A complaint for multiple murder, frustrated murder, and attempted murder was filed against the accused before the Justice  of the Peace court of  Roxas, Palawan.  Having waived  his  right to  preliminary  investigation,  the case was forwarded to the Court of First  Instance of the province where the  Fiscal filed  an  information for the same crime against him of the following  tenor:

"That  on or about the 11th day of October, 1956,  in the municipality of Roxas, province of Palawan,  Philippines and within  the jurisdiction  of this  Honorable Court, the  said accused, with  deliberate  intent, evident premeditation, treachery and with the  use of deadly weapon, to wit: a spear and big  bolo, did then and there wilfully,  unlawfully and  feloniously attack, assault and wound  one after  another, in one  continuous  act  and in  and around their dwelling  houses, the following persons,  namely:  Maxima Pacho, 37 years  old and Romana  Pacho, 34 years old, both pregnant; Fortunato Nares, Jr.,  5  years old;  Aurelia  Paz,  7 years  old; Lilia Paz, 5'years  old; Herminia Paz, 6 months old; Nenita Sausa,  5 years  old; and Henry Pacaldo, 5 years old, all minors; and Pelomina Baaco, 48 years old; Salome Baaco,  23  years old; Baudelio Pacho, 18 years  old; Leonila Llavan, 25 years old;  Urbana Abique, 50 years old; Felisa  Adion,  37 years old; Lolita Yayen, 17  years  old and Manuela  Llavan, 39 years old, and  as  a  result  thereof, the  said victims  died instantly;  and, in furtherance, of  his criminal and heinous act, did  then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack and wound one Manuel Adion with the same spear, who, as  a  result  thereof, suffered  a spear wound  at  the back, hitting the  left  lower lobe of the  lung,  which ordinarily would cause  the death of  said  Manuel Adion, thus  performing all  the acts of execution which should have  produced the crime of Murder asa consequence, but nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of causes of independent of his will, that  is,  by the timely and  able medical attendance rendered to said Manuel Adion which prevented his death;  and,  finally,  not satisfied with  his heinous acts and to show further his criminal propensity, did  then and  there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with deliberate  intent to  kill  Pablo Paz and Severino Adion, try and attempt to thrust his spear against said Pablo Paz and Severino Adion, by overt acts, but fortunately missed the said  Pablo Paz and Severino Adion.

"With  the aggravating circumstances of evident  premeditation, taking advantage of superior strength, alevosia, that  the  crime was committed in the dwelling of the  victims and that the wrong done in the  commission of the  crime was  deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not  necessary for  its  commission."  (pp. 2-3, appellee's brief).

On October 24,  1956, a physical and mental examination of the accused was conducted  by the Chief of the Puerto Princesa Hospital and he was found to be normal and sane.  He even narrated how he killed his common-law wife and  his other victims.  Two local lawyers  were appointed counsel de oficio to defend him.  Upon arraignment, interpreted  in  the local dialect, he pleaded guilty. This notwithstanding, considering  the gravity of the offenses  charged,  the Court asked him to take  the witness stand and narrate the  circumstances surrounding  their commission, but he refused  stating  that he had already made a confession.  Thereupon, the Court asked the prosecution to  present  its evidence,  and  the Fiscal presented among his  exhibits the murder weapon, the confession of the  accused, the sketches of  the scene of the crime, the sixteen certificates  of death,  the affidavits of some  witnesses, and the ante mortem  declaration of Manuel Adion.

The Provincial Commander of Puerto Princesa who investigated  the accused testified  that  he  propounded the questions to him in Tagalog, which is the dialect known to him, while Justice of the Peace  Oscar Siat, before whom the confession  was  subscribed and  sworn to, testified  that he read the document and translated  it into Tagalog for the benefit  of the accused, and when  he asked him if he was coerced into making the  statement, he acknowledged that it was voluntarily given by him.  His statement is embodied in Exhibit "C".

After hearing, the   lower  court  rendered decision  the dispositive  part  of  which reads:

IN  VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the  Court renders judgment finding DOMINGO SALAZAR alias DARQUEZ,  guilty of  the  crime of Multiple Murder with Frustrated Murder as charged, and sentences him to suffer the penalty, as provided for in the Revised Penal Code, of sixteen (16) death penalties corresponding to the murder of each of the sixteen (16) victims, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P3,000.00 each; also to suffer the penalty for the crime of frustrated Murder of imprisonment the minimum of which shall not be less than EIGHT (8) years and one (1) DAY of prision mayor and the maximum of which shall not be less than  seventeen (17) years, FOUR (4) months and one  (1) day of reclusion temporal for the two crimes of Attempted Murder to suffer imprisonment for each crime, the minimum of which shall not be less than TWO (2) years, FOUR (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional and the maximum of which shall not be more than eight (8) years and ONE (1) day of prision mayor and to pay the costs.:" (pp. 10-11, appellee's brief).

The case  was elevated to this Court for review.

The accused is a moro native of Zamboanga.  For many years before the occurrence  of the tragedy, he  went  to barrio San Nicolas, Roxas, Palawan, where he established his  home  with his  common-law wife Maxima  Pacho.   In the morning of  October  11, 1956, he  invited his wife to go with him to gather  nipa for the repair of their house. Romana then arrived and invited Maxima  to  accompany her to her house to get pajay.  Because of the invitation of Romana,  Maxima refused to go  with  her husband, which aroused his  anger.  At that time,  the accused already entertained the suspicion that his wife was having illicit relation with  Fortunato Nares, husband of Romana, to the extent that he believed that the  child his wife was bearing  was  the  result of such illicit  relation.  This incident started the accused on a killing rampage leaving in its wake sixteen dead  and some wounded.   The following is what happened  as related by  the  trial court: '"He started by killing his own sister-in-law.  Then he turned to kill his own  wife and his  nephew. He then  walked for about 800 meters to  another house where he killed and massacred all the inmates he found therein.  He  went to three other  houses  and repeated the  same performance leaving behind him several household filled  with tragedy and bloody deaths, the like of which have never been seen or known in this province.  Then he went into the school premises of that sitio and attacked one man from behind who was able to run away and is the lone survivor  of this bloody incident.   After that he chased and actually did throw his spear to two other men but whom he did not hit.  And then he went to the  school house and tried to force  open the door, also with dark criminal intention. Fortunately due  to the presence of mind of the lady teacher the door  and windows were locked and barricaded while the accused went around trying to force open the entrance and the  windows  of the  school house.  The imagination  of this Court shudders of the thought of what might have happened if this accused succeeded in going into the school room filled with young school children.  And the accused went up  to the bell tower of the Chapel, sounded the alarm calling for everybody to come.  He  asked that he be killed but  no one dared to come and obey his request.  Finally, when two armed guards arrived accompanied by a barrio officer, the accused was  persuaded to surrender but  on condition that he  be  shot and killed  immediately.  The guards and barrio  officer cleverly made a ruse by asking the accused to go with them to the wharf where he will  be shot, and by asking him to sign a piece of paper to serve as their  protection for killing the  accused  which would be presented to the authorities later on.  The accused  in the meantime had put down his arms and as he was about to affix his thumbmark on the piece of paper he was suddenly grabbed and was subdued and put under custody."

Let us now come to the arguments advanced by counsel for the accused in an effort to mitigate his liability.  These arguments in a nutshell may be boiled down into three,  to wit:

1. That  the accused's plea of guilty did  not extend  to the  admission of the correctness  of the qualification  of his acts as expressed by the prosecution in its information, particularly the allegation that the acts of the accused were committed with  evident premeditation and with treachery,
   
   
2. That  running  amuck, or becoming  a  "juramentado" is a cult  among the  Moros that forms part of their religion. It is age-old and deeply rooted  in their psychology.  The Moros do not discourage its observance.   They do not view the observance of this cult as a heinous crime."  The calculated risk they take when a Moro becomes "juramentado" is taken graciously.  They are always alert to kill a "juramentado" before his victims multiply.  And
   
   
3. Consequently, because the acts committed by the accused were parts and parcel of his observance of the Moro cult of being a "juramentado", which should be  distinguished from the acts of a common murderer under our laws, counsel believes that the accused should only be considered as having committed the crimes of homicide, frustrated homicide,  and attempted homicide,  or  something lesser than murder.
   

There is  no merit in the  first argument.  It should be noted that, in spite of the plea of guilty entered by the accused, the Court asked him to take the witness stand and narrate the circumstances surrounding the commission of the acts imputed to him, but he refused stating that he had already made a confession.  When he was arraigned, he was assisted by two lawyers who where appointed by the Court to defend him.  And when the information was read to him, its contents were interpreted into a dialect known to him, and when asked about his answer, his plea was of guilty.   If he did not understand the clear import of what is embodied in the  information, or of what  was stated in his written confession, he could have so explained when called by the trial court to take the  witness  stand. His refusal to do so gives rise to  no other implication than that he was well aware  of the seriousness of the  occasion and of the import of the proceedings against him.  He cannot, therefore,  complain of  the consequences.

A plea of guilty is an admission of all the material facts alleged in the information (U.S.  vs. Burlado, 42 Phil., 72; People vs. Acosta, 98  Phil., 642; 52 Off.  Gaz., 1930-1933, March 23, 1956).  A  plea of guilty when formally entered on arraignment is  sufficient to  sustain  conviction of the offense  charged without the  introduction of further evidence, upon the theory that the defendant himself has supplied the  necessary proof by  his plea of guilty (U.S.  vs. Jawad,  37 Phil., 305).   But  in this  case, despite  the  accused's  plea  of guilty,  the prosecution  offered evidence considering the peculiar circumstances  surrounding the commission of the acts  charged.   And the  evidence presented substantially supports the  material  allegations of the information.   In other words, by his  plea, the accused is deemed to have admitted  not only the commission of the  offenses  charged, but the circumstances surrounding their commission, such  as  evident premeditation, taking advantage of superior strength, alevosia, and dwelling.

The mitigating circumstance of obfuscation arising from jealously  cannot be invoked in favor of  the accused considering that his  relationship with his common-law wife was  illegitimate.   (U.S. vs.  Hicks, 14  Phil., 217; People vs. Olgado, et al., G. R. No.  L-4406, March 31, 1952).  In addition, many days had already passed from  the discovery of the alleged infidelity of his common-law wife before he committed the crime allegedly in vindication of his honor. As a matter of fact he  admitted having  planned his vengeance long before the opportune moment came to carry it out.

Regarding the contention that running amuck is a cult among  the Moros that is age-old  and  deeply rooted and should be distinguished from murders where the murderer is not resigned to  expiate his offense by being killed unlike the amuck, the claim is likewise unmeritorious.  Our penal laws enumerate the circumstances which mitigate criminal liability, and the condition of  running amuck is not one of them.   In so far as they are applicable they must be applied alike to all  criminals be they Christians,  Moros or Pagans.  More so in the case of the accused who though Moro by blood, has however settled for many years before the  occurrence  of the  tragedy  in Christian community and  lived  there with a  Christian  common-law  wife  and relatives.   Under  such atmosphere, he must  have been indoctrinated into the Christian way of life to such an extent that he should have known that running  amuck  is abhorred in our society and punished by our law.  He cannot even  invoke  in his favor  what  Section 106  of the Administrative Code of Mindanao and Sulu accords to a Moro who commits a crime and is convicted, for even then said section  gives to the Court ample discretion to determine the penalty to be imposed considering the circumstances of the case, the degree of  his instruction,  and nature of the crime committed, the Court being justified  in imposing the penalty which would best serve the interest of justice. This  is  a case where the degree of perversity of the criminal warrants not mercy  but the enforcement of the law to its full extent.

We are, therefore, constrained  to hold that  the accused is guilty beyond doubt of the crimes of  multiple murder, frustrated  murder, and attempted murder, all qualified by evident premeditation as  charged in  the information. The murder of Filomena Baaco, Baudilla Pacho, Salome Baaco, Leonila  Llavan, Urbana Abique, Lilia Paz, Aurelia Paz, Herminia Paz, Lolita Yayen, Felisa  Adion,  Nenita Sausa, Henry Pacaldo  and  Manuela Llavan, was attended by the aggravating circumstances of treachery and dwelling.  The murder of Maxima Pacho, Romana Pacho and Fortunate  Nares, the frustrated murder  of Manuel Adion and  the attempted murder of Pablo Paz and Severino Adion, were committed with the aggravating circumstance of treachery.  The aggravating circumstance of treachery in the sixteen  murders, one  frustrated murder and two attempted  murders is  however offset by the mitigating circumstance of plea guilty.

With  respect  to  the  murder of the  accused common-law wife, Maxima Pacho, his sister-in-law, Romana Pacho,  and the latter's nephew, Fortunato Nares,  the frustrated murder  of Manuel Adion and  attempted  murder of  Pablo Paz and Severino Adion, the penalty should be imposed in its medium period.  In the  murder of Maxima Pacho, Romana Pacho and Fortunato Nares, the penalty should be reclusion perpetua, in the frustrated murder of Manuel Adion,  the defendant should be sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of 4 years, 2 months and  1 day of prision correctional as minimum to 12 years and  1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum.

For each  of the two  crimes of attempted murder, the defendant should be  sentenced to suffer an  indeterminate penalty of 4 months  and 1 day of arresto mayor as minimum to  6 years and  1 day of prision mayor as maximum.

The indemnity  to  the  heirs  of each  of the  deceased should be P6,000.00.

Wherefore, modified as above  indicated, the  decision appealed from  is hereby affirmed in all other respects, with costs.

Paras, C.  J., Bengzon, Padilla,  Montemayor,  Bautista Angelo, Labrador,  Concepcion, Endencia,  and Barrera, JJ. concur.