), not one appears to have
been caused by bullet, and similarly, none of the other appellants
received any wound that might, in any way, suggest the possibility of
having been caused by bullet; and finally, because the fact that he and
his co-appellants, together with those who had been charged jointly
with them, had gone to the place of the crime armed with bolos,
determined at any cost to prevent the Holgados from plowing the land in
dispute, cannot but disclose not only their determination to resort to
violence or something worse, but that they did not need any provocation
in order to carry out their intent.

They likewise attempted to prove that the appellant Marcelo Kalalo
alone fought against the deceased Marcelino Panaligan and Arcadio
Holgado and inflicted upon them the wounds which resulted in their
death, said appellant testifying that, he was compelled to do so in
defense of his own life because both of the deceased attacked him
first, the former with a revolver, firing three shots at him, and the
latter with a bolo. For the same reasons hereinbefore stated, such
defense of the appellants cannot be given credit. One man alone could
not have inflicted on the two deceased their multiple wounds,
particularly when it is borne in mind that one of them was better
armed, because he carried a revolver, and that he was furthermore an
expert shot and scarcely two arm-lengths from Kalalo, according to the
latter’s own testimony. The two witnesses for the defense, who
witnessed the crime very closely, refuted such allegation saying that
Marcelo Kalalo alone fought the deceased Arcadio Holgado and that the
other three appellants went after the other deceased. It is true that
Arcadio Holgado also used his bolo to defend himself from Marcelo
Kalalo’s aggression but it is no less true that five of the principal
wounds of the other deceased Marcelino Panaligan were inflicted on him
from behind, inasmuch as according to Exhibit H they were all found at
the back of the head, on the neck and on his back. Neither is it less
true that all the wounds of the appellant Marcelo Kalalo were inflicted
on him from the front, which fact shows that it was not he alone who
inflicted the wounds on the two deceased because had he been alone
Panaligan would not have exposed his back to be thus attacked from
behind, inasmuch as he was armed with a revolver, which circumstance
undoubtedly allowed him to keep at a distance from Kalalo; and in
connection with the testimony of Isabela Holgado and Maria Gutierrez,
said circumstance shows furthermore that the three appellants Felipe
Kalalo, Juan Kalalo and Gregorio Ramos attacked said Panaligan with
their respective bolos at the same time that Marcelo Kalalo attacked
Arcadio Holgado, in order that all might act simultaneously in
conformity with the common intent of the four and of their co-accused
to eliminate through violence and at any cost, without much risk to
them, all those who wanted to plow the land which was the cause of the
dispute between the two parties. And it is not strange that the three
appellants, who inflicted the wounds upon Marcelino Panaligan, should
act as they did, because they knew that the latter carried a revolver
in a holster on his belt.

Although it may seem a repetition or redundancy, it should be
stated that Marcelo Kalalo’s allegation that he acted in self-defense
is absolutely unfounded on the ground that, were it true that the
deceased Marcelino Panaligan succeeded in using his revolver, he would
have wounded if not the said appellant, at least the other appellants.

The trial court has acted correctly in not giving credit to the
testimony of the appellants Juan and Felipe Kalalo and Gregorio Ramos
that they proceeded to the scene of the crime completely unarmed, with
the exception that one of them had a brush in his hand and the other a
plane, after Marcelino Panaligan and Arcadio Holgado had already
expired, which is incredible and improbable under the circumstances,
knowing, as in fact they then knew, that their brother Marcelo Kalalo
had been attacked by armed men. This court cannot help but agree with
the decision of the lower court where it states:

“It is improbable that after having been informed
that their brother was engaged in a fight, they went to the scene of
the crime, one merely armed with a plane and the other with a brush. It
is improbable that Felipe Kalalo also went to that place simply to
follow Juan Kalalo and Gregorio Ramos upon seeing them run unarmed in
that direction. These improbabilities of the defenses of the accused,
in the face of the positive and clear testimony of the eyewitnesses
pointing to the said accused as the aggressors of the deceased
Marcelino Panaligan and Arcadio Holgado, cannot, of course, prevail
against nor detract from the weight of the evidence of the prosecution,
particularly taking into consideration the numerous wounds of each of
the deceased and the positions thereof, which show that the said
deceased were attacked by several persons and that those several
persons were the defendants. Furthermore, the established fact that
after the commission of the crime the said defendants had been in
hiding in order to avoid arrest, is corroborative evidence of their
guilt.”

It certainly is a fact of record that the said three appellants
Felipe Kalalo, Juan Kalalo and Gregorio Ramos were not arrested until
after several days, because they had been hiding or, at least,
absenting themselves from their homes.

That the four appellants should all be held liable for the death of
the two deceased leaves no room for doubt. All of them, in going to the
land where the killing took place, were actuated by the same motive
which was to get rid of all those who might insist on plowing the land
which they believed belonged to one of them, that is, to Marcelo
Kalalo, a fact naturally inferable from the circumstance that all of
them went there fully armed and that they simultaneously acted after
they had been instigated by their mother with the words hereinbefore
stated, to wit: “What is detaining you ?”

The question now to be decided is whether the appellants are guilty
of murder or of simple homicide in each of cases G. R. No. 39303 and G.
R. No. 39304. The Attorney-General maintains that they are guilty of
murder in view of the presence of the qualifying circumstance of abuse
of superior strength in the commission of the acts to which the said
two cases particularly refer. The trial court was of the opinion that
they are guilty of simple homicide but with the aggravating
circumstance of abuse of superior strength.

It is true that under article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, which
defines murder, the circumstance of “abuse of superior strength”, if
proven to have been present, raises homicide to the category of murder;
but this court is of the opinion that said circumstance may not
properly be taken into consideration in the two cases at bar, either as
a qualifying or as a generic circumstance, if it is borne in mind that
the deceased were also armed, one of them with a bolo, and the other
with a revolver. The risk was even for the contending parties and their
strength was almost balanced because there is no doubt but that, under
circumstances similar to those of the present case, a revolver is as
effective as, if not more so than three bolos. For this reason, this
court is of the opinion that the acts established in cases Nos. 6858
and 6859 (G. R. Nos. 39303 and 39304, respectively), merely constitute
two homicides, with no modifying circumstance to be taken into
consideration because none has been proved.

As to case No. 6860 (G. R. No. 39305), the evidence shows that
Marcelo Kalalo fired four successive shots at Hilarion Holgado while
the latter was fleeing from the scene of the crime in order to be out
of reach of the appellants and their companions and save his own life.
The fact that the said appellant, not having contented himself with
firing only once, fired said successive shots at Hilarion Holgado,
added to the circumstance that immediately before doing so he and his
co-appellants had already killed Arcadio Holgado and Marcelino
Panaligan, cousin and brother-in-law, respectively, of the former,
shows that he was then bent on killing said Hilarion Holgado. He
performed everything necessary on his part to commit the crime that he
determined to commit but he failed by reason of causes independent of
his will, either because of his poor aim or because his intended victim
succeeded in dodging the shots, none of which found its mark. The acts
thus committed by the said appellant Marcelo Kalalo constitute
attempted homicide with no modifying circumstance to be taken into
consideration, because none has been established.

Wherefore, the three appealed sentences are hereby modified as follows:

In case No. 6858, or G. R. No. 39303, the court finds that the
crime committed by the appellants is homicide and they are hereby
sentenced to fourteen years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal
each, to jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of Marcelino
Panaligan in the sum of P1,000 and to pay the proportionate part of the
costs of the proceedings of both instances; and by virtue of the
provisions of Act No. 4103, the minimum of the said penalty of reclusion temporal is hereby fixed at nine years;

In case No. 6859, or G. R. No. 39304, the court likewise finds that
the crime committed by the appellants is homicide, and they are hereby
sentenced to fourteen years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal
each, to jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of Arcadio Holgado
in the sum of P1,000 and to pay the proportionate part of the costs of
both instances; and in conformity with the provisions of Act No. 4103,
the minimum of the penalty of reclusion temporal herein imposed upon them is hereby fixed at nine years;

In case No. 6860, or G. R. No. 39305, the court finds that the
crime committed by the appellant Marcelo Kalalo is attempted homicide,
and he is hereby sentenced to two years, four months and one day of
prision correccional, it being understood that by virtue of the
provisions of said Act No. 4103, the minimum of this penalty is six
months, and he is furthermore sentenced to pay the costs of the appeal
in this case.

In all other respects, the appealed sentences in the said three
cases are hereby affirmed without prejudice to crediting the appellants
therein with one-half of the time during which they have undergone
preventive imprisonment, in accordance with article 29 of the Revised
Penal Code. So ordered.

Street, Abad Santos, Hull, and Butte, JJ., concur.