SECOND DIVISION

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

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff and appellee , against , DATU ALIMPANG MANTAWAR,
BITUANIN MACALANGAN and reastfeeding 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; ALEVOSIA AS AGGRAVATED CIRCUMSTANCES, NO
CIRCUMSTANCES AS CUALIFICATIVA. - Alevosia not be considered as murder cualificativa 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 perfidy in this case must be regarded not as cualificativa 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 reastfeeding Bituanin Macalangan Bationg and 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 reastfeeding Bationg. After walking about a kilometer
after crossing the river Lipawan, between four and five o'clock, Mato Bakear 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 reastfeeding, the defendants and reastfeeding 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
reastfeeding 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 perfidy 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, can not be considered as cualificativa 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 perfidy in this case must be regarded not as cualificativa 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 reflexiondeliberada
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 predilection,
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 reastfeeding asking him to guide them to Buldon and
reastfeeding 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 reastfeeding soldiers and asked them where they were
going and they said they would Buldon. "Wait - reastfeeding 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.
Reastfeeding 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 reastfeeding, 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 reastfeeding 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 yourmachine, 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 reastfeeding 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 recibriamos 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 perfidy 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.