[ G.R. No. L-1764. December 09, 1948 ] 82 Phil. 271
[ G.R. No. L-1764. December 09, 1948 ]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE VS. ANGELO MAGSILANG, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
MONTEMAYOR, J.:
This is an appeal by Angelo Lagsilang from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Tarlac, finding him I guilty of murder and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua land to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Bernabe Balatbat in the amount of P2,000.00 and to pay the costs.
We have carefully examined the record of this case, I particularly the sworn statement (Exhibit “A”, “A-l”) made by the defendant before the police authorities of Bamban, Tarlac in the course of his investigation, as well as the pictures (Exhs. “B” to “B-4”) depicting his re-enactment [of the crime admitted to have been committed by him and he circumstances under which said pictures were taken, id we consider the present case of murder against the appellant, quite clear and as fully established. The facts of the case are simple and may be stated as follows:
During the Japanese occupation the appellant Angelo Magsilang became the leader or chairman of the Hukbalahap organization in the barrio of Anupul, municipality of Barnbin, Tarlac. Taking advantage of his leadership and position, he committed abuses, even atrocities, without any hindrance or effective opposition on the part of the barrio folk who were completely dominated by. fear of him. He took a fancy for Valentina Mandal, the wife of Bernabe Balatbat who was living with her in the same barrio. And in order to facilitate his amorous but unlawful venture and to avoid any interference on the part of the husband, lie continuously intimidated and threatened Bernabe Balatbat until the latter left his wife and home and went to live with his brother in the town of Mabalacat. Once the field was clear Angelo Magsilang pressed his suit, and exerted pressure, and Valentina who was equally dominated by fear, not only for her own safety but also for that of her husband and children, had to submit to the defendant’s illicit desires, as a result of which, she became Angelo’s unwilling mistress. After liberation and believing that peace and order and the reign of lav; had returned, Bernabe Balatbat left his temporary residence in Mabalacat and returned to live with his wife and children in his home in the barrio of Anupul. The appellant evidently was bent on continuing his illicit relations with Valentina Randal. At the same time, he perhaps felt he was no longer in a position to resume his efforts in intimidating and threatening Bernabe to leaving his home again, and so he decided to dispose of him more effectively and definitely.
On January 15, 1947 at about midnight, the appellant went to the home of the deceased Bernabe Balatbat, where he was sleeping with his wife Valentina and their four children. From below he called and woke: up Bernabe and told him to come down saying that he was wanted by three persons. In spite of the opposition of Valentina, perhaps suspecting that it was a trap, Bernabe afraid to disobey the order supposed to have come from a higher authority, presumably the Hukbalahap organization, went down the house and accompanied Angelo. The two men as far as she could see went in the direction of the mountains. From that time on Bernabe was never heard from nor was he seen alive.
That same night Valentina reported the kidnapping of her husband to the rural police and the next morning she herself went to the poblacion and reported the matter to the municipal police of Bamban. Seventeen days later or on February 2, 1947, because of the foul smell emanating from a well about 500 meters away from the house of the deceased, the police discovered and removed from said well the partly decomposed body of Bernabe Balatbat. His remains were duly identified by his wife Valentina and his half-brother Juan Sikat by the clothes he wore, the irregular alignment of the teeth in his left lower jaw and the scars on his forehead and on his chest just below the left nipple.
When Valentina first made the report of the kidnapping on the night it was committed to the rural police and then the next morning to the municipal police of Bamban, she did not mention the appellant as the author of the said kidnapping, she having been threatened by appellant with death should she make the revelation. But after the finding of Bernabe’s body and because the appellant was already arrested in connection with the kidnapping of one, Carmen Canelas, Valentina felt emboldened and safer and denounced the appellant as the one who kidnapped her husband. Investigated, the appellant in his written statement (Exhibit “A”) sworn to before the Justice of the Peace of Bamban admitted having kidnapped and killed the deceased by hitting him with a club from behind, near the well where the body was later on found and into which well he dumped his unconscious victim, the death having been precipitated by drowning because there was some water in the well at that time. At the suggestion of the police and with the full assent of the appellant, the latter re-enacted how he committed the crime, from the time that he led Bernabe from his house until he, the appellant clubbed him into unconsciousness with a blow from behind and then dumped him into the well.
The appellant during the trial claimed that Exhibit “A” was obtained from him thru force and duress, and that his re-enactment of the crime, shown on the pictures Exhibits “B” to “B-4”, was not voluntary. The lower court rejected this claim and said court in our opinion was fully warranted in doing so. According to the police authorities of Bamban who conducted the investigation and who prepared Exhibit “A”, the statement of Angelo contained therein was made voluntarily and without any pressure, much less intimidation or force; and when Angelo was taken before the Justice of the Peace of Bamban before whom it was sworn to, the Justice of the Peace read and explained the contents of the document in his native dialect and asked him if the contents were true and correct, to which he assented and when asked further if it was voluntary, he answered in the affirmative. Besides, it will be observed from Exh. “A” that he did not assume full responsibility for the killing. He implicated Valentina, the widow of the deceased, saying that he merely obeyed her orders. This circumstance is indicative of the voluntariness of the statement 3xh. “A”, for, had there been force and intimidation used on him, the likelihood was that he would have assumed full responsibility instead of seeking to shield himself with the alleged more guilty participation and order of Valentina, which the latter duly and emphatically denied in court. In this connection we may quote with favor a portion of the decision of the trial court regarding the probability or improbability of the appellant having been compelled and forced by the police while under detention and investigation, to do anything against his will:
“It was also proved by the prosecution that the defendant voluntarily reconstructed the crime as may be seen in the photographs Exhibits “B”, “B-1” to “B-5”. The defendant alleged that this reconstruction of the crime was forced on him by the sergeant of police, Romulo Lumboy. But the Court thinks that such an allegation is unbelievable. The Court has been observing the defendant Angelo Magsilang. He is not the kind to be intimidated. His look and demeanor speak of a courageous individual. In fact it was proved that he was a Huk commander in the locality. He was at ease in his trial and did not show any sign of worry except, at the closing of the testimony of Valentina Mandal when their amorous relations were divulged by her, that the accused began to be serious and gloomy, (pp. 4-5. decision of trial court.)
The trial court found the circumstances of premeditation, treachery and nocturnity as having attended the commission of -the crime but held them to be inherent in the offense. The Solicitor General excepts to this ruling and claims that premeditation was not fully established but that the two circumstances of treachery and nocturnity were present and should be considered, one to qualify the killing as murder and the other as aggravating circumstance, thereby warranting the penalty of death. We agree with the Solicitor General except on the point of separating the circumstances of nocturnity and treachery. Except in special cases, these two circumstances always go together and are absorbed in the same offense and in the present case we believe that although there is reason to believe that nighttime was purposely sought by the appellant in committing the crime and that in dealing the blow from behind, there was treachery, the two circumstances may well be regarded as complementing each other and to be considered as one circumstance only, to qualify the killing as murder. (U.S. vs. Salgado, 11 Phil. 56).
In view of the foregoing, and finding no reversible error in the decision appealed from, the decision is hereby affirmed in all respects with costs against the appellant.
So ordered.
Moran , C. J., Paras, Feria Pablo, Bengzon, Briones, and Tuason, JJ., concur.