Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-12057 August 30, 1917
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
CLEMENTE GAMPOŅA, TOMAS MANGRUBANG and ROMAN GUILLERMO, defendants-appellants.
Irineo Javier for appellant Gampoña.
Alberto Reyes for the other appellants.
Office of the Solicitor-General Paredes for appellee.
STREET, J.:
It appears from the evidence in this case that on or about April 1, 1915, Leon Raneses was murdered in the municipality of Sinait, in the Province of Ilocos Sur, under the following circumstances: Clemente Gampoña, being moved by the desire to possess the wife and the property of Raneses, induced Valentin Yacas, Liberto Tumbaga, Tomas Mangrubang, and Roman Guillermo to kill him for a reward to be paid in money. In order to accomplish the work with the least possible danger of discovery, it was decided that the intended victim should be lured to a wild, remote, and uninhabited place in the mountains. To this end he was invited to go with these four men to a place called Pittao upon the pretense that they would there find a molave tree from which flowed bulbulong, a mysterious liquid supposed to have the virtue of making the man who possessed it irresistible to women. By prearrangement the party met late in the evening on the date mentioned above at a hut situated in a field of Tomas Mangrubang. To this place the deceased was brought by Liberto Tumbaga; and there these two found their three companions ready for the journey. The party proceeded on its way, but after they had climbed some distance up Mount Camiding they decided to stop for the night. When Raneses had fallen asleep the assassins, who had remained awake, arose and proceeded to their work. Valentin Yacas struck the deceased in the forehead with a hatchet a blow which necessarily would have been fatal. Roman Guillermo then struck him in the right side and Tomas Mangrubang struck him in the left side with the sharp edge of the same instrument, inflicting other wounds of a serious nature. When the victim was dead the body was buried in the bed of a dry stream nearby, and the murderers returned to their homes. Within a short period they were paid the reward which had been promised by Clemente Gampoña, being P160 on money. This money was divided among the four.
The accused in this proceeding are Clemente Gampoña, Tomas Mangrubang, and Roman Guillermo. Another of the four agents in this murder, Liberto Tumbaga, was joined in the complaint but asked for a severance and was not tried in this case.
The principal witness for the prosecution was Valentin Yacas, who admitted that he himself struck the first blow. Nevertheless as he made the fullest and most complete declaration of the circumstances of the tragedy, at the time of the preliminary examination, the prosecuting authorities decided to use him as their witness. To this end they procured a dismissal as to him before the justice of the peace; and his name does not appear in the complaint in the present action. This circumstance does not affect the admissibility of his testimony.
The testimony given by Valentin Yacas is consistent and in our opinion was not discredited by other testimony. On the contrary it is confirmed in material particulars by sundry admissions and confessions of each of the accused, made at or about the time of the preliminary examination. As a result of these confession, and under the guidance of some of the actors in this tragedy, human bones were found at or near the place where the body of the deceased had been buried; and there can be no doubt that these formed part of the skeleton of the deceased.
In the light of the proof adduced in this case there appears no room to doubt the guilt of all of the defendants.
There were present in this case the aggravating circumstances of craft, alevosia, evident premeditation, and that the crime was committed in an uninhabited place. (Subsections 2, 7, 8, 15 of section 10.) The circumstance of nocturnity in this case is sufficiently estimated in the circumstance of alevosia and need not be considered. It is also evident that the aggravating circumstances of craft, evident premeditation, and the commission of the crime in an uninhabited place are involved to some extent with each other; and upon close analysis it would probably be found that the number of these aggravating circumstances could be reduced. For instance, it might be argued that evident premeditation is sufficiently estimated in craft and the commission of the crime for a reward. However, it is obvious that no benefit would result to these defendants as a result of such process, for the aggravating elements are so pronounced and numerous that it would be impossible under the circumstances of this case to reduce the penalty below the maximum prescribed for the crime of murder.
Ignorance and lack of education is conceded as a mitigating circumstance in favor of Tomas Mangrubang and Roman Guillermo, under article 11, as amended. But this circumstance also is not sufficient in our estimation to reduce the penalty below the maximum prescribed for the crime of murder. This also was the finding of the trial judge, who imposed upon the three defendants the penalty of death. In this we think there was no error.
For the reasons stated the judgment under review must be affirmed, with costs of this instance against the defendants. The penalty of death shall be executed at a time to be fixed by the trial court and in all respects in accordance with law. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Johnson, Carson, Araullo and Malcolm, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
