People v. Rabor
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Chiquito employed the accused, Blas Rabor, to murder another Chinaman, Julian Veloso, promising a considerable sum of money. Rabor undertook the task and enlisted Pedro Aron to assist. On the evening of November 30, 1904, they hired Benedicto Sumagan to row them to Cebu. Upon arrival, they proceeded to Veloso's store, found him seated, and one of them, without warning, stabbed him in the back with a dagger, killing him instantly. They fled the scene and attempted to escape. Procedural History: The trial court found the accused guilty of murder but declined to consider treachery and deliberate premeditation as aggravating circumstances, imposing life imprisonment instead of death. The court held that since Rabor induced Aron to strike the blow, he was a principal but that aggravating circumstances marking the execution should not be imputed to him, citing United States vs. Mijares et al.. The Petition: The United States, as plaintiff-appellee, appealed the trial court's decision, arguing that the court erred in failing to consider all aggravating circumstances.
Issue(s)
Whether the aggravating circumstances of treachery and deliberate premeditation should be considered against the accused, Blas Rabor, who was present and participated in the commission of the murder, even if he did not personally strike the fatal blow. Whether the circumstance of the crime being committed for a price or promise of reward can be considered as a distinct aggravating circumstance from deliberate premeditation.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment and sentence. It found the accused, Blas Rabor, guilty of murder, with the aggravating circumstances of treachery, deliberate premeditation, and for a price or promise of reward, with no extenuating circumstances. The Court sentenced Blas Rabor to be hanged by the neck until he is dead, to pay an indemnity of 1,000 pesos to the heirs of the deceased, and to pay the costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the imputation of aggravating circumstances to an accused present at the scene: The Court held that the trial court erred in failing to consider all aggravating circumstances. Unlike the Mijares case where the accused procuring the crime were absent, in this case, Rabor was present and took a direct part in the physical execution. Therefore, all attendant physical circumstances, whether aggravating or extenuating, should be considered in imposing the penalty, irrespective of whether Rabor personally struck the fatal blow. The presence and participation of Rabor make him liable for the manner in which the crime was executed. On the distinctness of 'for a price' and 'deliberate premeditation' as aggravating circumstances: The Court rejected the contention that committing a crime for a price or promise of reward necessarily implies deliberate premeditation and thus should not be treated as two distinct aggravating circumstances. Citing Spanish jurisprudence, the Court affirmed that while the former often implies the latter, premeditation can exist without a price, and vice versa. In this case, the agreement as to the price did not preclude the presence of studied and insistent tenacity in accomplishing the criminal object, thus both circumstances could be considered separately. The guilt of the accused for unlawful killing with robbery, deliberate premeditation, and for a price or promise of reward was conclusively established, with no extenuating circumstances found.
Main Doctrine
When an accused is present and takes a direct part in the physical execution of a crime, all attendant aggravating or extenuating circumstances, regardless of whether they marked the actual execution of the deed, should be taken into consideration in imposing the penalty, even if the accused did not personally strike the fatal blow.