People v. Undong
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On December 5, 1962, Sulayman Undong, along with Datu Laguia Undong, Pasandalan Undong, Edsil Butukan, and Malik Butukan, were charged with Murder with Double Murder. The information alleged that on October 17, 1962, in Sitio Mapayag, Datu Piang, Cotabato, the accused, conspiring and confederating, armed with carbine rifles, with intent to kill, treachery, and evident premeditation, attacked and fired at the house of Magco Bituan. As a result, Awal Magco sustained mortal wounds causing his death, and Abdul Tipas and Badtog Abdul sustained serious injuries that would have resulted in their deaths but for timely medical assistance. The crime was alleged to have been committed with the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and dwelling. Procedural History: During the arraignment, Edsil Butukan, Sulayman Undong, Laguia Undong, and Pasandalan Undong pleaded not guilty. Laguia Undong died before trial. Edsil Butukan was discharged as a state witness. Pasandalan Undong was acquitted. Malik Butukan was at large. Only Sulayman Undong was tried. Before the prosecution rested its case, Sulayman Undong withdrew his plea of not guilty and pleaded guilty. He was rearraigned, and to the translated information, he pleaded guilty, stating he was taking revenge for his uncle's death. The trial court proceeded to receive evidence on his guilt and participation. Witnesses testified regarding the injuries of Abdul Badtog and Abdullah Tipas, the post-mortem examination of Awal Magco, and the events of the crime. Sulayman Undong testified, admitting his participation upon the order of his elder brother, Datu Laguia Undong, as revenge for their uncle's death. Pasandalan Undong also testified that Sulayman Undong fired his gun upon Datu Laguia Undong's order. The trial court imposed the death penalty. The Petition: The case was automatically reviewed by the Supreme Court. The accused-appellant contended that the lower court erred in considering the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and abuse of superior strength, and that his plea of guilty should have been considered a mitigating circumstance. He also argued that the lower court failed to observe proper procedure when imposing the death penalty.
Issue(s)
Whether the lower court erred in considering the aggravating circumstance of nighttime. Whether the lower court erred in considering the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength. Whether the accused-appellant's plea of guilty should have been considered a mitigating circumstance. Whether the accused-appellant's lack of instruction and education should be considered a mitigating circumstance. Whether evident premeditation was sufficiently proven. Whether the offenses committed constitute complex crimes or separate and distinct crimes. Whether the penalty imposed by the lower court is correct.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the decision of the lower court. The death penalty imposed on Sulayman Undong for the killing of Awal Magco was reduced to reclusion perpetua. The indemnity of P12,000.00 was affirmed. For each of the two frustrated murders, Sulayman Undong was sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of eight (8) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, with accessory penalties, and to pay an indemnity of P6,000.00 to each victim, plus costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the aggravating circumstance of nighttime: The Court ruled that nighttime per se is not an aggravating circumstance. It must be shown that the accused purposely sought darkness to insure the commission of the crime or for impunity. In this case, the darkness was merely incidental as the accused were on their way to the scene of the crime for a long time. Furthermore, even if nighttime was considered, it was absorbed by the treachery that attended the commission of the crime, as it formed part of the treacherous means employed. On the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength: The Court held that when treachery is already considered as a qualifying circumstance in murder, it is improper to consider the generic aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength, as the latter is necessarily included in the former. Therefore, this circumstance should not have been appreciated separately against the accused-appellant. On the plea of guilty as a mitigating circumstance: The Court reiterated the ruling in People vs. Manibpel that a plea of guilty made after the prosecution has presented its witnesses cannot be considered a mitigating circumstance. In this case, the accused-appellant changed his plea only after the prosecution had presented its evidence, thus disqualifying it as a mitigating factor. On the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction and education: The Court sustained the accused-appellant's claim of lack of instruction and education as a mitigating circumstance, noting that the records showed him to be ignorant and unschooled, a fact not refuted by the prosecution and elicited during his examination. On evident premeditation: The Court found that evident premeditation was not proven. The accused-appellant only learned of the plan to kill the victim when his elder brother informed him, and he was merely ordered to fire at the house. He did not have sufficient time to reflect on his determination to commit the crime, as required for evident premeditation to obtain. On complex crimes versus separate offenses: The Court ruled that the offenses committed constituted separate and distinct crimes, not a complex crime. Citing People vs. Pineda, the Court stated that when various victims expire from separate shots, such acts constitute separate crimes. Therefore, the murder and the two frustrated murders were considered distinct offenses, requiring multiple penalties. On the penalty imposed: The penalty for murder is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. Since treachery was proven as the qualifying circumstance, and the aggravating circumstance of dwelling was offset by the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction and education, there were no remaining aggravating or mitigating circumstances to consider for the murder charge. Thus, the penalty should be in its medium period, which is reclusion perpetua. For the frustrated murders, the indeterminate sentence was determined based on the relevant provisions of the Revised Penal Code.
Main Doctrine
While treachery attended the commission of murder and frustrated murder, evident premeditation was not proven. The aggravating circumstance of nighttime was absorbed by treachery, and abuse of superior strength was improperly considered separately. The mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction and education offsets the aggravating circumstance of dwelling. Multiple offenses require multiple penalties. The death penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua due to the absence of aggravating circumstances and the presence of mitigating ones.