Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Crim Digests
Crim Digests
DORIA
FACTS: Accused-appellants Florencio Doria and Violeta Gaddao were charged with violation of Section 4, in relation to Section
21 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.
Members of PNP Narcotics Command (Narcom), received information from two civilian informants (CI) that one “Jun” who was
later identified to be Florencio Doria was engaged in illegal drug activities and decided to entrap and arrest “Jun” in a buy-bust operation.
During the buy-bust operation”Jun” took out from his bag an object wrapped in plastic and gave it to PO3 Manlangit. PO3 Manlangit
forthwith arrested “Jun” as SPO1 Badua rushed to help in the arrest. They frisked “Jun” but did not find the marked bills on him. Upon
inquiry, “Jun” revealed that he left the money at the house of his associate named “Neneth” (Violeta Gaddao) “Jun” led the police team
to “Neneth’s” house.
The team found the door of “Neneth’s” house open and a woman inside. “Jun” identified the woman as his associate. SPO1
Badua asked “Neneth” about the P1,600.00 as PO3 Manlangit looked over “Neneth’s” house. Standing by the door, PO3 Manlangit
noticed a carton box under the dining table. He saw that one of the box’s flaps was open and inside the box was something wrapped in
plastic. The plastic wrapper and its contents appeared similar to the marijuana earlier “sold” to him by “Jun.” His suspicion aroused, PO3
Manlangit entered “Neneth’s” house and took hold of the box. He peeked inside the box and found that it contained 10 bricks of what
appeared to be dried marijuana leaves.
The prosecution story was denied by accused-appellants.
Gaddao testified that inside her house were her co-accused Doria and three (3) other persons. They asked her about a box on
top of the table. This was the first time she saw the box. The box was closed and tied with a piece of green straw. The men opened the
box and showed her its contents. She said she did not know anything about the box and its contents.
She denied the charge against her and Doria and the allegation that marked bills were found in her person.
The RTC convicted the accused-appellants.
ISSUES:
(1) the validity of the buy-bust operation in the apprehension of accused-appellant Doria;
(2) the validity of the warrantless arrest of accused-appellant Gaddao, the search of her person and house, and the
admissibility of the pieces of evidence obtained therefrom.
RULING:
1. The warrantless arrest of accused-appellant Doria is not unlawful. Warrantless arrests are allowed in three instances as
provided by Section 5 of Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, to wit:
“Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be
arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final
judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
x x x.”
Under Section 5 (a), as above-quoted, a person may be arrested without a warrant if he “has committed, is actually committing,
or is attempting to commit an offense.” Appellant Doria was caught in the act of committing an offense. When an accused is
apprehended in flagrante delicto as a result of a buy-bust operation, the police are not only authorized but duty-bound to arrest him
even without a warrant.
The warrantless arrest of appellant Gaddao, the search of her person and residence, and the seizure of the box of marijuana
and marked bills are different matters.
Our Constitution proscribes search and seizure without a judicial warrant and any evidence obtained without such warrant is
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. The rule is, however, not absolute. Search and seizure may be made without a warrant
and the evidence obtained therefrom may be admissible in the following instances:(1) search incident to a lawful arrest; (2) search of a
moving motor vehicle; (3) search in violation of customs laws; (4) seizure of evidence in plain view; (5) when the accused himself waives
his right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The prosecution admits that appellant Gaddao was arrested without a warrant of arrest and the search and seizure of the box
of marijuana and the marked bills were likewise made without a search warrant. It is claimed, however, that the warrants were not
necessary because the arrest was made in “hot pursuit” and the search was an incident to her lawful arrest.
To be lawful, the warrantless arrest of appellant Gaddao must fall under any of the three (3) instances enumerated in Section
5 of Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as aforequoted.
Accused-appellant Gaddao was not caught red-handed during the buy-bust operation to give ground for her arrest under
Section 5 (a) of Rule 113. She was not committing any crime. Contrary to the finding of the trial court, there was no occasion at all for
appellant Gaddao to flee from the policemen to justify her arrest in “hot pursuit.” In fact, she was going about her daily chores when
the policemen pounced on her.
Neither could the arrest of appellant Gaddao be justified under the second instance of Rule 113. “Personal knowledge” of facts
in arrests without warrant under Section 5 (b) of Rule 113 must be based upon “probable cause” which means an “actual belief or
reasonable grounds of suspicion.” The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, in the absence of actual belief of the arresting officers,
the suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the offense, is based on actual facts, i.e., supported by
circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. A reasonable suspicion
therefore must be founded on probable cause, coupled with good faith on the part of the peace officers making the arrest.
Accused-appellant Gaddao was arrested solely on the basis of the alleged identification made by her co-accused. PO3
Manlangit, however, declared in his direct examination that appellant Doria named his co-accused in response to his (PO3 Manlangit’s)
query as to where the marked money was. Appellant Doria did not point to appellant Gaddao as his associate in the drug business, but
as the person with whom he left the marked bills. This identification does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that appellant Gaddao
conspired with her co-accused in pushing drugs. Appellant Doria may have left the money in her house, with or without her knowledge,
with or without any conspiracy. Save for accused-appellant Doria’s word, the Narcom agents had no reasonable grounds to believe that
she was engaged in drug pushing. If there is no showing that the person who effected the warrantless arrest had, in his own right,
knowledge of facts implicating the person arrested to the perpetration of a criminal offense, the arrest is legally objectionable.
2. Since the warrantless arrest of accused-appellant Gaddao was illegal, it follows that the search of her person and home and
the subsequent seizure of the marked bills and marijuana cannot be deemed legal as an incident to her arrest. This brings us to the
question of whether the trial court correctly found that the box of marijuana was in plain view, making its warrantless seizure valid.
Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have 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 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 crime,
contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly be in a
position from which he can 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 be open to eye and hand and its discovery inadvertent.
It is clear that an object is in plain view if the object itself is plainly exposed to sight. The difficulty arises when the object is
inside a closed container. Where the object seized was inside a closed package, the object itself is not in plain view and therefore cannot
be seized without a warrant. However, if the package proclaims its contents, whether by its distinctive configuration, its transparency,
or if its contents are obvious to an observer, then the contents are in plain view and may be seized. In other words, if the package is
such that an experienced observer could infer from its appearance that it contains the prohibited article, then the article is deemed in
plain view. It must be immediately apparent to the police that the items that they observe may be evidence of a crime, contraband or
otherwise subject to seizure.
PO3 Manlangit and the police team were at appellant Gaddao’s house because they were led there by appellant Doria. The
Narcom agents testified that they had no information on appellant Gaddao until appellant Doria named her and led them to her.
Standing by the door of appellant Gaddao’s house, PO3 Manlangit had a view of the interior of said house. Two and a half meters away
was the dining table and underneath it was a carton box. The box was partially open and revealed something wrapped in plastic.
He did not know exactly what the box contained that he had to ask appellant Gaddao about its contents. It was not immediately
apparent to PO3 Manlangit that the content of the box was marijuana. The marijuana was not in plain view and its seizure without the
requisite search warrant was in violation of the law and the Constitution. It was fruit of the poisonous tree and should have been
excluded and never considered by the trial court.
The fact that the box containing about six (6) kilos of marijuana was found in the house of accused-appellant Gaddao does not
justify a finding that she herself is guilty of the crime charged.
In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, what is material is the submission of proof that the sale took place
between the poseur-buyer and the seller thereof and the presentation of the drug, i.e., the corpus delicti, as evidence in court.The
prosecution has clearly established the fact that in consideration of P1,600.00 which he received, accused-appellant Doria sold and
delivered nine hundred seventy (970) grams of marijuana to PO3 Manlangit, the poseur-buyer. The prosecution, however, has failed to
prove that accused-appellant Gaddao conspired with accused-appellant Doria in the sale of said drug.
1. Accused-appellant Florencio Doria is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
2. Accused-appellant Violeta Gaddao is acquitted.
PEOPLE VS. ELAMPARO
Summary: A buy-bust operation led the pursuing officers of a drug runner into the house of his alleged supplier/dealer. In the house,
they witnessed the alleged dealer repacking bricks of marijuana and arrested him.
Rule of Law: A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person, when in his presence, the person to be arrested
has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.
Facts: Joel Elamparo (D) has been convicted with Illegal Possession of Drugs and penalized with reclusion perpetua. The case
was raised for automatic review.
Police Officer Baldonado of Caloocan City Police received a report from an informant that "some people are selling shabu and
marijuana somewhere in Bagong Bario, Caloocan City." Thus, Baldonado organized a buy-bust team and deployed at a known "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, the poseur-buyer and buy-bust team member, then handed over the marked money and arrested the runner
who freed himself and ran.
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 and recovered the marked money. The police officers likewise found Joel Elamparo (D)
repacking five bricks of "marijuana" wrapped in a newspaper on top of the round table inside the house. Elamparo (D) was then arrested.
Issues: Is the warrantless arrest valid?
Ruling: Yes. Five generally accepted exceptions to the right against warrantless searches and seizures have been judicially
formulated: (1) search incidental to a 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 unreasonable search and seizure.
This case falls squarely under the plain view doctrine. In People vs. Doria, 301 SCRA 668, 710-711 (1999), the Court held that—
Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have 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 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 crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. The law enforcement officer must lawfully
make an initial intrusion or properly be in a position from which he can 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 be open to eye and hand and its discovery
inadvertent.
When the runner wrenched himself free from the grasp of Gaviola, he instinctively ran towards the house of Elamparo (D). The
members of the buy-bust team were 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 cornered the runner and recovered the buy-bust money from him.
They also caught Elamparo (D) in flagrante delicto repacking the marijuana bricks which were in full view on tap of a table.
UMIL V. RAMOS
Facts:
Separate motions before the Court, seeking reconsideration.
In the Umil case, the arresting officers had good reason to believe that an NPA member (Rolando Dural, although using a
fictitious name) was indeed being treated at St. Agnes Hospital, QC for gunshot wounds. The information was from the
attending doctor and hospital management, and therefore came from reliable sources.
In the case of Wilfredo Buenaobra, the same admitted that he was an NPA courier.
In the case of Amelia Roque, subversive documents and live ammunition were found at the time of her arrest, and she admitted
to owning such documents.
As regards Domingo Anonuevo & Ramon Casiple, agents frisked them and found subversive documents & loaded guns without
permits.
With regard to Vicky Ocaya, she arrived at a house subject to a search warrant. Ammunition & subversive documents were
found in her car.
In the Nazareno case, Narciso Nazareno was identified by Ramil Regala as the latter’s companion in killing Romulo Bunye II.
Issue:
Whether or not Rolando Dural (and other petitioners in the other consolidated cases) was lawfully arrested
Ruling:
Dural and the other petitioners were lawfully arrested for being members of the New People’s Army (mere membership is
penalized), and for subversion (a continuing offense).
Subversion and rebellion are anchored on an ideological base which compels the repetition of the same acts of lawlessness &
violence until the objective of overthrowing organized government is attained.
Likewise, the arresting officers had personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested is the one who
committed the offense (based on actual facts), coupled with good faith in making the arrest.
The Court reiterates that mere suspicion of being a Communist Party member or a subversive is absolutely not a ground for the
arrest without warrant of the suspect. The Court predicated the validity of the arrests on the compliance with the requirements
of a long existing law; probable cause and good faith of the arresting peace officers; and that the arrest be on the basis of
actual facts and circumstances.
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- YES
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
Brief: This is an appeal of the decision of the Court of First Instance (RTC) of Quezon province on the conviction of accused
Narciso Umali, Epifanio Pasumbal, and Isidro Capino of the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, frustrated murder, arson
and robbery.
Facts:
1. Narciso Umali and Marcial Punzalan were old time friends and belonged to the same political faction. In the general elections
of 1947 Umali campaigned for Punzalan who later was elected Mayor of Tiaong. In the elections of 1949 Punzalan in his turn campaigned
and worked for Narciso Umali resulting in the latter's election as Congressman. However, these friendly relations between the two did
not endure.
2. On the eve of the election, at the house of Pasumbal’s father, then being used as his electoral headquarters, Congressman
Umali instructed Pasumbal to contact the Huks through Commander Abeng so that Punzalan would be killed. Pasumbal complying with
the order of his Chief (Umali) went to the mountains which were quite near the town and held a conference with Commander Abeng.
It would seem that Umali and Pasumbal had a feeling that Punzalan was going to win in the election the next day, and that his death
was the surest way to eliminate him from the electoral fight. Pasumbal reported to Umali that Commander Abeng was agreeable to the
proposition and even outlined the manner of attack.
2. Then the elections of 1951 (November 13) approached and Punzalan ran for re-election. To oppose him, and to clip his
political wings and definitely blast his ambition for continued power and influence in Tiaong, Umali picked Epifanio Pasumbal, his trusted
leader.
3. The result of the elections plainly showed that Punzalan was the political master and leader in Tiaong. He beat Pasumbal by
an overwhelming majority of 2,221 votes.
4. The following day after the elections, after waiting for sometime, Abeng and his troops numbering about fifty, armed with
garlands ans carbines, arrived. Congressman Umali, holding a revolver, was seen in the company of Huk Commander Torio and about
30 armed men. Afterwards, a raid was staged in the town of Tiaong, Quezon, between 8:00 and 9:00 in the evening of November 14,
1951, by armed men. Said raid took place resulted 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; that during and after the burning of the houses, some of the raiders engaged in looting, robbing one house and two
Chinese stories;
5. Fortunately, however, and apparently unknown to the attackers and those who designed the raid, at six o'clock that morning
of November 14th Punzalan and his Chief of Police had left Tiaong to go to Lucena, the capital, to report the results of the election to
the Governor.
6. As to defendants Pasumbal and Capino, their participation in and responsibility for the raid was duly established and was
witnessed and described by several persons, including policemen who saw Pasumbal and Capino actually taking part in firing at the
house with automatic weapons and hand grenades.
7. As to Umali, his criminal responsibility was also established, though indirectly. Since no one saw him take part in the firing
and attack on the house of Punzalan; nor was he seen near or around said house. Nevertheless, we have the testimony of Amado
Mendoza who heard him instructing Pasumbal to contact Commander Abeng and ask him to raid Tiaong and kill Punzalan.
8. Assuming for a moment as they claim, that the two (Umali and Pasumbal) were not in Tiaong at the commencement of the
raid between 8:00 and 9:00 p.m., and during the whole time the raid lasted, and that they were all that time in the home of Pasumbal
in Taguan, still, according to their own evidence, they were informed by persons coming or fleeing from Tiaong that there was a raid
going on there, and that some houses were burning. As a matter of fact, considering the promixity of Taguan to Tiaong, a distance of
about seven kilometers and the stillness and darkness of the night, the fire and the glow produced by the burning of three houses and
the noise produced by the firing of automatic weapons and the explosion of the hand grenades and bottles of gasoline, could and must
have been seen and heard from Taguan. The natural and logical reaction on the part of Umali and Pasumbal would have been to rush
to Tiaong, see what had really happened and then render help and give succor to the stricken residents, including their own relatives.
This strange act and behaviour of the two men, particularly Umali, all contrary to impulse and natural reaction, and what other
people would ordinarily have done under the circumstances, prompted the trial court in its decision to repeat the old saying "The guilty
man flees even if no one pursues, but the innocent stands bold as a lion.
Issue: Whether or not the defendants-appellants were guilty of the crime of rebellion or sedition.
ACTIONS OF THE COURT:
RTC:
Defendants-appellants were found guilty of the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, frustrated murder, arson and
robbery, and sentencing each of them to "life imprisonment, other accessories of the law, to indemnify jointly and severally Marcial
Punzalan in the amount of P24,023; Valentin Robles in the amount of P10,000; Yao Cabon in the amount of P700; Claro Robles in the
amount of P12,800; Pocho Guan in the amount of P600; the heirs of Domingo Pisigan in the amount of P6,000; the heirs of Locadio
Untalan in the amount of P6,000; Patrolman Pedro Lacorte in the amount of P500; Lazaro Ortega in the amount of P300; Hilarion Aselo
in the amount of P300; Calixto Rivano in the amount P50; Melecio Garcia in the amount of P60; and Juanito Lector in the amount of
P90, each to pay one fifteenth of the costs, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency due to the nature of the principal
penalty that is imposed upon them
SC:
The decision of the RTC is AFFIRMED with some modification:
The crimes committed are, therefore, those of sedition, multiple murder, arson, frustrated murder and physical injuries.
COURT RATIONALE ON THE ABOVE FACTS:
We are convinced that the principal and main, though not necessarily the most serious, crime committed here was not rebellion
but rather that of sedition. The purpose of the raid and the act of the raiders in rising publicly and taking up arms was not exactly against
the Government and for the purpose of doing the things defined in Article 134 of the Revised Penal code under rebellion. The raiders
did not even attack the Presidencia, the seat of local Government. Rather, the object was to attain by means of force, intimidation, etc.
one object, to wit, to inflict an act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of a public official, namely, Punzalan was then Mayor of
Tiaong. Under Article 139 of the same Code this was sufficient to constitute sedition.
As regards the crime of robbery with which appellants were charged and of which they were convicted, we are also of the
opinion that it was not one of the purposes of the raid, which was mainly to kidnap or kill Punzalan and destroy his house. The robberies
were actually committed by only some of the raiders, presumably dissidents, as an afterthought, because of the opportunity offered by
the confusion and disorder. For these robberies, only those who actually took part therein are responsible, and not the three appellants
herein.
With respect to the crime of multiple frustrated murder, while the assault upon policeman Pedro Lacorte with a hand grenade
causing him injuries resulting in his blindness in one eye, may be regarded as frustrated murder; the wounding of Ortega, Anselo, Rivano,
Garcia and Lector should be considered as mere physical injuries.
The murders may not be qualified by evident premeditation because the premedition was for the killing of Punzalan. The killing
may, however, be qualified by treachery, the raiders using firearms against which the victims were defenseless, with the aggravating
circumstance of abuse of superior strength.
Appellants were charged with and convicted of the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, frustrated murder, arson
and robbery. Is there such a complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, etc?
Considering that, assuming for the moment that there is no such complex crime of rebellion with murder, etc., and that
consequently appellants could not have been legally charged with, much less convicted of said complex crime, and the information
should therefore, be regarded as having charged more than one offense, contrary to Rule 106, section 12 and Rule 113, section 2 (e),
of the Rules of Court, but that appellants having interposed no objection thereto, they were properly tried for and lawfully convicted if
guilty of the several, separate crimes charged therein, we have decided and we rule that the appellants may properly be convicted of said
several and separate crimes, as hereinafter specified. We feel particularly supported and justified in this stand that we take, by the result
of the case, namely, that the prison sentence we impose does not exceed, except perhaps in actual duration, that meted out by the
Court below, which is life imprisonment.
SUPREME COURT RULING:
In conclusion, we find appellants 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, we find 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.