Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FLORENCIO DORIA y BOLADO,

that view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and may be
and VIOLETA GADDAO y CATAMA @ "NENETH," accused-appellants. introduced in evidence.

FACTS Requisites
Members of the PNP Narcotics Command received information that a. The law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior
one “ Jun” [Doria] was engaged in illegal drug activities, so they decided to entrap justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a
and arrest him in a buy-bust operation. He was arrested. They frisked him but did not particular area
find the marked bills on him, and upon inquiry, he revealed that he left it at the house b. The discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent
of his associate “ Neneth ” [Gaddao], so he led the police team to her house. c. It is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes
The team found the door open and a woman inside the may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure
house. “ Jun” identified her as “Neneth, ” and she was asked by SPO1 Badua about
the marked money as PO3 Manlangit looked over her house [he was still outside the
An object is in plain view if the object itself is plainly exposed to sight. The difficulty
house]. Standing by the door, PO3 Manlangit noticed a carton box under the dining
arises when the object is inside a closed container. Where the object seized was
table. One of the box’ s flaps was open, and inside it was something wrapped in
inside a closed package, the object itself is not in plain view and therefore cannot be
plastic, and it appeared similar to the marijuana earlier sold to him by “ Jun. ” His
seized without a warrant. If the package is such that an experienced observer could
suspicion aroused, so he entered the house and took hold of the box. He peeked
infer from its appearance that it contains the prohibited article, then the article is
inside the box and saw 10 bricks of what appeared to be dried marijuana leaves. SPO1
deemed in plain view. It must be immediately apparent to the police that the items
Badua recovered the marked bills from “ Neneth ” and they arrested her. The bricks
that they observe may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to
were examined and they were found to be dried marijuana leaves.
seizure.
Florencio Doria and Violeta Gaddao were charged with violation of RA
In his direct examination, PO3 Manlangit said that he was sure that the contents of
6425 [Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972], Section 4 [Sale, Administration, Delivery,
the box were marijuana because he himself checked and marked the said contents.
Distribution and Transportation of Prohibited Drugs] in relation to Section 21
On cross-examination, however, he admitted that he merely presumed the contents
[Attempt and Conspiracy]. RTC convicted them.
to be marijuana because it had the same plastic wrapping as the "buy-bust
marijuana." Each of the ten bricks of marijuana in the box was individually wrapped
ISSUE AND HOLDING
in old newspaper and placed inside plastic bags-- white, pink or blue in color. PO3
WON RTC correctly found that the box of marijuana was in plain view, making its
Manlangit himself admitted on cross-examination that the contents of the box could
warrantless seizure valid. NO
be items other than marijuana. He did not know exactly what the box contained that
he had to ask appellant Gaddao about its contents. It was not immediately apparent
RATIO
to PO3 Manlangit that the content of the box was marijuana; hence, it was not in
Re: warrantless arrest
plain view and its seizure without the requisite search warrant was in violation of the
Gaddao ’s warrantless arrest was illegal because she was arrested solely on the basis
law and the Constitution. It was fruit of the poisonous tree and should have been
of the alleged identification made by Doria. Doria did not point to her as his associate
excluded and never considered by the trial court.
in the drug business, but as the person with whom he left the marked bills. This
The fact that the box containing about 6 kilos of marijuana was found in Gaddao ’s
identification does not necessarily mean that Gaddao conspired with Doria in pushing
house Gaddao does not justify a finding that she herself is guilty of the crime charged.
drugs. If there is no showing that the person who effected the warrantless arrest had
knowledge of facts implicating the person arrested to the perpetration of the criminal
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, what is material is the submission
offense, the arrest is legally objectionable.
of proof that the sale took place between the poseur-buyer and the seller and the
Since the warrantless arrest of Gaddao was illegal, the search of her person
presentation of the drug as evidence in court.
and home and the subsequent seizure of the marked bills and marijuana cannot be
deemed legal as an incident to her arrest.  Prosecution established the fact that in consideration of the P1,600.00 he
received, Doria sold and delivered 970 grams of marijuana to PO3 Manlangit, the
“ Plain view ” issue poseur-buyer
 Prosecution failed to prove that Gaddao conspired with accused-appellant 668, 710-711 (1999), the Court held that—
Doria in the sale of said drug

DORIA SENTENCED TO SUFFER RECLUSION PERPETUA + 500K FINE Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have
GADDAO ACQUITTED that view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and may be
introduced in evidence. The "plain view" doctrine applies when the following
requisites concur (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior
justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOEL ELAMPARO Y FONTANILLA
area; (b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is
immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a
Summary: A buy-bust operation led the pursuing officers of a drug runner into the
crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. The law enforcement officer must
house of his alleged supplier/dealer. In the house, they witnessed the alleged dealer
lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly be in a position from which he can
repacking bricks of marijuana and arrested him.
particularly view the area. In the course of such lawful intrusion, he came
inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The object must
Rule of Law: A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
be open to eye and hand and its discovery inadvertent.
person, when in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.
When the runner wrenched himself free from the grasp of Gaviola, he instinctively
Facts: Joel Elamparo (D) has been convicted with Illegal Possession of Drugs and ran towards the house of Elamparo (D). The members of the buy-bust team were
penalized with reclusion perpetua. The case was raised for automatic review. justified in running after him and entering the house without a search warrant for
they were pursuing a fleeing criminal. Once inside the house, the police officers
Police Officer Baldonado of Caloocan City Police received a report from an informant cornered the runner and recovered the buy-bust money from him. They also caught
that "some people are selling shabu and marijuana somewhere in Bagong Bario, Elamparo (D) in flagrante delicto repacking the marijuana bricks which were in full
Caloocan City." Thus, Baldonado organized a buy-bust team and deployed at a known view on tap of a table.
"market" for buyers of marijuana. Thereafter, a runner approached the poseur-buyer
to confirm an order. The runner then left and returned with the marijuana. Gaviola, PEOPLE V. HERNANDEZ 99 Phil. 515 (Digest)
the poseur-buyer and buy-bust team member, then handed over the marked money No Complex Crime of Rebellion With Murder, Arson or Robbery
and arrested the runner who freed himself and ran. 20. PEOPLE V. HERNANDEZ 99 Phil. 515

The buy-bust team pursued the runner, who ran inside a bungalow-type house with
steel gate. Having trapped the runner inside the house, the police officers frisked him FACTS:
and recovered the marked money. The police officers likewise found Joel Elamparo Amado HERNANDEZ5 (member of the CPP and President of the Congress of
(D) repacking five bricks of "marijuana" wrapped in a newspaper on top of the round Labor Organizations) re-filed for bail (previous one denied) for his conviction of
table inside the house. Elamparo (D) was then arrested. rebellion complexed with murders, arsons and robberies. The prosecution said to
deny this again because the capital punishment may be imposed. The defense
Issues: Is the warrantless arrest valid? however contends that rebellion cannot be complexed with murder, arson, or
robbery. The information states that the “…murders, arsons and robberies allegedly
Ruling: Yes. Five generally accepted exceptions to the right against warrantless perpetrated by the accused “as a necessary means to commit the crime of rebellion,
searches and seizures have been judicially formulated: (1) search incidental to a in connection therewith and in furtherance thereof.”
lawful arrest, (2) search of moving vehicles, (3) seizure in plain view, (4) customs
searches, and (5) waiver by the accused themselves of their right against ISSUE: W/N rebellion can be complexed with murder, arson, or robbery.
unreasonable search and seizure.
Held: NO!
This case falls squarely under the plain view doctrine. In People vs. Doria, 301 SCRA
RATIO:
Under the allegations of the amended information, the murders, arsons and
robberies described therein are mere ingredients of the crime of rebellion allegedly
committed by HERNANDEZ, as means “necessary” for the perpetration of said
offense of rebellion and that the crime charged in the amended information is,
therefore, simple rebellion, not the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder,
arsons and robberies. Under Article 1346 and 1357, these five (5) classes of acts
constitute only one offense, and no more, and are, altogether, subject to only one
penalty. One of the means by which rebellion may be committed, in the words of said
Article 135, is by “engaging in war against the forces of the government” and
“committing serious violence” in the prosecution of said “war”. These expressions
imply everything that war connotes. Since Article 135 constitute only 1 crime, Article
48 doesn’t apply since it requires the commission of at least 2 crimes.
Enrile vs Salazar
G.R. No. 92163
June 5, 1990
Facts:
In the afternoon of February 27, 1990, Senate Minority Floor Leader Juan Ponce
Enrile was arrested by law enforcement officers led by Director Alfredo Lim of the
National Bureau of Investigation on the strength of a warrant issued by Hon. Jaime
Salazar of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City Branch 103, in Criminal Case No.
9010941.
The warrant had issued on an information signed and earlier that day filed by a
panel of prosecutors composed of Senior State Prosecutor Aurelio C. Trampe, State
Prosecutor Ferdinand R. Abesamis and Assistant City Prosecutor Eulogio Mananquil,
Jr., charging Senator Enrile, the spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio, and Gregorio
Honasan with the crime of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder
allegedly committed during the period of the failed coup attempt from November
29 to December 10, 1990.
Senator Enrile was taken to and held overnight at the NBI headquarters on Taft
Avenue, Manila, without bail, none having been recommended in the information
and none fixed in the arrest warrant. The following morning, February 28, 1990, he
was brought to Camp Tomas Karingal in Quezon City where he was given over to
the custody of the Superintendent of the Northern Police District, Brig. Gen.
Edgardo Dula Torres.
On the same date of February 28, 1990, Senator Enrile, through counsel, filed the
petition for habeas corpus herein (which was followed by a supplemental petition
filed on March 2, 1990), alleging that he was deprived of his constitutional rights.
Issue:
(a) Whether the petitioner has committed complex crimes (delito compleio) arising
from an offense being a necessary means for committing another, which is referred
to in the second clause of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code?
Held:
There is one other reason and a fundamental one at that why Article 48 of the
Penal Code cannot be applied in the case at bar. If murder were not complexed
with rebellion, and the two crimes were punished separately (assuming that this
could be done), the following penalties would be imposable upon the movant,
namely: (1) for the crime of rebellion, a fine not exceeding P20,000 and prision
mayor, in the corresponding period, depending upon the modifying circumstances
present, but never exceeding 12 years of prision mayor, and (2) for the crime of
murder, reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, depending upon the
modifying circumstances present. In other words, in the absence of aggravating
circumstances, the extreme penalty could not be imposed upon him. However,
under Article 48 said penalty would have to be meted out to him, even in the
absence of a single aggravating circumstance. Thus, said provision, if construed in
conformity with the theory of the prosecution, would be unfavorable to the
movant.
The plaint of petitioner's counsel that he is charged with a crime that does not exist
in the statute books, while technically correct so far as the Court has ruled that
rebellion may not be complexed with other offenses committed on the occasion
thereof, must therefore be dismissed as a mere flight of rhetoric. Read in the
context of Hernandez, the information does indeed charge the petitioner with a
crime defined and punished by the Revised Penal Code: simple rebellion.
Petitioner finally claims that he was denied the right to bail. In the light of the
Court's reaffirmation of Hernandez as applicable to petitioner's case, and of the
logical and necessary corollary that the information against him should be
considered as charging only the crime of simple rebellion, which is bailable before
conviction, that must now be accepted as a correct proposition. But the question
remains: Given the facts from which this case arose, was a petition for habeas
corpus in this Court the appropriate vehicle for asserting a right to bail or
vindicating its denial? The criminal case before the respondent Judge was the
normal venue for invoking the petitioner's right to have provisional liberty pending
trial and judgment. The original jurisdiction to grant or deny bail rested with said
respondent. The correct course was for petitioner to invoke that jurisdiction by
filing a petition to be admitted to bail, claiming a right to bail per se by reason of
the weakness of the evidence against him. Only after that remedy was denied by
the trial court should the review jurisdiction of this Court have been invoked, and
even then, not without first applying to the Court of Appeals if appropriate relief
was also available there.
The Court reiterates that based on the doctrine enunciated in People vs.
Hernandez, the questioned information filed against petitioners Juan Ponce Enrile
and the spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio must be read as charging simple
rebellion only, hence said petitioners are entitled to bail, before final conviction, as
a matter of right. The Court's earlier grant of bail to petitioners being merely
provisional in character, the proceedings in both cases are ordered remanded to
the respondent Judge to fix the amount of bail to be posted by the petitioners.
Once bail is fixed by said respondent for any of the petitioners, the corresponding
bail bond flied with this Court shall become functus oficio. No pronouncement as to
costs.
Facts: On 1 February 1988, military agents were dispatched to the St. Agnes Hospital,
Roosevelt Avenue, Quezon City, to verify a confidential information which was
received by their office, about a "sparrow man" (NPA member) who had been
admitted to the said hospital with a gunshot wound. That the wounded man in the
said hospital was among the five (5) male "sparrows" who murdered two (2) Capcom
mobile patrols the day before, or on 31 January 1988 at about 12:00 o'clock noon,
before a road hump along Macanining St., Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City. The
wounded man's name was listed by the hospital management as "Ronnie Javellon,"
twenty-two (22) years old of Block 10, Lot 4, South City Homes, Biñan, Laguna
however it was disclosed later that the true name of the wounded man was Rolando
Dural. In view of this verification, Rolando Dural was transferred to
the Regional Medical Servicesof the CAPCOM, for security reasons. While confined
thereat, he was positively identified by the eyewitnesses as the one who murdered
the 2 CAPCOM mobile patrols.
Issue: Whether or Not Rolando was lawfully arrested.
Held: Rolando Dural was arrested for being a member of the NPA, an outlawed
subversive organization. Subversion being a continuing offense, the arrest without
warrant is justified as it can be said that he was committing as offense when arrested.
The crimes rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and
crimes or offenses committed in furtherance therefore in connection therewith
constitute direct assaults against the state and are in the nature of continuing
crimes.
Umil vs. Ramos
FACTS: This consolidated case of 8 petitions for habeas corpus assails the validity of
the arrests and searches made by the military on the petitioners. The arrests relied
on the “confidential information” that the authorities received. Except for one case
where inciting to sedition was charged, the rest are charged with subversion for being
a member of the New People’s Army.
RULING: The arrests were legal. Regarding the subversion cases, the arrests were
legal since subversion is a form of a continuing crime – together with rebellion,
conspiracy or proposal to commit rebellion/subversion, and crimes committed in
furtherance thereof or in connection therewith. On the inciting to sedition case, the
arrest was legal since an information was filed prior to his arrest. Lastly, the arrests
were not fishing expeditions but a result of an in-depth surveillance of NPA safe
houses pinpointed by none other than members of the NPA.
The right to preliminary investigation should be exercised by the offender as soon as
possible. Otherwise, it would be considered as impliedly waived and the filing of
information can proceed. This sort of irregularity is not sufficient to set aside a valid
judgment upon a sufficient complaint and after a trial free from error.
In G.R. No. 81567 (Umil vs. Ramos), the record shows that, on 1 February 1988, the
Regional Intelligence Operations Unit of the Capital Command (RIOU-CAPCOM)
received confidential information about a member of the NPA Sparrow Unit
(liquidation squad) being treated for a gunshot wound at the St. Agnes Hospital in
Roosevelt Avenue, Quezon City. Upon verification, it was found that the wounded
person, who was listed in the hospital records as Ronnie Javelon, is actually Rolando
Dural, a member of the NPA liquidation squad, responsible for the killing of two (2)
CAPCOM soldiers the day before, or on 31 January 1988, in Macanining Street,
Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City. In view of this verification, Rolando Dural was
transferred to the Regional Medical Services of the CAPCOM, for security reasons.
While confined thereat, or on 4 February 1988, Rolando Dural was positively
identified by eyewitnesses as the gunman who went on top of the hood of the
CAPCOM mobile patrol car, and fired at the two (2) CAPCOM soldiers seated inside
the car identified as T/Sgt. Carlos Pabon and CIC Renato Manligot.
As a consequence of this positive identification, Rolando Dural was referred to the
Caloocan City Fiscal who conducted an inquest and thereafter filed with the Regional
Trial Court of Caloocan City an information charging Rolando Dural alias Ronnie
Javelon with the crime of "Double Murder with Assault Upon Agents of Persons in
Authority." The case was docketed therein as Criminal Case No. C-30112 and no bail
was recommended. On 15 February 1988, the information was amended to include,
as defendant, Bernardo Itucal, Jr. who, at the filing of the original information, was
still unidentified.
Meanwhile, on 6 February 1988, a petition for habeas corpus was filed with this Court
on behalf of Roberto Umil, Rolando Dural, and Renato Villanueva. The Court issued
the writ of habeas corpus on 9 February 1988 and the respondents filed a Return of
the Writ on 12 February 1988. Thereafter, the parties were heard on 15 February
1988.
On 26 February 1988, however, Roberto Umil and Renato Villanueva posted bail
before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City where charges for violation of the Anti-
Subversion Act had been filed against them, and they were accordingly released. The
petition for habeas corpus, insofar as Umil and Villanueva are concerned, is now
moot and academic and is accordingly dismissed, since the writ of habeas
corpus does not lie in favor of an accused in a criminal case who has been released
on bail. 2
As to Rolando Dural, it clearly appears that he was not arrested while in the act of
shooting the two (2) CAPCOM soldiers aforementioned. Nor was he arrested just
after the commission of the said offense for his arrest came a day after the said
shooting incident. Seemingly, his arrest without warrant is unjustified.
However, Rolando Dural was arrested for being a member of the New Peoples Army
(NPA), an outlawed subversive organization. Subversion being a continuing offense,
the arrest of Rolando Dural without warrant is justified as it can be said that he was
committing an offense when arrested. The crimes of rebellion, subversion,
conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and crimes or offenses committed in
furtherance thereof or in connection therewith constitute direct assaults against the
State and are in the nature of continuing crimes. As stated by the Court in an earlier
case:
From the facts as above-narrated, the claim of the petitioners that
they were initially arrested illegally is, therefore, without basis in
law and in fact. The crimes of insurrection or rebellion, subversion,
conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and other crimes
and offenses committed in the furtherance, on the occasion
thereof, or incident thereto, or in connection therewith under
Presidential Proclamation No. 2045, are all in the nature of
continuing offenses which set them apart from the common
offenses, aside from their essentially involving a massive
conspiracy of nationwide magnitude. Clearly then, the arrest of
the herein detainees was well within the bounds of the law and
existing jurisprudence in our jurisdiction.
2. The arrest of persons involved in the rebellion whether as its fighting armed
elements, or for committing non-violent acts but in furtherance of the rebellion, is
more an act of capturing them in the course of an armed conflict, to quell the
rebellion, than for the purpose of immediately prosecuting them in court for a
statutory offense. The arrest, therefore, need not follow the usual procedure in the
prosecution of offenses which requires the determination by a judge of the existence
of probable cause before the issuance of a judicial warrant of arrest and the granting
of bail if the offense is bailable. Obviously, the absence of a judicial warrant is no legal
impediment to arresting or capturing persons committing overt acts of violence
against government forces, or any other milder acts but equally in pursuance of the
rebellious movement. The arrest or capture is thus impelled by the exigencies of the
situation that involves the very survival of society and its government and duly
constituted authorities. If killing and other acts of violence against the rebels find
justification in the exigencies of armed hostilities which is of the essence of waging a
rebellion or insurrection, most assuredly so in case of invasion, merely seizing their
persons and detaining them while any of these contingencies continues cannot be
less justified. . .
PEOPLE vs CABRERA
GR ## GR No. 17748
Plaintiff/Appellee: The People of the Philippine Islands,
Defendant/Appellant: Graciano L. Cabrera et al.
Date January 1, 2013
DOCTRINE Sedition is the raising of commotions or disturbances in the state.
(SHORT VERSION)
Because of certain incidents, the Philippine constabulary and the Police of Manila had
a rough relationship with each other. The constabulary force had grudges against the
Police force of Manila. One night, the constabulary force went to attack the Police
force, killing and wounding several policemen and civilians.
FACTS
The Philippine Constabulary has grudges against the police of Manila and they want
to inflict revenge for the following reasons:
(1) On December 13, 1920, a Manila police arrested a woman who is a member of
the household of a constabulary soldier and was allegedly abused by the said
policeman.
(2) Private Macasinag of the Constabulary was shot by a Manila police and was
mortally wounded. A day after the incident, a rumor spread among the Constabulary
that the Police who shot Macasinag was back to his original duties while Macasinag
was declared dead. There were also rumors that the said shooting was ordered.
On the night of December 15 some members of the Constabulary escaped their
barracks through a window (the saw out the window bars). They had rifles and
ammunitions and were organized in groups under the command of their sergeants
and corporals. They attacked some Manila policemen in these specific instances:
(1) On Calle Real, Intramuros, a group of the Constabulary shot and killed an
American Policeman and his friend.
(2) The Constabulary indiscriminately shot at a passer-by, causing a death and
wounding most of the passengers.
(3) While riding a motorcycle driven by policeman Saplala, Captain William E.
Wichman (asst. chief of police in Manila) was shot and killed together with Saplala
ISSUES/HELD
(1) Is there connivance/conspiracy between the accused- YES
(2) Are the accused properly convicted of a violation of the Treason and Sedition Law
RATIO
(1) Conspiracies are generally proved by a number of indefinite acts, conditions, and
circumstances which vary according to the purposes to be accomplished. If it be
proved that the defendants pursued by their acts the same object, one performing
one part and another another part of the same, so as to complete it, with a view to
the attainment of the same object, one will be justified in the conclusion that they
were engaged in a conspiracy to the effect that object. It is incontestable that all of
the defendants were imbued with the same purpose, which was to avenge
themselves on the police force of Manila. A common feeling of resentment animated
all.
(2) Sedition, in its more general sense, is the raising of commotions or disturbances
in the State. The Philippine law on the subject makes all persons guilty of sedition
who rise publicly and tumultuously in order to obtain by force of outside of legal
methods any one of five objects, including that of inflicting any act of hate or revenge
upon the person or property of any official or agent of the Insular government or of
a provincial or municipal government.
The counsel contested that it is necessary that the offender should be a private
citizen and the offended party a public functioinary, and what really happened was a
fight between two armed bodies of the Philippine Government. The court held that
this contention is without foundation. The Treason and Sedition Law makes no
distinction between the persons to which it applies. What is important is that there
is a public rising to incite or inflict any act of hate or revenge upon the person or
property of any official or agent of the Insular government or of a provincial or
municipal government.
DECISION
Judgment affirmed.
People vs Umali
Facts: The complex crime of which appellants Narciso Umali, et. al were found guilty
was said to have been committed during the raid staged in the town of Tiaong,
Quezon, between 8:00 and 9:00 in the evening of November 14, 1951, by armed men.
The raid took place resulting in the burning down and complete destruction of the
house of Mayor Marcial Punzalan including its content valued at P24,023; the house
of Valentin Robles valued at P10,000, and the house of one Mortega, the death of
Patrolman Domingo Pisigan and civilians Vicente Soriano and Leocadio Untalan, and
the wounding of Patrolman Pedro Lacorte and five civilians.
During and after the burning of the houses, some of the raiders engaged in looting,
robbing one house and two Chinese stores; and that the raiders were finally
dispersed and driven from the town by the Philippine Army soldiers stationed in the
town led by Captain Alzate.
Issue: Whether or not the accused-appellants are liable of the charges against them
of complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, frustrated murder, arson and
robbery?
Held: Yes. The appellants were guilty of sedition, multiple murder, arson, frustrated
murder and physical injuries. For the crime of sedition each of the appellants is
sentenced to 5 years of prision correctional and to pay a fine of P4,000; for each of
the three murders, each of the appellants is sentenced to life imprisonment and to
indemnify the heirs of each victim in the sum of P6,000; and for the arson, for which
we impose the maximum penalty provided in Article 321, paragraph 1, of the Revised
Penal Code, for the reason that the raiders in setting fire to the buildings, particularly
the house of Punzalan they knew that it was then occupied by one or more persons,
because they even and actually saw an old lady, the mother of Punzalan, at the
window, and in view of the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, each of the
appellants is sentenced to reclusion perpetua and to pay the indemnities mentioned
in the decision of the lower court. It shall be understood, however, the pursuant to
the provisions of Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code the duration of all penalties
shall not exceed 40 years. In view of the heavy penalties already imposed and their
long duration, the court finds it unnecessary to fix and impose the prison sentences
corresponding to frustrated murder and physical injuries; however, the sums
awarded the victims (Lacorte, Ortega, Anselo, Rivano, Garcia and Lector), by the court
below will stand. With these modifications, the decision appealed from is hereby
affirmed, with costs.