THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.

ISIDORO ESCALONA and EPIFANIO

ESCALONA
G.R. No. L-13294. March 29, 1961. EN BANC (PADILLA, J.)

Facts
 One evening, the offended party Protacio Eval was stabbed on the left forearm and at his
back by the respondent-accused Isidoro Escalona and Epifanio Escalona while he was
tightly held.
 Protacio was brought to the hospital, but four days after, he died. According to Dr.
Vicente Ramo who attended to the victim, the cause of death was severe hemorrhage and
peritonitis due to two stab wounds; the wound was fatal.
 Isidoro claimed self-defense. Epifanio also denied complicity in the commission of the
crime.
 Epifanio testified that in an afternoon he passed by a house, and there saw group of men
including Isidro drinking; that in the evening of that day, he was with the group of men
because they would not allow him to leave; and that Epifanio, Isidoro and some other two
men went home together.
 The trial court found them guilty of the crime of murder sentencing them to the supreme
penalty of death, to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of P6,000 and to pay
the costs proportionately.
 The two accused appealed from the judgment of the trial court.

Issue
 Whether or not the appeal of the accused from the judgment of the trial court finding
them guilty of the crime of murder must be upheld.

Ruling
 From the statements of the accused and their witness, it may be concluded that Epifanio
Escalona took an active part with Isidoro Escalona in the commission of the crime.
 The crime committed by the accused is murder—the qualifying circumstance of treachery
having attended the commission, while Protacio was unexpectedly assaulted and stabbed
by Isidoro from behind and stabbed by Epifanio while he was being held by Isidoro.
 Pursuant to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty is reclusion temporal in its
maximum period to death. Since in this case advantage of superior strength forms part of
treachery, the qualifying circumstance, neither one can be considered as aggravating nor
should the aggravating circumstance of nighttime be taken into account for it was not
purposely sought by the appellants to commit the crime. No mitigating circumstance may
be appreciated in favor of the appellants, as they have proved that intoxication, if they
were intoxicated, was not habitual. Their implied pretense was that they were not even
tipsy because they had not drunk any intoxicating liquid or alcoholic beverage.
 The penalty, therefore, should be imposed in its medium period, which is reclusion
perpetua.
 The judgment appealed from is modified only as to the penalty to be imposed which is
reclusion perpetua. The rest of the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against
the appellants.