EN BANC

[G.R. No. 37408. October 10, 1933.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS , plaintiff-appellee, vs .

CANDIDO ENRIQUEZ, ET AL. , defendants-appellants.

Guillermo B. Guevara, for appellant Enriquez.

Monico R. Mercado, for the other appellants.
Attorney-General Jaranilla, for appellee.

SYLLABUS

1. CRIMINAL LAW; HOMICIDE; CONSPIRACY; RESPONSIBILITY OF PERSONS

ENGAGED. — Where several individuals conspire to do grave bodily harm to another,
and homicide or murder results from their acts of aggression, all who participated in
the conspiracy are liable for the killing, in this case murder, although the actual intention
was only to beat up the victim.
2. ID.; MURDER; MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE THAT OFFENDER HAD NO
INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG. — As murder in this jurisdiction results
from the presence of quali cative circumstances based for the most part upon the
manner in which the crime is committed, and not upon the state of mind of the accused,
it is permissible upon a conviction for murder to allow the mitigating circumstance that
the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong.

DECISION

STREET , J : p

This appeal has been brought to reverse a judgment of the Court of First
Instance of the Province of Pampanga, nding the appellants, Candido Enriquez, Jose
Palacio, Marcelo Franco, Marcelo Bonifacio, Pedro Mocpoc, Vicente Domingo, and
Ambrosio Basa, guilty of the offense of murder and sentencing Candido Enriquez, as
author by induction, to cadena perpetua, with the accessory penalties prescribed by
law, and requiring him to pay the sum of P1,000 to the heirs of the deceased, Ciriaco D.
Gines, and one-eighth of the costs of prosecution; and severally sentencing Marcelo
Bonifacio, Marcelo Franco, Pedro Mocpoc, Vicente Domingo, and Ambrosio Basa, as
direct agents in said murder, to undergo cadena perpetua, with the accessory penalties
prescribed by law, and requiring them jointly and severally to indemnify the heirs of the
deceased in the amount of P1,000, and to pay each one-eighth of the costs of
prosecution.
Prior to October 28, 1931, two rival corporations were engaged in the
transportation of passengers in central Luzon, both using passenger trucks, or busses,
propelled by gasoline. These two lines were the Pampanga Bus Co., operating, among
other places, between Apalit and Masantol, and the Mallorca Transportation, operating
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 from points in Pampanga to Manila.
The Mallorca Transportation is owned by Fernando Enriquez, father of the
appellant Candido Enriquez, and the latter was its manager with a garage in Macabebe,
Pampanga. For some time prior to the events with which we are now concerned, the
Mallorca Transportation had been called upon to answer various complaints before the
Public Service Commission for infractions of its rules: and as a consequence of these
complaints several nes had been imposed upon Fernando Enriquez. One Ciriaco D.
Gines, an inspector of the Pampanga Bus Co. on its Apalit- Masantol line, was
supposed to be the person who had supplied the material for these complaints and, as
a consequence, he had incurred the ill-will of Candido Enriquez. This feeling of hostility
was increased when, on October 26, 1931, Gines was seen jotting down the number of
one of the trucks of the Mallorca Transportation, while parked near the station of the
Manila Railroad Co. in Apalit. This seems to have been too much for Candido Enriquez,
and he decided that Gines must be gotten out of the way. Accordingly, on the morning
of October 27, he boarded one of his busses at Macabebe headed for Manila. His
purpose, as he explained to an employee in the garage, was to hire ru ans in Manila
who would beat up Gines so that he would not interfere in the future with the business
of the Mallorca Transportation.
Arriving in Manila, Candido Enriquez found one Jose Palacio, formerly a chauffeur
in the employment of Enriquez, but who had lost his job by reason of some accident for
which he was supposed to have been responsible as driver. Enriquez told Palacio that
he wanted him to procure some ru ans ( butañgeros) and bring them up to Macabebe
to beat up Gines. Palacio accepted the mandate and in the course of the day got into
touch with a notorious gangster, named Marcelo Bonifacio, and four others, Marcelo
Franco, Pedro Mocpoc, Vicente Domingo, and Ambrosio Basa. These ve agreed to
undertake the job. Meanwhile Candido Enriquez had already left Manila for Macabebe
and upon his arrival in that place he told two of his employees to be on the lookout for
the gangsters who would be coming up that night. True to schedule, Jose Palacio and
his ve ru ans boarded the last truck of the Mallorca Transportation which left Manila
at about 5 o'clock the same afternoon. On this trip the six were charged no fares by the
conductor.
Arriving in Macabebe near 8 o'clock, the truck was stopped at an old house
formerly used by Fernando Enriquez but now occupied by Maximo Tuason, a mechanic
of the Mallorca Transportation. Palacio and his ve ru ans there disembarked, and
Palacio took them into this house. Before long Candido Enriquez came in and directed
that food be supplied and, nding that su cient food was not there available, he gave
Tuason money and directed him to procure more food from a store.
After the men had been fed, Jose Palacio, by direction of Enriquez, showed the
house of Gines to Marcelo Bonifacio. Upon the return of the two from this errand, the
six were taken into the kitchen and Enriquez there discussed with them the plan for
beating up Gines. Bonifacio was for doing the work that night, but Enriquez objected,
saying that an attack made at that hour would attract the attention of too many people,
observing further that Gines was not accustomed to leave his house at night. It was
accordingly decided to wait until early in the morning when Gines would be leaving his
home; and it was at the same time agreed that the stipulated compensation would be
paid on the morning when the work was done.
All then retired to rest, and at about 3 o'clock on the next morning, October 28,
Candido Enriquez awoke his employees Amado San Andres and Francisco Mallari, who
were sleeping in a truck of the Mallorca Transportation in the garage, and instructed
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 them to go that day with Maximo Tuason to purchase stone in the barrio of Santa
Maria, municipality of Bocaue, in the Province of Bulacan.
He then had a conversation with Marcelo Bonifacio, the head of the gang, in
which the latter suggested that his men should be provided with iron bars with which to
beat up Gines. Enriquez agreed and took the men to the garage, where he delivered to
them two small iron bars. Passenger trucks in the garage were then moved out into the
street to make way for truck No. TH-4475, which was to be used by Tuason and his
companions in transporting stone from Santa Maria; but before going on that errand
this truck had something more important to do, which was to transport Jose Palacio
and his ve ru ans to the house of Gines and to take them away on the road to
Bocaue, when their work of beating up Gines should be accomplished.
Accordingly, as daylight approached, Tuason and his companions, as well as
Jose Palacio and his ve, boarded the truck No. TH-4475 and started on their way.
Arriving at the house of Gines, Palacio and his men alighted, and Tuason was instructed
to proceed a certain distance so as not to attract attention, and await Palacio's coming,
with the others. Tuason therefore drove on and stopped the truck a short distance
away.
Before the truck left the garage that morning Candido Enriquez delivered to
Maximo Tuason the sum of P8.50, with which to buy stone in Bocaue, and at the same
time he delivered to him P20 more with directions to give it to Bonifacio and his fellow
ru ans when they should have nished the job of beating up Gines. After the truck had
stopped near the house of Gines, Bonifacio approached Tuason and asked him for the
money which Enriquez had placed in the former's hands. In response to this request,
Tuason gave Bonifacio the P20 above- mentioned, although he had been told to deliver
it only after the work of beating up Gines had been completed. The reason Tuason did
this was that he feared he might be assaulted in case of refusal.
Meanwhile Jose Palacio, who personally knew Gines and was serving as guide,
had posted himself in front of the house where Gines was living. Presently lights
appeared, and as Gines came out, Palacio indicated that he was the man they were
after. Upon being struck, Gines gave an exclamation and in a moment fell to the ground
unconscious. The most serious wound received by Gines was a cut, four centimeters in
length and about seven and one-half centimeters in depth, on the inner side of the upper
part of the calf of the right leg. Other wounds were three severe contusions, one on an
arm and two on the body, and two lighter bruises on the left side of the back. All of
these contusions were evidently caused by the iron bars which had been provided by
Enriquez. The malefactors immediately ed. Jose Palacio ran to the o ce of Candido
Enriquez and reported that the victim was down; the other assailants ran towards the
waiting truck and the driver carried them rapidly towards Bocaue. Arriving at Bocaue,
the ve from Manila got off the truck No. TH-4475 and boarded another bound for
Manila. While still aboard the rst truck, Marcelo Franco threw the iron bar which he had
used in assaulting Gines to the ground near a gasoline station in Bocaue; and Francisco
Mallari threw the other iron bar to the ground in the barrio of Santa Ana. Both of these
bars were presently recovered upon information received from Jose Palacio and were
produced in evidence in court.
Gines was left unconscious upon the ground as his assailants ed. As he
recovered consciousness, he called for help, and his cries attracted the attention of his
father and others who came to his aid. The seriousness of his wounds, especially the
cut on the leg, was apparently not at rst realized, and it was 6 o'clock before he was
gotten to the Pampanga provincial hospital. At 3.30 p. m. on the afternoon of the same
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 day, he died from shock and loss of blood.
As Jose Palacio and his five companions were gathered in by the authorities, they
severally made confessions implicating themselves in varying degrees in the incident.
Jose Palacio and Marcelo Franco admitted that the purpose of the assault was to put
Gines to sleep, and it will be remembered that the former was the person who had been
commissioned by Enriquez to employ the others. Four of the accused, namely, Franco,
Basa, Mocpoc, and Domingo, admitted in these statements that they had each been
paid the sum of P4 for their part in the enterprise.
Directing our attention now a little more closely to the circumstances of the
attack, we note that Gines, in a declaration made before his death, stated that he was
assaulted by three individuals, and it is satisfactorily proved that these three must have
been Marcelo Bonifacio, Marcelo Franco, and Pedro Mocpoc. Of these three Franco and
Mocpoc used the small iron bars which Enriquez had supplied. There is no satisfactory
proof as to the identity of the individual who used the knife. Lieutenant Lauro Dizon, of
the Constabulary, stated on the witness stand that Jose Palacio told him that he
(Palacio) saw Candido Enriquez give Bonifacio a knife at the same time that he supplied
Marcelo Franco and Pedro Mocpoc with the iron bars to which reference has been
made. This statement was of course competent against Jose Palacio but not against
the others. The trial judge makes no mention of the incident in his opinion. Vicente
Domingo, Ambrosio Basa and any other individual who may have participated in the
crime were apparently posted at places convenient for keeping a lookout and giving
alarm.
Upon the circumstance that the wound made with the knife on the leg of the
person assaulted was the primary cause of death and that the author of this injury has
not been identi ed, the attorneys for the accused chie y plant their defense, and in this
connection it is insisted that the conspiracy to attack Gines contemplated only beating
him up and did not include the in iction of injury by means of a cutting instrument. Such
an act, so it is said, was not within the scope of the agreement; and it is insisted that
only the individual who in icted the cut could be held responsible for the death, if that
person were known. It results, in this view, that none of the appellants can be held liable
further than for the bruises in icted by means of the iron bars. These injuries, so it is
claimed, would in the natural course of events have been curable in a few days.
We are of the opinion that this contention is not tenable. The accused had
undoubtedly conspired to do grave personal injury to the deceased, and now that the
injuries actually in icted have resulted in death, they cannot escape from the legal
effect of their acts on the ground that one of the wounds was inflicted in a different way
from that which had been intended. A blow in icted by one of the small iron bars used
in this assault might well have resulted in the taking of life, and the circumstance that a
knife was also used in striking the deceased does not relieve the appellants from the
consequence of their joint acts. As has been said by the Supreme Court of the United
States, "If a number of persons agree to commit, and enter upon the commission of a
crime which will probably endanger human life such as robbery, all of them are
responsible for the death of a person that ensues as a consequence." (Boyd vs. U. S.,
450; 35 Law. ed., 1077). In United States vs. Patten, the court said: "Conspirators who
join in a criminal attack on a defenseless man with dangerous weapons, knock him
down, and when he tries to escape, pursue him with increased numbers, and continue
the assault, are liable for manslaughter when the victim is killed by a knife wound
in icted by one of them during the beating, although in the beginning they did not
contemplate the use of a nife." (42 Appeals, D. C., 239.)
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 But the defense has undertaken to prove, as a matter of fact, that the fatal cut
was not in icted by any of the hirelings brought from Manila, but by Amado San Andres,
an employee of Candido Enriquez. This individual was on the truck No. TH-4475, which
carried Jose Palacio and his gangsters from the garage in Macabebe to the scene of
the killing; and a witness was put on the stand by the defense who testi ed that he saw
Amado San Andres eeing from the scene of the tragedy with a knife in hand just
before he climbed into the truck which was waiting. In addition to this, there was
testimony showing a suspicious bloodstain on the foot of San Andres later in the
morning. As against this proof, account must be taken of the fact that San Andres was
taken before Gines a short while before the death of the latter supervened, and Gines
explicitly stated that San Andres was not one of the men who assaulted him. This
circumstance no doubt accounts for the fact that the name of San Andres was omitted
from the information. Upon the whole the defense has not proved that San Andres was
the person who used the knife.
But even supposing that the cut was in icted by San Andres, it would not follow
that the appellants should for that reason be exculpated from the homicide. San Andres
was an employee of Enriquez. He was present when Enriquez announced in the garage
that he was going to Manila to obtain gangsters to dispose of Gines. He was present
when the Manila contingent arrived at the garage in Macabebe at about 8 p. m. on the
night of October 27, and he was on the truck that carried the accused (except Enriquez)
the next morning on their fatal mission. There is no proof that any of the accused
objected to his participation in the assault upon Gines or that they did anything to
prevent such participation. Cooperation can be inferred not only from proof of actual
previous conspiracy, but from the nature of the acts done when the unlawful act is
committed. Assuming, then, that San Andres was the person who in icted the fatal cut,
the conclusion would be that he was cooperating with the appellants with their consent,
and the appellants are responsible for the consequences.
The crime committed in this case was murder, in which alevosia should be taken
as the qualifying circumstance. This circumstance is conspicuous in the fact that the
assault was characterized by surprise and was effected by lying in wait for the
deceased in the darkness of the night. The plan adopted was evidently designed to
insure the execution of the offense without risk to the appellants from any defense
which the deceased might make. Nocturnity and abuse of superior strength may
properly be considered as absorbed in the alevosia. There was present as to all of the
accused, except Jose Palacio, the aggravating circumstance that the offense was
committed for a price in money. There was also present, as to all the appellants, the
circumstance of known premeditation in that the offense had been under
contemplation overnight, and the appellants had ample time to reflect repeatedly on the
manner in which it could best be accomplished.
The trial court gave all of the accused the bene t of the mitigating circumstance
that the offenders had no intention to commit so grave a wrong. The estimation of this
circumstance was proper, and its allowance was not inconsistent with the nding that
the crime was murder (U. S. vs. Candelaria, 2 Phil., 104; U. S. vs. Luciano, 2 Phil., 96;
People vs. Cagoco, G. R. No. 38511, page 524, ante).
The judgment appealed from will be a rmed, it being understood that reclusion
perpetua is substituted for cadena perpetua, in accordance with the Revised Penal
Code. So ordered, with costs against the appellants.
Avanceña, C.J., Hull, Vickers and Butte, JJ., concur.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com