People Vs Mantawar

SECOND DIVISION
[GR No. L-1248. April 30, 1948.]

THE
PEOPLE
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES, plaintiff
and
appellee , against , DATU
ALIMPANG
MANTAWAR,
BITUANIN
MACALANGAN
and
MAMANTAR
BATIONG, defendants and appellants .
D. Silvestre A. Orejana, in representation of the appellants
The First Acting Assistant Attorney General Roberto A. Gianzon and
Attorney Jaime de los Angeles, in representation of the Government.
SYLLABUS
1. CRIMINAL LAW; ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE; TREACHERY AS
AGGRAVATED CIRCUMSTANCES, NOT A QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE. Treachery
not be considered as murder qualified fact that the crime of which the
defendants are accused is the special complex crime of robbery with homicide
punishable under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, which is a
single crime specifically. defined by this article. The robbery and murder
committed, being bound together by the clause by reason or occasion of the
robbery, they become a single indivisible offense of robbery with homicide,
according to decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain of December 17, 1875 and
September 11, 1878 and this Court in United States against Villorente and Bislig
(30 Phil., 62), United States against Perez (32 Phil., 172), and the United
States against Landasan (35 Jur Fil ., 366). The treachery in this case must be
regarded not as qualified but only as an aggravating circumstance. (United
Statesagainst Antonio, 31 Jur Fil, 216,. Pueblo against Mataram, 52 Jur Fil, 789..)
Two. ID,. ID,. Malice aforethought SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED. - That
the accused acted with premeditation known no doubt, but it should not be
considered as an aggravating circumstance because it is inherent in the crime
of robbery.
Three. ATTORNEYS; PRESUMPTION OF SATISFACTORY SERVICE. - Not
laudable practice to blame a partner in the profession, unless the evidence
clearly demonstrated. The presumption is that all lawyers use all their efforts to
serve the ends of justice.
DECISION
PABLO , J p :
Two weeks after the Check in Check of Japanese forces in Barrira,
Parang, Cotabato province in May 1942, Sergeants Regaspe Antonino Federico
Lent and the Philippine Army, asked the Datu Alimpang Mantawar Galigayan
that lead them to where they had evacuated their families to respond to this
request, together with the Datu asked Mamantar Bationg and Bituanin
Macalangan to accompany them to the house of Mato Bakar to ask this to
Quiara them by the shortest path to reach the place. Bakar Mato Mato friends
with his brother joined them. Mato Bakar, as a guide, headed the procession,
and after him came his brother in a line Friends, Datu Alimpang, Sergeant Lent
Bituanin, Sergeant Regaspe and Mamantar Bationg. After walking about a
kilometer after crossing the river Lipawan, between four and five o'clock, Mato
Bakar heard "na" in moro means "beginning" By turning his face saw that
behind Sgt Bituanin assaulted with cuts in Lent the right arm and neck and
Mantawar Regaspe Sergeant, for such bolazos the two sergeants plummeted
and died almost instantly. Datu Alimpang the sack that had the P800 and P200
Lent Sergeant who had Regaspe Sergeant, after distributing his companions,
and seized the rifle and revolver Regaspe Lent with ammunition. Belt, bullets,
hats and shoes sergeants also seapoderaron defendants. Mato Bakar seeing
aggression I run and hid about ten meters away, but when I call the Datu
Alimpang approached and therefore had the opportunity to know the amount
the Datu distribute to their peers. The Court came to this conclusion considering
the statements of Mato Bakar, the sergeants Braulio T. Dural and Abraham
Saliling the Philippine Army, Datu Alimpang defendant and his affidavit, Exhibit
"B". Mato Bakar was an eyewitness to the event because it was the one that led
the procession, was one of five defendants in the Magistrates Court and was
released from the complaint to witness the indictment. Braulio T. Dural was the
one who wrote the sworn confession of Datu Alimpang. Sergeant Abraham
Bagobo Saliling is English as spoken by the Moors and was interpreted in
making the affidavit of Datu Alimpang. As a defense witness, Datu Alimpang
admitted the authenticity of Exhibit "B" which is a sworn statement, and said
that its content is true. Of the proven facts is clear that no agreement among
the defendants acted in concert as: to be heard the word "na" which, according
Bakar Mato could have been delivered by Datu Alimpang or Mamantar, the
defendants and Mamantar Bituanin immediately attacked the Lent and
sergeants who were Regaspe back to them respectively. And dead sergeants,
seized their goods consisting in weapons, ammunition, money, belts, hats and
shoes. Datu Alimpang Mantawar, Bituanin Macalangan and Mamantar Bationg
committed the crime of robbery with homicide in breach of article 294, par. 1.
of the Revised Penal Code. The Court of First Instance of Cotabato condemn
each of them to life in seclusion with the accessory penalties, jointly and
severally indemnify the heirs of Sergeant Frederick Lent in the amount of P2,
000 and the heirs of Sergeant Antonino Regaspe equal amount and tercere part
of the costs. Appeal against that judgment before this High.
There is no doubt that the accused killed him with treachery by the
attack have done without danger to their persons of any aggression coming
from the defense of the two sergeants, as these were completely unaware and
went with all the confidence that came with guides and not with murderers and
thieves. This, however, cannot be considered as qualified murder because the
crime they are accused of is the special complex crime of robbery with homicide
punishable under Article 294, par. 1. of the Revised Penal Code, which is a
single crime specifically defined by this article. The robbery and murder
committed, being bound together by the clause by reason or on the occasion of
the robbery, they become a single indivisible offense of robbery with homicide,
according to decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain of December 17, 1875 and
September 11, 1878 and this Court in United States against Villorente and
Bislig,
30
Jur
Fil,
62;.
U.S. against Perez,
32
Phil,
163,.
U.S.
and against Landasan, 35 Phil, 359..The treachery in this case must be regarded
not as qualified but only as an aggravating circumstance. (United
States against Antonio, 31 Phil, 205,. Pueblo againstMataram, 52 Phil, 789..)
They acted with premeditation known no doubt, but it should not be
considered as an aggravating circumstance because it is inherent in the crime
of robbery. (United States against Blanco, 10 Phil, 298,. U.S. against Hermosilla,
31 Phil, 405..)
Not applicable to this case the Supreme Court of Spain in March 1880
1.ro cited by the prosecution that has "to estimate that this circumstance in that
offense, or the offense of robbery with death, is premeditation essential that
apply to the latter, when prior agreement has truly been of evildoers and cold
deliberate reflection for committing "does not exist in the file because some of
the defendants have agreed as a primary object of killing the sergeants test. It
is well known that the Moors often steal firearms, to whom have special
fondness, as pricipal aim and kill only use it as a medium, if necessary, to

achieve their main desire.
The defense of the accused that they were not but four other Moors,
who killed the sergeants not deserve serious consideration. Let your tests.
The Bituanin defendant, testifying as defense witness said that on the
afternoon of Tuesday, the Lent and Regaspe sergeants arrived at the home of
defendant Mamantar asking him to guide them to Buldon and Mamantar tell
them that would play with them in the morning next because it was too
late. Some time later, at about five o'clock came and the two Talarajan
Talarahan Mamantar soldiers and asked them where they were going and they
said they would Buldon. "Wait - Mamantar said - already at night,. Them
accompany you tomorrow" The next day, after breakfast Bituanin accompany
them all and in arriving at the beach at about midnight, sent the sergeants who
seek guavas. While picking fruit, arrived Baradie, Bakar, Friends and Bangon
Moors who, recognizing the soldiers tied their hands because they had stolen
Oriang rifles, attacked them killing them left and right. Bituanin under the guava
tree and yell at them, "Do not kill the soldiers" and Moors replied "because if
they were they tied our hands." Bituanin realized this killing four soldiers Datu
Alimpang, which was investigated by Sergeant Dural serving interpret Saliling
sergeant who signed his affidavit, that he asked the Sergeant Dural if I kill the
sergeants and said no; during the attack of the four Moorish soldiers, Sarosong
was present, and told them this and Bituanin the four Moors Bituanin not kill
and told them the four Moors not killed the four soldiers.
Mamantar Bationg, another defendant, testifying as a witness in his
favor state that has learned of the death of Lent and Regaspe sergeants for
information only, when he should haver corroborated the testimony of the first
witness was Bituanin accompany his fellow sergeants.
The accused Datu Alimpang as a witness in his favor, declare that gave
the account Bituanin murder of Lent and Regaspe sergeants to believe that he
had misrepresented his participation this statement:
"Q. Showing to you this document Exhibit B, is this your
signature Which reads - Datu Alimpang Mantawar?"
A. Yes, sir, that is my signature. "
"Q. In this affidavit, it states That you were present During the
killing of the two sergeants - Lent and Regaspe
Sergeants, Is that true?" A. That is true. "
"Q. And Mamantar, Friends and Bakar and Bituanin were there?"
A. That is true.
"We also declare that I blamed for the death of these sergeants for the
Moor should be killed the Blie and Palantong Moors; your child Bator pesento
complaint against these two, that Palantong was researched and Blie, released,
that get Blie freedom accuse on (Datu Alimpang) as the father of Bator to
denounce, to Friends, Baradie and Bakar testified against resentment as the one
who realized the authorities of the crimes that were committed.
If true Bituanin stated by his co-defendant would have corroborated
Mamantar Bationg because both had accompanied the sergeants. Sarosong to
know what happened because I was present was not presented as a witness,
and that he was quoted subpoena at the request of the accused Datu Alimpang
for this purpose. The presumption is that his statement would have been
adverse to the accused Datu Alimpang, had spoken.
The defense in his case because the lawyer of the accused in the first
instance not making efforts to ensure that defense witnesses would testify. It is
completely unfounded accusation because witnesses Councilman your machine,
Butad Mato, Tomas Montawar, Guraki Alimpang and Sarusong Mamantal were
cited as check pages 62 to 65 of the file and if they came to testify will be
because, in the opinion of counsel, his testimony could not make any good. The
same Mamantar Bationg must've confirmed that the declaration of Bituanin are
happy to state that has known the death of the two sergeants by
reference. Noes laudable practice to blame a partner in the profession, unless
the evidence clearly demonstrated. The presumption is that all lawyers use all
their efforts to serve the ends of justice.
It also argues that the conviction is based solely on the strength of an
involuntary court and illegally obtained confession. Neither deserves serious
consideration this defense. Sergeants Dural and Saliling belie the alleged abuse
and the same Datu Alimpang declare that told the truth in his extrajudicial
confession, Exhibit "B" because I wanted to witness the Government. It is said
that the testimony of Mato Bakar coming from unclean source, for he was one of
the accused, should not deserve credit. That is true if his testimony were not
corroborated by other evidence: what we received cautiously, but we have no
doubt that the defendants, according to the evidence of record, killed two
sergeants Regaspe Lent and to steal.
The aggravating circumstance of treachery is offset by the mitigating
circumstance of lack of instruction of the accused. (Article 15, Revised Penal
Code.)
The judgment with costs is confirmed.
Fair Bengzon and Tuazon, MM., are conformity.

People Vs Mantawar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Mantawar

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Mantawar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SECOND DIVISION

[GR No. L-1248. April 30, 1948.]

fondness, as pricipal aim and kill only use it as a medium, if necessary, to

You might also like