People v. Sabilul
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The City Fiscal of Basilan City filed an information for murder qualified by treachery and evident premeditation against Moro Sabilul. The accused, through counsel, manifested an intent to plead guilty, praying for the penalty of destierro on the ground that the murder was committed while the deceased, Moro Lario, was in the act of committing sexual intercourse with the appellant's wife, Mora Mislayan. The prosecution argued that the deceased was murdered in cold blood and had illicit relations with the appellant's wife, who had been divorced according to Moro custom. Procedural History: The trial court, based on the manifestations and without evidence, found the appellant guilty of murder and sentenced him accordingly. This decision was reversed by the Supreme Court on the ground of a misunderstanding regarding the plea of guilty, which was conditioned on the penalty provided in Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. The case was remanded for a new trial. In the second trial, the court again proceeded on the assumption of a guilty plea, ordering the defense to present evidence regarding the circumstances of surprising his wife in the act of sexual intercourse. The trial court again found the appellant guilty of murder and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of 6 years and 1 day to 8 years of prision mayor, with indemnity and costs. The Petition: The appellant appealed the decision of the trial court.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in treating the appellant's conditional plea as a plea of guilty and in its subsequent appreciation of the facts. Whether the appellant should be acquitted under the justifying circumstance of defense of a spouse or convicted under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the appealed judgment, finding the appellant guilty under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code and sentencing him to destierro for 2 years, 4 months, and 1 day, with the condition that he shall not enter within a radius of twenty-five kilometers from the City of Basilan during said period. The Court held that a conditional plea of guilty is not permissible and that the appellant must be considered as having entered a plea of not guilty. The majority ruled that the killing was committed in actual adultery with the appellant's wife, who had consented, thus falling under Article 247.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the trial court labored under a misconception of the appellant's plea. Citing the previous remand of the case, the Court reiterated that an accused cannot enter a conditional plea of guilty where admission is tied to the imposition of a specific penalty. Because the plea was conditioned on the application of Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), it should have been considered a plea of not guilty. The Court emphasized that in grave crimes, the 'prudent and advisable course' is to take additional evidence to leave no room for doubt as to the possibility of a misunderstanding by the accused regarding the nature of the charges. The trial court's assumption that the accused remained 'guilty' while only presenting evidence for a mitigating circumstance was an error in procedure. On Issue 2: While the Chief Justice (Paras) personally believed in the appellant's acquittal based on the justifying circumstance of defense of spouse under Article 11, paragraph 2 of the RPC, the majority of the Court disagreed. The majority reasoned that the circumstances, specifically the fact that the wife ran away upon the appellant's arrival, indicated that she may have consented to the act. Consequently, the Court found that the killing occurred during 'actual adultery' rather than a rape. Applying Article 247 of the RPC, which governs the killing of a paramour caught in the act of adultery, the Court ruled that the proper penalty is destierro. The Court found the direct testimony of the appellant and his wife more compelling than the prosecution's 'speculative inferences' regarding the difficulty of committing the act while wearing tight Yakan pants.
Main Doctrine
A conditional plea of guilty is not permissible; an accused may not admit guilt provided a certain penalty is imposed. The Court may consider the killing of a spouse's paramour as falling under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, imposing the penalty of destierro, if the killing is committed in the act of committing sexual intercourse with the offender's wife, even if there is consent from the wife.