PEOPLE v. MAMASALAYA, ET AL.

G.R. No.L-4911, SECOND DIVISION, February 10, 1953, MONTEMAYOR, J.

FACTS: Lt. Cabelin of 119th Philippine Constabulary headquarters in Cotabato received an information
from Bulalakao Mamasalaya that there were bandits threatening peace and order in Barrio Sapalan.
Cabelin investigated and referred Mamasalay to Capt. David who later ordered Cabelin to take Bulalakao
to the Adjutant, Lt. Degamon, who also questioned Bulalakao. Evidently, the three officers believed and
accepted Bulalakao's report because that same afternoon a patrol was organized consisting of 16
soldiers armed with highpowered and was headed by Lt. Cabelin himself. The lieutenant advised and
warned his men that they are going to a place where there were supposed lawless elements and bandits
who were well-armed and that they must be ready for any eventuality. Cabelin was shown a confidential
report showing that there were many loose firearms, some are high-powered, particularly in the place
where they were going. He was advised by his superior officers that only three days before a
Constabulary patrol had been ambushed somewhere in Koronadal. The mission of the patrol was to
verify the reports of Bulalakao and gather information with respect to the condition of peace and order
and to enforce the law and to disperse or annihilate or capture lawless elements. With Bulalakao as
guide, the patrol went to Barrio Sapalan and proceeded to the place indicated by Bulalakao as the
hideout of the bandits. At about 4 am, the group reached a cornfield where they could see a group of
three houses with light coming from the larger one. Bulalakao told Cabelin that those were the houses
where the bandits were hiding At a distance of between 25 and 35 yards from the houses, Cabelin
deployed his men in three flanks, placed a machine gun among the flanks, and warned his men not to
fire until they received a signal from him which signal was to be a burst from the machine gun. While the
soldiers were observing, several dogs started barking. A moro was then discovered roaming near the
patrol and on being seized he shouted. Almost immediately, a volley of fire came from the three houses
directed at the patrol. Cabelin and later Sergeant Olmoguez shouted, in moro dialect, at the top of their
voices to the inmates of the three houses that they (members of the patrol) were soldiers, and not to
shoot but in spite of this the firing from the three houses continued; so Cabelin ordered the firing of the
machine gun and upon hearing this burst from the machine gun which was the prearranged signal the
men from the left and right flanks fired in the direction of the three houses.

Cabelin ordered his men to cease on firing as he saw several men from three houses jumping and
running away. When the shooting stopped, the patrol advanced, but to fire only if fired upon. Upon
nearing the house, Cabelin demanded the inmates to surrender. As they went inside the house, they saw
Datu Benito dead. In the other houses, they also found three other dead persons. Mamasalaya and 10
other Moros (from his faction), Lt. Cabelin, and 19 noncommissioned officers and enlisted men of the PC
were charged with quadruple murder. The CFI acquitted everyone except Lt. Cabelin, Mamasalaya and
the 10 other Moros. Later on, it was established that Mamasalaya and Datu Benito belonged to two
different warring factions that have a long standing feud. To eliminate the faction of Datu Benito and to
gain upper hand and obtain undisputed authority and influence in the locality, Bulalakao conceived the
diabolic scheme and lured the Constabulary patrol to Sapalan and let Cabelin and his superiors to believe
that the three houses belonging to Datu Benito were being occupied by bandits.

ISSUE: Whether or not Lt. Cabelin, Mamasalaya, and the 10 other Moros are guilty of the crime charged.
(NO – Lt. Cabelin and 10 Moros; YES - Mamasalaya)
RULING: As to the case of Lt. Cabelin, there is no charge or claim that he acted deliberately and
criminally in killing the four innocent civilians knowing that they were innocent. In good faith he believed
that the three houses pointed out to him by Bulalakao were being occupied by bandits whom he was
ordered to disperse, capture or destroy. As previously stated by the witnesses and by Lt. Cabelin, the
patrol was first fired upon from the three houses but in spite of this unprovoked fire he and his sergeant
shouted and called out to the inmates of the houses not to fire because they were P. C. soldiers; and it
was only when the firing persisted that he ordered his men to return the fire. The Court believes that the
shooting was justified for having been done and effected under an honest mistake. Taking into
consideration the case of U.S. v. Ah Chong, and to accord full justice to Cabelin, he should be judged not
by the facts as they later turned out to be and as they now appear in the record, but by what he, at the
time of the shooting, thought and believed to be the facts, and the conditions obtaining at that time. The
Solicitor General, the trial court, and every one agree that the conditions of peace and order in Cotabato
particularly in the barrio of Sapalan, Dinaig, Cotabato, were very bad and dangerous due to the presence
of lawless elements and several ambush and killings happened for the past weeks. Further, Cabelin and
his men had no intention or desire whatsoever to harm Datu Benito and his relatives and neighbors. In
fact, it is doubtful if the lieutenant and his men knew Datu Benito or that the three houses assaulted
belonged to him and his relatives. Malice or criminal intent on their part was absent. Lastly, Cabelin had
no reason to doubt or distrust Bulalakao whom his own Commanding Officer and his adjutant had
apparently implicitly believed, and whom they sent to act as guide and informant of the patrol. The
killing of the four Moros was, to be sure, due to a tragic mistake, but despite all the tragedy, it ceases not
to be a mistake, and an honest one.

As to the Moros, there is ground to believe that the main if not the only reasons why the ten other
Moros were included in the information was because they belonged to the Bulalakao faction and it is
possible that when the patrol headed by Bulalakao reached the vicinity these relatives and followers of
Bulalakao joined him. But there is no conclusive proof that they took any active part in the assault. The
Solicitor General himself admits that there is no evidence to show that these Moros did any firing or that
if they did so they fired upon the three houses and hit any of its occupants; and that their criminal
liability must be based on a conspiracy with the patrol. As to the case against Mamasalaya, it is entirely
different. As already stated, the moving spirit in the expedition or sending of the patrol was Bulalakao.
He persuaded, convinced and induced the Constabulary officers to send the patrol and later to assault
the three houses resulting in the killing of four of its occupants who proved to be innocent civilians. The
Solicitor General in his brief aptly describes Bulalakao as the most guilty. Bulalakao also took a direct part
in the assault. Bulalakao is clearly guilty as principal, not only by induction, but also by direct
participation