People v. Asibar
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Victor Asibar y Baluyot and Julio Manzano y Roldan were indicted for Robbery with Homicide. The information alleged that on April 18, 1972, in the sitio of Baribuan, barrio of Casague, Municipality of Santa Cruz, Province of Occidental Mindoro, the accused, conspiring and confederating together, with intent of gain and against the will of the owner, by means of force and violence, took various personal properties including P7,000.00 in cash, several firearms, a diamond ring valued at P5,000.00, and other items, totaling P18,000.00. The information further stated that on the occasion of the robbery, and to facilitate its commission, the accused, armed with a homemade shotgun, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, with evident premeditation and treachery, in an uninhabited place, and without justifiable motive, attacked, assaulted, and shot Cesar Malabanan, inflicting mortal wounds that directly caused his death. Both accused were alleged to be recidivists, having been previously convicted of crimes embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code. Victor Asibar was also noted as an escaped convict. Procedural History: Upon arraignment, Victor Asibar pleaded guilty, while Julio Manzano pleaded not guilty. The trial court, the Court of First Instance of Occidental Mindoro, Mamburao, Branch I, reserved its decision on Asibar's plea and proceeded to trial. After hearing testimonies, the court rendered a decision on March 26, 1973. Victor Asibar was found guilty as principal by direct participation of Robbery with Homicide, with the plea of guilty offset by aggravating circumstances of treachery, recidivism, and uninhabited place, and was sentenced to death. Julio Manzano was found guilty as principal by cooperation, with aggravating circumstances of recidivism, treachery, and uninhabited place, and no mitigating circumstances, and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Both were ordered to jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of Cesar Malabanan. This case reached the Supreme Court via automatic review for Victor Asibar. During the pendency of the appeal, Julio Manzano died on November 27, 1978, and the case against him was dismissed with respect to his criminal liability. The Petition: The appeal, as it pertains to Victor Asibar y Baluyot, raises issues regarding the trial court's appreciation of the aggravating circumstances of recidivism and uninhabited place in imposing the death penalty. The defense counsel argued that recidivism should not have been considered as the previous conviction for homicide and the current charge of robbery with homicide fall under different titles of the Revised Penal Code. The Supreme Court, in its decision, agreed with the Solicitor General that recidivism was improperly appreciated. However, the Court affirmed the aggravating circumstance of an uninhabited place, citing evidence that the crime scene was remote and houses were scattered. Treachery was also considered a generic aggravating circumstance. While the trial court imposed the death penalty, the Supreme Court, due to lack of necessary votes, modified the sentence to reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment), affirming the lower court's judgment in all other respects concerning Victor Asibar.
Issue(s)
Whether the aggravating circumstance of recidivism was correctly appreciated against Victor Asibar. Whether the aggravating circumstance of an uninhabited place was correctly appreciated against Victor Asibar. Whether treachery should be considered a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide. Whether the penalty imposed on Victor Asibar should be modified, considering the presence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court with respect to Victor Asibar y Baluyot in all respects, with the sole modification that the appellant shall suffer reclusion perpetua only. The case against Julio Manzano y Roldan was dismissed with respect to his criminal liability due to his death.
Ratio Decidendi
On the aggravating circumstance of recidivism: The Supreme Court agreed with the Solicitor General that recidivism should not have been considered. The Court explained that for recidivism to be appreciated, both the previous offense and the current offense must be embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code. The previous conviction for homicide (Article 249) falls under Title VIII (Crimes against Persons), while Robbery with Homicide (Article 294, paragraph 1) falls under Title X (Crimes against Property). Therefore, the requirement that both offenses be under the same title was not met. On the aggravating circumstance of an uninhabited place: The Supreme Court held that this circumstance must be taken into account. The testimony of Sgt. Laureano Descanso indicated that the scene of the crime was uninhabited, with the nearest house being about one kilometer away. The Court cited jurisprudence defining an uninhabited place as one where there are no houses, or where houses are scattered at a great distance, making it difficult for the victim to receive help and easy for the accused to escape. On treachery as a generic aggravating circumstance: The Court ruled that in the crime of robbery with homicide, treachery should be considered a generic aggravating circumstance, not a qualifying one. This is because treachery pertains to the manner of the killing, which is a component of homicide, but the primary offense charged is robbery with homicide. The attack was sudden, and the victim was not given a chance to defend himself, thus fitting the definition of treachery. On the penalty imposed on Victor Asibar: Considering the presence of two aggravating circumstances (treachery and uninhabited place) and one mitigating circumstance (plea of guilty), the penalty should have been imposed in its maximum period. However, due to the lack of necessary votes, the extreme penalty of death could not be imposed. Therefore, the penalty was modified to reclusion perpetua. The Court also noted that the death of Julio Manzano extinguished his criminal liability but not his civil liability.
Main Doctrine
The death of an accused during the pendency of his appeal extinguishes his criminal liability, but not his civil liability, unless the latter is expressly waived or is founded solely on the criminal offense.