Ibabao v. People
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The petitioner, Aniceto Ibabao, was charged with Homicide thru Reckless Imprudence before the City Court of Davao. The Information alleged that on April 30, 1967, at approximately 11:00 p.m., an owner-type jeep driven by the petitioner bumped a person and did not stop. A bystander identified the petitioner as the driver and reported the incident. The petitioner presented a defense of alibi. 2. Procedural History: The City Court of Davao convicted the petitioner and imposed an indeterminate sentence of one year, eight months, and twenty days to four years, two months, and one day of prision correccional, along with indemnities for the deceased's heirs. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the decision, increasing the penalty to one degree higher due to the petitioner's failure to lend aid to the victim, sentencing him to three years, six months, and twenty-one days to seven years, four months, and one day of prision mayor, and increasing the indemnity to P12,000.00. 3. The Petition: The petitioner seeks review by certiorari of the Court of Appeals' decision, specifically challenging the increased penalty. He argues that the failure to lend aid, which led to the increased penalty, was not alleged in the Information and therefore cannot be the basis for a higher degree of punishment. He also filed a Motion for New Trial based on an alleged recantation by a prosecution eyewitness, which he claims constitutes newly discovered evidence. The Supreme Court considered the legal issues of whether the failure to lend aid can justify a higher penalty without being alleged in the Information and whether the recantation qualifies as newly discovered evidence.
Issue(s)
Whether the failure to lend aid to the victim justifies the imposition of a higher penalty when such circumstance was not alleged in the Information. Whether the recantation of the prosecution's eyewitness constitutes newly discovered evidence warranting a new trial.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals. It ruled that the failure to lend aid must be alleged in the Information. The Court also denied the motion for new trial based on the recantation, holding that such affidavits are unreliable and should be treated with caution.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of alleging failure to lend aid: The Court held that the failure to lend aid on the spot to the injured parties, as provided in the last paragraph of Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 1790, constitutes a qualifying circumstance that raises the penalty by one degree. However, for such a circumstance to be considered, it must be alleged in the Information to properly apprise the accused of the charge. The Court agreed with the petitioner that the increased penalty was inapplicable because this circumstance was not alleged. The Court clarified that this failure to lend aid is not a generic aggravating circumstance under Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code. Therefore, the imposition of the penalty next higher in degree was not justified based on the existing Information. On the issue of recantation as newly discovered evidence: The Court denied the motion for new trial. It reasoned that recantations should be taken with great caution, as they can be easily secured for monetary consideration and would make solemn trials a mockery. The Court reiterated its consistent ruling that affidavits of retraction executed by witnesses who had previously testified in court will not be countenanced for the purpose of securing a new trial. The Court emphasized that rejecting testimonies solemnly taken before courts of justice simply because witnesses later change their minds would place the investigation of truth at the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses. The Court cited People vs. Delasa and People vs. Saliling, et al. in support of this principle.
Main Doctrine
The failure to lend aid to the injured party, when such failure is the basis for increasing the penalty for homicide thru reckless imprudence, must be alleged in the Information to apprise the accused of the charge.