11/30/2020 G. R. No. 945, December 19, 1902.

htm

Supreme Court of the Philippines

1 Phil. 568

G. R. No. 945, December 19, 1902

The defendants were convicted at first instance and condemned to the penalty of death
for the crime of the murder of Antonio, Juan, Julian, Nicomedes, Lucio, Severo, and
Isabel Echevarria, of Candida de los Reyes, of one Dionisio, and of Antonio Caldevilla.
The case has been sent to this court in consultation of the judgment by which this
penalty was imposed upon them.
In the night of the 14th or 15th (the exact date does not appear) of the month of August,
1900, the house occupied by the Echevarria family, situated in the hamlet of Naro, then
corresponding to the town of Uson and now to the township of Palanas, Province of
Masbate, was assaulted by a band composed of some forty men. The malefactors fired
two or three shots upon arriving at the house, and then told the people who were living
there to come down one at a time. They having done so, the assailants took from them
their arms, consisting of guns and revolvers, and tied them elbow to elbow. In this
condition the prisoners were killed by being shot or stabbed with bolos. The bodies were
subsequently sewn in sacks and thrown in the sea. All the persons named in the
complaint were killed in this manner.

These facts are fully established by the testimony of the eyewitnesses Patricia Arma and
Diego Atigera. The latter was kidnaped by the malefactors the night before and taken as
a prisoner to the place where the crime was committed because, as the malefactors
themselves told him, he was a relative of the Echevarrias.
Elvira Clemente, the wife of the deceased Juan Echevarria, corroborates the testimony
of the witness above mentioned, except as to the manner and form in which the victims
were killed. She was not present at this, because she did not leave the house, although
she testifies that she knew of the death of the victims because she heard the malefactors
themselves state that they had killed them, shortly after the occurrence, and because
they were not seen again after that time. She further testified that the malefactors
demanded the delivery of the arms which the Echevarrias had, promising not to do
them any injury. The witness Patricia Arma apparently intends to convey the same idea
by the statement made by her that the Echevarrias did not defend themselves,
notwithstanding the fact that they were provided with guns and revolvers, because they
did not know what was going to be done to them.

file:///Users/carlsantos/Desktop/Jurisprudence 1901-2018/cases/sc/1902/G. R. No. 945, December 19, 1902.htm 1/4

The shots fired by the malefactors were also heard by Tomas Atigera, Policarpia Arisola,
and Victoria Garcia, who became so frightened upon hearing the shots that they ran
away and hid in the woods. Victoria saw the bodies of all the deceased on the beach,
and Policarpia saw the bodies of five of them on the day after the occurrence.

The same witnesses, Patricia Arma and Diego Atigera, testified to having seen Melchor
Abelinde at the time the the crime was committed, and that he was one of the men who
formed part of the band which made the assault. Patricia Arma testified further that she
saw him take direct part in the killing of the Echevarrias.

From an examination of the record the conclusion is reached that the malefactors
remained at the hamlet of Naro during the night in question; that part of them went
away early in the morning of the day following, the others remaining there in the
custody of the house while removing the money, rice, and other goods found therein,
Melchor Abelinde must have been one of those who remained, and hence it was that he
was seen on the morning in question by Tomas Atigera and Camilo Afable, and by
Victoria Garcia on the afternoon of the same day, while standing guard at the door of
the said nowise, armed with a saber and a gun. Policarpia Arisola also saw him the same
day among the malefactors, although this witness could not testify precisely as to the
place where she saw him.
With respect to the other defendant, Leon Arco, nobody saw him on the night in
question at the place where the crime was committed. Nevertheless, circumstantial
evidence points strongly against him. When part of the band which had committed the
assault and killed the Echevarrias was leaving the hamlet of Naro, between 8 and 9
o'clock on the morning following, Arco was seen forming part of this band and armed
with a bolo. So testified Martin Atin and Bernardo Legaspi, who were kidnaped by the
band on the road on that occasion. This witness, while in the hands of the malefactors,
heard them say that they were coming from the hamlet of Naro, where they had killed the Echevarria
family the night before. According to Martin Atin, it was Arco himself, assisted by another
member of the gang, who captured him, telling him that if he did not keep quiet they would
kill him as they did the people in Naro. This witness also testifies that he noted spots of blood
on the sheath of the bolo carried by Arco. It also appears from the testimony of Mariano
Santos that when this band was in his house, having come there for the purpose of
getting rice, some days after the event in question, the defendant Arco was one of the
gang; that the bolo he carried was stained with blood; that one of the party stated in a
loud voice that they had killed the Echevarrias at the hamlet of Naro, and that Arco heard this
statement and did not deny it.
These proofs in themselves are sufficiently conclusive to produce a full conviction of the
guilt of the defendants, and they have still greater force in connection with their own
testimony at the trial. They confessed that it was true that they were present at the
hamlet of Naro, together with the slayers of the Echevarrias family on the ocasion in
question. The force of this confession is not overcome by the fact that they alleged that
they had been kidnaped and taken there forcibly by the malefactors, and that the latter
left them, the defendants, tied to some trees at some distance from the house of the
Echevarrias while they committed the crime herein prosecuted, and only set them at
liberty afterwards; because not only have they failed to prove in any degree the truth of
this alleged kidnaping, but the merits of the case, which have been briefly analyzed,
prove precisely the contrary.

It is a matter of absolute indifference whether the accused did or did not kill the
deceased by their own hands. Although they might not have done so—and there is
file:///Users/carlsantos/Desktop/Jurisprudence 1901-2018/cases/sc/1902/G. R. No. 945, December 19, 1902.htm 2/4
11/30/2020 G. R. No. 945, December 19, 1902.htm

proof to the contrary with respect to Melchor Abelinde—it is sufficient that they were
present as a part of the band of murderers at the time and place of the occurence, thus
contributing by their presence to augment the power of the band and to aid in the
successful realization of their purposes in order to become responsible by direct
participation for the death of the victims, in accordance with article 13 of the Penal
Code.
The fact that the deceased were killed while tied elbow to elbow, and therefore
prevented from making any defense, constitutes the circumstance of alevosia, defined in
paragraph 2 of article 10 of the Penal Code. Hence, the crime prosecuted in this case
was properly classified in the court below in its judgment as that of murder, defined and
punished by article 403 of the Penal Code.

There is absolutely nothing in the record to indicate that the defendants have done
anything which might tend to add ignominy to the effects peculiar to the crime
committed, or that they had any intention to affront the age and sex of any of the
deceased. Consequently the court below erred in considering against the defendants
aggravating circumstances Nos. 12 and 20 of article 10 of the Code. With respect to the
circumstance of the commission of the crime in the nighttime and in a gang, which the
court below also considered as aggravating circumstances, these circumstances must be
regarded as involved in the circumstance of alevosia, inasmuch as in the daytime, and if
the malefactors had been less than four, the minimum number necessary, under article
505, to constitute a gang, it would not have been possible for them to have overcome so
many victims, to the extent of allowing themselves to be tied without making the
slightest resistance, having, as they did, guns and revolvers with which they might defend
themselves, and not without certain advantages from a position of defense in the house.
It is to be supposed that they would have done so had the gang which made the assault
been less numerous, and had they been able to expect the assistance of their neighbors,
which might naturally be more readily counted upon in the daytime than in the
nighttime. Hence the circumstance of nocturnity and the circumstance of the
commission of the crime by a gang were principal and doubtless necessary elements
which made possible the existence of alevosia which consisted in the killing of the
deceased while tied elbow to elbow, as otherwise the result of the attack might perhaps
have been different, in view of the peculiar circumstances surrounding the case.
What appears to be unquestionable is that the slayers of the Echevarrias acted upon
premeditation. The agreement between them to form the numerous gang which
perpetrated the crime prosecuted is an agreement which must necessarily have been
preceded by a mutual and a reiterated communication of ideas, intentions, and plans
relative to the commission of the said crime; the fact that Diego Atigera was kidnaped
twenty-four hours before the occurrence, for the sole reason, as stated by the defendants
themselves, that he was a relative of the Echevarrias, and that he was not restored to
liberty until after the murder of the latter had been accomplished, and doubtless with
the purpose—as there is no other which can be imagined—of preventing him from
warning the Echevarrias of the danger which threatened them and of which Atigera
must doubtless have had some information, all demonstrates that since the preceding
day they had taken precautions tending to insure the success of their criminal enterprise,
and constitute facts which give evidence of a reflexive and persistent deliberation upon the
commission of the crime. This it m which constitutes known premeditation within the
meaning of the Penal Code. This aggravating circumstance must therefore be
considered against the defendants, by virtue of paragraph 7 of article 10 of the said
Code.

file:///Users/carlsantos/Desktop/Jurisprudence 1901-2018/cases/sc/1902/G. R. No. 945, December 19, 1902.htm 3/4

Aggravating circumstance No. 8 of the same article must also be considered, because
the malefactors made use of fraud in the commission of the crime, deceiving the
deceased with the false promise that no harm would be done them if they would
peaceably give up the guns and revolvers in their possession, and then killing them after
so obtaining the weapons. There is good reason to believe that, as the victims were so
numerous and were so well prepared for defense, they would not have surrendered at
the first intimation without the slightest resistance had they not confided in good faith in
the sincerity of that promise.
Counsel for the defense, during the pendency of the appeal, has moved the court to
apply in favor of the defendants the amnesty of July 4 last, alleging that the deceased
belonged to a Spanish family and were killed by reason of the political feuds and hatreds
arising from the fact that the deceased had formerly been caciques of the town in which
they lived.

The merits of the defense do not support this allegation. It does not appear, in any
manner whatsoever, that the slayers of the Echevarrias had taken part in the
insurrection against Spain or against the United States, or that they had committed the
crime to advance the interests of the said insurrection, or that it was due to motives
more or less connected therewith. The mere fact that the deceased were Spaniards is
not sufficient to authorize the conclusion that their death was due to political hatred or
dissensions, there being absolutely no evidence upon which to support such a
supposition. There is no way in which the conclusion can be legally dra wn' from the
record that the defendants committed the crime of which they are charged with any
political purpose or motive. On the contrary, it appears perfectly clear and evident from
the testimony of all the witnesses in,the case that their principal object was that of
robbery, and this purpose was effected, they having stolen everything there was in the
house of the Echevarrias. No charge of robbery was, however, included in the
information, and therefore can not be passed upon in our decision. These facts,
however, invest the murder of the Echevarrias with all the characteristics of a common
crime, and therefore not embraced by the amnesty proclamation invoked by the
defense.
For the reasons above expressed we overrule the motion of the defendants for the
application of the amnesty, and affirm the judgment below, with the modifications above
indicated with respect to the aggravating circumstances which should be considered
against the said defendants, with the costs of this instance against them. So ordered.
Torres, Cooper, Smith, Willard, and Ladd, JJ., concur.

Mapa, J., did not sit in this case.

Batas.org

file:///Users/carlsantos/Desktop/Jurisprudence 1901-2018/cases/sc/1902/G. R. No. 945, December 19, 1902.htm 4/4