Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1985 > August 1985 Decisions > G.R. No. L-45123 August 26, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANGGAYANAN SINAW-AY, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-45123. August 26, 1985.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MANGGAYANAN SINAW-AY, GAPAW MAMPINANTAW, alias GAPAW LIGUNAY, ONE alias JUNIOR ILONGGO, JOHN DOE and PETER DOE, Accused-Appellants, GAPAW MAMPINANTAW, alias GAPAW LIGUNAY, Defendant-Appellant.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, JR., J.:


Manggayanan Sinaw-ay, Gapaw Mampinantaw, alias Gapaw Ligunay, one alias Junior Ilonggo, John Doe and Peter Doe were charged with the crime of murder before the Court of First Instance of Davao in an information which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The undersigned accuses MANGGAYANAN SINAW-AY, GAPAW MAMPINANTAW, alias GAPAW LIGUNAY, one alias JUNIOR ILONGGO, JOHN DOE and PETER DOE of the crime of MURDER, under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code, committed as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

That on or about August 25, 1972, in the City of Davao, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovementioned accused, conspiring and confederating together and helping one another, armed with shotguns, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously and with intent to kill and with treachery and evident premeditation, attacked, assaulted and shot with the shotgun one Datu Agtalan Lasia, inflicting him injuries which caused his death." 1

Of the above-named accused, only Gapaw Mampinantaw alias Gapaw Ligunay was tried as he was the only one brought to the jurisdiction of the trial court.

After trial, the court a quo found the accused Gapaw Mampinantaw alias Gapaw Ligunay guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of the deceased Datu Agtalan Lasia in the sum of P12,000.00 and to pay his one-fifth share of the costs. From this judgment, the accused appealed to this Court.

The People’s version of the case is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"At about five o’clock in the afternoon of August 25, 1972 while Teodulo Dajones was in the house of one Mansarawan in Gumitan, Davao City, he heard one Manggayanan Sinaw-ay a few meters away call his uncle Datu Agtalan Lasia, to come down because somebody was there offering to sell guns. (pp. 7, 8, 6, tsn, March 10, 1976). Datu Lasia was then inside his house with his wife Cundag Uminloy (p. 20, tsn, May 6, 1976). As Dajones went outside Mansarawan’s house, he saw Gapaw Mampinantaw alias Gapaw Ligunay, one Junior Ilonggo and two others at the yard of Datu Lasia’s house, all armed with guns. Datu Lasia came out from his house and greeted the group. Junior Ilonggo handed a gun he was carrying to Datu Lasia for him to inspect. While Datu Lasia was holding and examining the gun, Gapaw Mampinantaw without warning fired at him. Though mortally wounded Datu Lasia struggled to get inside his house and fell down. Thereafter, Gapaw Mampinantaw and his companions fired their guns at the victim’s house (p. 3, tsn, Ibid; pp. 18-25, tsn, Ibid.). As the shots were fired, Dajones sought cover by lying flat on the ground.

When all became quiet, Dajones went to Datu Lasia’s house. He found Datu Lasia already dead with a wound on the left side of his upper abdomen (pp. 3-4, tsn, Ibid; p. 18, tsn. Ibid.). Cundag Uminloy, Datu Lasia’s wife, requested Dajones to inform their daughter Linda Paundag, who was at Upian, of the incident. Upon their return to Gumitan, Davao City, Datu Lasia was laid under their house in an open grave in accordance with the tribe’s custom of burying one who dies not by natural causes (p. 5, tsn, Ibid, p. 19, tsn, Ibid; p. 17, tsn, March 11, 1976).

After the burial of Datu Lasia, Linda and her mother evacuated to their hut in the forest in upper Gumitan for fear of their safety. They had just been two (2) days in their hut when Gapaw Mampinantaw told Cundag Uminloy and Linda Paundag Lasia not to stop them from getting the things they wanted, or else they (Linda and her mother) would be killed in the same way he (Gapaw Mampinantaw) shot Datu Lasia. The robbers took from Linda and her mother a pig, a sack of palay and two guns (pp. 17, 18, tsn, March 11, 1976). It appears that Gapaw Mampinantaw is a nephew of Datu Lasia, the former being the son of the latter’s brother Mampinantaw Lasia (p. 14, tsn, May 6, 1976).

The Davao City Police Department, having been notified of the shooting, dispatched a team led by Pfc. Pepito Balangawan to the scene of the crime at about 2:40 o’clock in the afternoon of September 1, 1972. They found the cadaver of the deceased under his house with one gunshot wound, the entrance of which was on the lower part of the body and the exit on the other side (pp. 11-12, tsn, March 11, 1976)." 2

The accused-appellant does not question the fact that the deceased Datu Agtalan Lasia was slain by five (5) armed persons, including one named Gapaw Mampinantaw at about 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon of August 25, 1972, in Gumitan, Davao City, and interred in an open grave under the deceased’s house. However, he denied participation in the said killing. He claimed that he is Gapaw Ligunay, a farmer and resident of Kilamac, Davao City, and not the Gapaw Mampinantaw, his namesake and nephew of the slain datu and resident of Gumitan, Davao City who is charged with the killing of the said datu. He further claimed that he was at Kilamac, Davao City, a place very far from Gumitan, when the crime was committed and came to know of the death of Datu Agtalan Lasia when he was informed of it by one Josema from Kalangagan.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

The denial of the accused, as well as his alibi, cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of Teodulo Dajones (Dahines) and Cundag Uminloy that the appellant and his co-accused were responsible for the death of Datu Agtalan Lasia. We have examined their testimonies and find no reason to disbelieve them.

The claim of the accused that he is Gapaw Ligunay and not Gapaw Mampinantaw is not a valid defense since the accused was positively identified as the culprit. Besides, it appears that before he was arraigned, a reinvestigation was conducted to determine the true identity of the accused and it was ascertained that Gapaw Ligunay and Gapaw Mampinantaw are one and the same person. As a result thereof, the information was amended to charge one "Gapaw Mampinantaw alias Gapaw Ligunay" with the commission of the crime. Whether or not the accused is Gapaw Mampinantaw or Gapaw Ligunay is therefore of little import.

Counsel contends that the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty of murder in the absence of evident premeditation and treachery that would qualify the killing to murder, as charged in the information.

The contention is without merit. While evident premeditation may not have been established, however, treachery, which qualifies the killing to murder, has been amply proven. The record shows that the deceased Datu Agtalan Lasia was suddenly and unexpectedly fired upon by the accused-appellant and his companions as the said deceased was examining a shotgun shown to him by one of the accused, one named Junior Ilonggo, giving the deceased no opportunity to offer any defense.

Counsel further claims that conspiracy has not been established. Conspiracy, however, may be inferred from the fact that the appellant and his co-accused were together when they went to the house of Datu Agtalan Lasia on the pretext of selling guns to him. Then, at the command of the appellant, the deceased was shot. Thereafter, the appellant and his companions continued to fire at the slain datu as he ran towards his house. After shooting the deceased, the appellant and his companions left together. Two days later, they went together to the wife and daughter of the deceased at their evacuation hut in the forest to warn them not to report the incident to the authorities. These circumstances show a concert of design and oneness of purpose.

The crime committed is murder, qualified by treachery and attended by the aggravating circumstance of dwelling and by a band, with no mitigating circumstance to offset it. Pursuant to Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the imposable penalty is death. However, for lack of the required number of votes, the penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua.chanrobles law library

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from should be, as it is hereby AFFIRMED, with the modification that the indemnity to be paid to the heirs of the victim is increased to P30,000.00. With costs against the Appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, C.J., Teehankee, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Relova, Gutierrez, Jr., De la Fuente, Cuevas and Alampay, JJ., concur.

Aquino and Abad Santos, JJ., are on leave.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, p. 4.

2. Appellee’s Brief, pp. 2-4.




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






August-1985 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-42636 August 1, 1985 - MARIA LUISA DE LEON ESCALER, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57905 August 1, 1985 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOAQUIN ILUSTRE, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29146 August 5, 1985 - BENITA SALAO v. BENITO CRISOSTOMO

  • G.R. No. L-36936 August 5, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARSENIO ARBOIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45277 August 5, 1985 - AUGUSTO BASA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45967 August 5, 1985 - CESARIO DIONG-AN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70895 August 5, 1985 - HABALUYAS ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL. v. MAXIMO M. JAPZON, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 2796-P August 7, 1985 - JOSE L. MOYA, ET AL. v. RENATO A. BASSIG

  • G.R. No. L-42400 August 7, 1985 - ISAURO ABCEDE, ET AL. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42916 August 7, 1985 - DONATO JEREZA v. LUIS T. MONDIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49930 August 7, 1985 - FRANCISCO MALONG, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-63048 August 7, 1985 - EMILIO TEJIDO, ET AL. v. JUAN URIARTE ZAMACOMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-63408 & 64026 August 7, 1985 - GAUDIOSO C. LLAMOSO, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68458 August 7, 1985 - LORENZO BOLAÑOS, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69491 August 7, 1985 - MAXIMO DE LA TORRE, ET AL. v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-66395 August 7, 1985 - BENEDICTO MALIA, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44944 August 9, 1985 - TOP-WELD MANUFACTURING, INC. v. ECED, S.A., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-61898 August 9, 1985 - LAO SOK v. LYDIA SABAYSABAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-62043 August 13, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICOLAS CANAMO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-67766 & L-70881 August 14, 1986

    ISIDRO T. HILDAWA v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27935 August 16, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN L. BOCAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29359 August 16, 1985 - URSULA CALDERON, ET AL. v. VICTORIANO DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-45749 August 16, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELICIDAD C. VILLALON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41605 August 19, 1985 - ROGELIO PRING, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45662 August 20, 1985 - FELIPE U. ERESE v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. Nos. L-40367-69 August 22, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PACITO STO. TOMAS

  • G.R. No. L-45123 August 26, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANGGAYANAN SINAW-AY, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-49607-13 August 26, 1985 - BENJAMIN LU HAYCO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-67207 August 26, 1985 - ST. DOMINIC CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. R-156-P August 27, 1985 - PEPITA CELIS v. LEVY Q. MARQUEZ

  • G.R. No. L-34147 August 28, 1985 - TERESITA ALO, ET AL. v. VALERIO V. ROVIRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41745 August 28, 1985 - MUNICIPALITY OF DAET v. HIDALGO ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44717 August 28, 1985 - CHARTERED BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. BLAS F. OPLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45278 August 28, 1985 - NAPOLEON ANTAZO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 71208-09 August 30, 1985 - SATURNINA GALMAN, ET AL. v. MANUEL PAMARAN, ET AL.