Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1953 > May 1953 Decisions > G.R. No. L-3772 May 13, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAUTI LINGCUAN, ET AL.

093 Phil 9:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-3772. May 13, 1953.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MAUTI LINGCUAN and MAMANTUK MAUTI, Defendants-Appellants.

Solicitor General Pompeyo Diaz, and Assistant Solicitor General Guillermo E. Torres, for Appellee.

Alexander Sycip for appellants.


SYLLABUS


1. MURDER; FINE AND PENALTY; PENALTY FOR A PERSON OVER 15 YEARS AND UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE. — M was found to have been only 15 years of age when he committed the crime of murder, but he must be at least 19 years when the decision was promulgated. Under the ruling in the case of People v. Estela 86 Phil., 104 this appellant is no longer entitled to the benefits of article 30 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, to be placed under the custody of charitable or correctional institution. M must fall under the provisions of article 69, No. 2, by which "upon a person over fifteen and under eighteen years of age, the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed."


D E C I S I O N


TUASON, J.:


Mauti Lingcuan and Mamantuk Mauti, father and son and appellants, were charged with the crime of murder, it being alleged that in company with Lomangcolob Dimaocom, who was still at large, they shot and killed Gadungan Mantar on March 31, 1949, in barrio Madaya, Municipality of Dansalan, Province of Lanao.

It appears that about 9:00 o’clock on the evening of the above- mentioned date, Gadungan Mantar was sewing or weaving in her home when gunshots rang out outside the house and one of the bullets struck her in the back, from the effects of which she died three days later in a hospital or clinic to which she had been taken after being wounded. The rest of the family had gone to bed for the night but they were still awake or were awakened by the firing.

Two of these, Tiburon Mantar and Macapanton Macadaag, claimed to have identified the accused as two of three assailants. They testified at great lengths and gave minute details of the clothings of the assailants and of the guns they carried.

In brief, they said that upon hearing the shots and Gadungan’s screams for help, Tiburon Mantar grabbed his gun and flashlight and jumped down the house followed by Macapanton Macadaag; that on the ground Tiburon switched his flashlight and both recognized Mauti Lingcuan, Mamantuk Mauti and Lomangcolob; that Mauti Lingcuan was carrying a rifle and a revolver, Mamantuk Mauti a carbine, and Lomangcolob a shotgun; that Mauti Lingcuan is Mamantuk Mauti’s father, Lomangcolob the husband of Mauti Lingcuan’s sister, and Lomangcolob’s daughter is one of the wives of Mauti Lingcuan. Both stated that the strangers were running and they, witnesses, were not able to catch up with them.

Indirect or circumstantial evidence was furnished by Moslem Ayo and Pangandaman Dimapunong. The first, inspector of an electric company in Dansalan, testified that in the afternoon of March 31, 1949, he met Mauti Lingcuan at the public market in Bangolo, Dansalan, and had a conversation with this accused. He declared that he had bought electric posts from Mauti Lingcuan and the latter requested him on that occasion to pay the balance of the purchase price, which was P10, telling him that Namir Mantar (deceased’s father) had filed a criminal complaint against him and, being the (district) mayor, he was ashamed. Ayo said that Lingcuan told him that he was pressed for money and was going to kill Namir Mantar or his daughter, Gadungan, or his wife, Babai, if the witness did not pay him. The witness further said that he cautioned Lingcuan and informed Tiburon Mantar on the road near the electric plant of Lingcuan’s threat, and blamed Tiburon after the murder for not taking heed of his warning.

Pangandaman Dimapunong testified that after going to bed in Dilay on March 31, 1949, he heard gunfires and the peal of agongs and, with Mama sa Bukid who had told him to get ready, he rushed towards Papandayan from where the firing and the sound of alarm came. He swore that upon reaching the bridge in Somioran he and Mama sa Bukid heard footsteps of running men, whereupon he and his companion hid behind a bush; that from their hiding place, at a distance of about three brazas, they saw Sultan sa Dimagaling (Mauti Lingcuan), Lomangcolob and Mamantuk Mauti pass; that he heard the Sultan tell Mamantuk to hurry; that the two accused and Lomangcolob were carrying firearms although he could not tell what kind of firearms they were because he was scared and the three men were running. He also said that he and Mama sa Bukid proceeded to Papandayan where Gadungan had been shot, and told the people they found there that they had met the two accused and Lomangcolob; that Amai Macapado asked if the assassins could still be overtaken and they answered no. The witness stated that Dilay where he lived was about four kilometers from Papandayan.

The defense is alibi and a great amount of testimony was introduced to support it. It is not deemed necessary, however, to burden this decision with a recital of the defendant’s evidence. The result of this appeal rests primarily upon the credibility of the witnesses for the prosecution and it is to this that we will address ourselves presently.

Captain Mamarinta Lao of the Philippine Constabulary, a prosecution witness who made an ocular inspection of the place of the crime and its surroundings, expressed serious doubts that Tiburon Mantar and Pangandaman Dimapunong were able to identify the assassin or assassins, while counsel for the appellants believes that these witnesses could at the most have seen, but not recognized, three men fleeing, and only imagined that the culprits were the accused and Lomangcolob because upon these they pinned their suspicion. To this we agree.

There is no apparent justification for doubting Moslem Ayo’s and Pangandaman Dimapunong’s veracity, however. Related to Mauti Lingcuan, as he declared, and not to the deceased’s family, Ayo’s natural leaning should have been more on the side of the defendants than of the government. There is every reason to believe that in testifying against the defendants he was motivated by no other consideration than sense of duty and due regard for his oath.

Incidentally, this relationship and intimacy between Lingcuan and Ayo may well explain why the former let the latter into his feelings of resentment against Namir Mantar. That he could be so indiscreet and imprudent as to bare to others, even relatives, his desperate plans against Namir will not appear strange if one stops to remember that he belongs to a race noted for its daring and little regard for consequences, is illiterate (he signs his name with a thumbmark), and had been prosecuted once for murder although acquitted by the Supreme Court. Besides, it would seem that Lingcuan did not tell Ayo that he wanted or was going to kill Namir with cool deliberation, but spoke his mind in a sudden impulse or outburst of temper as he unburdened himself of his grievances and bitterness against the man who he thought had been persecuting him and put him to shame.

Like Moslem Ayo, Pangandaman Dimapunong was closer to the accused than to the deceased’s family which was not even his neighbor. This witness said that Lingcuan is his father’s second cousin and Lomangcolob his distant relative, and refers to the former as his uncle and to Mamantuk as brother. His testimony moreover rings true, free from any marks of falsehood or exaggeration. His statement that he recognized the accused even though there were only stars to illuminate the place was not at all improbable. Knowing the defendants intimately, it was not impossible for him to tell them from others by their heights and the shapes of their bodies and by their movements and voices, even if he did not distinctly see their facial features.

In the light of the antecedents between the Lingcuan and Namir Mantar, Moslem Ayo’s and Pangandaman Dimapunong’s testimony sustains beyond reasonable doubt the appellant’s conviction by the lower court. It is an admitted fact that Mauti Lingcuan had recently been charged with estafa by Namir Mantar and was in consequence kept in jail until he put up a bond, and that this case (which was later dismissed in the Court of First Instance on motion of the Provincial Fiscal on the ground that the subject of the complaint was simple debt) was still pending in the justice of the peace court when the crime at bar was perpetrated.

For a last word, Lomangcolob’s flight almost immediately after the present case had been temporarily dismissed is not without significance as proof of guilt; and this proof applies by logical inference to the appellants as well as Lomangcolob. The two defendants and Lomangcolob belong to the same family; it is expressly admitted that there were three assailants, and there is no suggestion that Lomangcolob had anything against the deceased’s family other than his father-in-law’s grudge against Namir Mantar. Lomangcolob’s escape, therefore, considered in relation to these circumstances rightly lends credence to the theory that the three men who were seen running and carrying firearms were Lomangcolob and the defendants. It is of interest to recall in this connection that the fleeing men whom Pangandaman Dimapunong saw were heading in the direction of the defendants’ barrio and that it does not appear that there were other people who had any cause to attempt against the life of Namir Mantar’s family.

A licensed firearm of Lingcuan’s was seized and examined and was found, so it is inferred from the prosecution’s silence on the result of the ballistic examination, not to have been fired recently. But this negative finding does not prove one thing or another, for the assailants were provided with more than one gun.

Mamantuk Mauti was found to have been only 15 years of age when he committed the crime but he must be at least 19 years old now. Under the ruling laid down in People of the Philippines v. Estela Et. Al., G. R. No. L-1753, April 12, 1950, * this appellant is no longer entitled to the benefits of Article 80 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act No. 47. It was held in that case that the accused minor, who had reached the age of 18 at the time of the trial, had no right under the above-cited provisions to be placed under the custody of a charitable or correctional institution. Judge Guevara, a member of the Committee which revised the old Penal Code, is also of the opinion that Article 80 is "applicable only to those offenders who are under eighteen (now sixteen), not only at the commission of the offense, but also at the time of the trial against them." (Revised Penal Code by Guevara, Fourth Edition, p. 190).

The alternative, as also laid down in People v. Estela Et. Al., supra, is application of case No. 2 of Article 68 by which "upon a person over fifteen and under eighteen years of age, the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed."cralaw virtua1aw library

Wherefore, the appealed decision condemning Mauti Lingcuan to reclusion perpetua and to pay P2,000 as indemnity to the heirs of the deceased and committing Mamantuk Mauti to Welfareville shall be modified so that Mamantuk Mauti shall be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from six years of prision mayor to 14 years, 10 months and 20 days of reclusion temporal, and both defendants shall jointly and severally indemnify Gadungan’s heirs in the sum of P6,000. It is so ordered, with the costs of both instances against the appellants.

Paras, C.J., Feria, Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



* 47 Off. Gaz.; 86 Phil. 104.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






May-1953 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-5078 May 4, 1953 - LUIS FRANCISCO v. MAXIMA VDA. DE BLAS, ET AL.

    093 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-5195 May 4, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NAPOLEON LIBRE, ET AL.

    093 Phil 5

  • G.R. No. L-3772 May 13, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAUTI LINGCUAN, ET AL.

    093 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. L-5217 May 13, 1953 - VICENTE VILORIA v. ISIDORO VILORIA

    093 Phil 15

  • G.R. No. L-5292 May 13, 1953 - PELAGIA ARANTE v. ARCADIO ROSEL

    093 Phil 18

  • G.R. No. L-5331 May 13, 1953 - NG YOUNG v. ANA VILLA

    093 Phil 21

  • G.R. No. L-4258 May 15, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO FRANCISCO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-4716 May 15, 1953 - FELICISIMA DAPITON v. NICOLAS VELOSO

    093 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. L-4847 May 15, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MOROS ANSANG

    093 Phil 44

  • G.R. No. L-5089 May 15, 1953 - JUAN MORTOS v. VICTOR ELLO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. L-5117 May 15, 1953 - IN RE: FRANCISCO ANG VELOSO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    093 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. L-5529 May 15, 1953 - FORTUNATA RAMENTO, ET AL. v. GUADALUPE COSUANGCO

    093 Phil 56

  • G.R. No. L-5594 May 15, 1953 - ATOK-BIG WEDGE MINING CO., INC. v. ATOK-BIG WEDGE MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOC.

    093 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. L-6165 May 15, 1953 - ISABELO CENTENO, v. DOLORES GALLARDO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 63

  • G.R. No. L-3708 May 18, 1953 - ROYAL L. RUTTER v. PLACIDO J. ESTEBAN

    093 Phil 68

  • G.R. No. L-4880 May 18, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUTIQUIANO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

    093 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-4565 May 20, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIO RAIZ

    093 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. L-5963 May 20, 1953 - LEYTE-SAMAR SALES CO., ET AL. v. SULPICIO V. CEA, ET AL.

    093 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. L-4376 May 22, 1953 - ASSOCIATION OF CUSTOMS BROKERS, INC. v. MUNICIPAL BOARD, ET AL.

    093 Phil 107

  • G.R. No. L-4572 May 22, 1953 - DOLORITO M. FELICIANO, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS

    093 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. L-5029 May 22, 1953 - IN RE: CHUA TIONG CHIA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    093 Phil 117

  • G.R. No. L-5829 May 22, 1953 - JOSE NONO v. RUPERTO NEQUIA y OTROS

    093 Phil 120

  • G.R. Nos. L-4517-20 May 25, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GODOFREDO ROMERO

    093 Phil 128

  • G.R. No. L-4628 May 25, 1953 - VICENTE M. JOVEN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    093 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. L-4641 May 25, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs.PEDRO JIMENEZ, ET AL.

    093 Phil 137

  • G.R. No. L-4888 May 25, 1953 - JOSE MERZA v. PEDRO LOPEZ PORRAS

    093 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-5086 May 25, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VENTURA LANAS

    093 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. L-5236 May 25, 1953 - JOSE TORRES v. HERMENEGILDA SICAT VDA. DE MORALES

    093 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. L-5677 May 25, 1953 - LA CAMPANA COFFEE FACTORY, INC., ET AL. v. KAISAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA LA CAMPANA, ET AL.

    093 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. L-6108 May 25, 1953 - FRANCISCO DE BORJA, ET AL. v. BIENVENIDO TAN, ET AL.

    093 Phil 167

  • G.R. No. L-6528 May 25, 1953 - MUNICIPALITY OF BOCAUE, ET AL. v. SEVERINO MANOTOK, ET AL.

    093 Phil 173

  • G.R. No. L-4478 May 27, 1953 - VICENTE DY SUN v. RICARDO BRILLANTES, ET AL.

    093 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. L-5127 May 27, 1953 - PEDRO BATUNGBAKAL v. NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, ET AL.

    093 Phil 182

  • G.R. No. L-5145 May 27, 1953 - FRANCISCO BASTIDA, ET AL. v. DY BUNCIO & CO. INC.

    093 Phil 195

  • G.R. Nos. L-5363 & L-5364 May 27, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAIWAN LUCAS

    093 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. L-5554 May 27, 1953 - BENITO CHUA KUY v. EVERRETT STEAMSHIP CORPORATION

    093 Phil 207

  • G.R. No. L-4177 May 29, 1953 - IN RE: YAP CHIN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    093 Phil 215

  • G.R. No. L-4433 May 29, 1953 - SALUD PATENTE v. ROMAN OMEGA

    093 Phil 218

  • G.R. No. L-4629 May 29, 1953 - JUAN D. SALVADOR, ET AL. v. GUILLERMO LOCSIN

    093 Phil 225

  • G.R. No. L-4645 May 29, 1953 - LORENZO GAUIRAN v. RUFINO SAHAGUN

    093 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. L-5184 May 29, 1953 - MACONDRAY & CO. v. CONNECTICUT FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD

    093 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. L-5282 May 29, 1953 - GERONIMO DE LOS REYES v. ARTEMIO ELEPAÑO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. L-5296 May 29, 1953 - GREGORIO ENRIQUEZ v. DONATO PEREZ

    093 Phil 246

  • G.R. No. L-5345 May 29, 1953 - COMMUNITY INVESTMENT FINANCE CORP. v. EUTIQUIANO GARCIA

    093 Phil 250

  • G.R. No. L-5406 May 29, 1953 - TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO. v. TALISAY EMPLOYEES AND LABORERS’ UNION

    093 Phil 251

  • G.R. Nos. L-5426-28 May 29, 1953 - RAMON JOAQUIN v. ANTONIO C. NAVARRO

    093 Phil 257

  • G.R. No. L-5535 May 29, 1953 - U. S. COMMERCIAL CO. v. FORTUNATO F. HALILI

    093 Phil 271

  • G.R. No. L-5567 May 29, 1953 - JUAN EVANGELISTA v. GUILLERMO MONTAÑO

    093 Phil 275

  • G.R. No. L-5601 May 29, 1953 - LEON VELEZ v. VICENTE VARELA

    093 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. L-5640 May 29, 1953 - ESTEBAN G. LAPID v. GUILLERMO CABRERA, ETC., ET AL.

    093 Phil 285

  • G.R. No. L-5783 May 29, 1953 - MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY CO. v. MANILA TRADING LABOR ASSOCIATION

    093 Phil 288

  • Adm. Case No. 72 May 30, 1953 - PLACIDO MANALO v. PEDRO N. GAN

    093 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. L-4758 May 30, 1953 - CALTEX [PHIL. ] INC. v. PHILIPPINE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS

    093 Phil 295

  • G.R. No. L-4887 May 30, 1953 - UY MATIAO & CO., INC. v. CITY OF CEBU, ET AL.

    093 Phil 300

  • G.R. No. L-5301 May 30, 1953 - LOURDES T. PAGUIO v. MARIA ROSADO DE RUIZ

    093 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. L-6121 May 30, 1953 - MANUEL S. GAMALINDA v. JOSE V. YAP

    093 Phil 310