PEOPLE v.

LAB-EO
January 16, 2002 | Carpio, J. | Appeal from RTC | Murder

PETITIONER: People of the Philippines

RESPONDENT: Wilson Lab-eo
SUMMARY: Lab-eo approached his aunt Segundina Cay-no from the front and then stabbed her in the back, literally. After getting
berated loudly and humiliated, he went to the marketplace and retrieved the 15in knife with a 9in blade that he used to puncture her
left lung. Lab-eo now appeals from his conviction, saying that there was no attendant treachery or evident premeditation, and
therefore he should have been charged for homicide and not murder. The SC affirmed his conviction as the circumstance of
treachery was alleged in the Information and seen from the manner of Segundina’s killing and the choice of murder weapon.
DOCTRINE: An Information to be sufficient must contain all the elements required by the Rules on Criminal Procedure. In the
crime of murder, the qualifying circumstance raising the killing to the category of murder must be specifically alleged in the
Information. The Information is sufficient as long as the qualifying circumstance is recited in the Information, regardless of whether
designated as aggravating or qualifying, or whether written separately in another paragraph or lumped together with the general
averments in a single paragraph.

FACTS: v. Appellant ran into Tadian Police

Station to surrender.
1. The Information detailed the charge as being b. Jerry Cay-no, son of the deceased who set
committed on October 21, 1996, at the Barangay up the display of rummage goods for sale in
Hall, Poblacion, Tadian, Mountain Province, where front of the barangay hall or dap-ayan that
Lab-eo stabbed Segundina Cay-no with a well- morning;
honed pointed knife and inflicting a mortal stab c. Police Officers Leonardo Cea and Angelito
wound which caused the latter’s death. The Beddy who were in-charge of the
aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, investigation of the stabbing incident; and
treachery, abuse of superior strength and craft d. Drs. Elizabeth Tican and Milagros
attended the commission of the offense. Inhumang, the attending physicians at the
2. Appellant pleaded not guilty. Luis Hora Memorial Hospital where the
3. The prosecution presented the oral testimonies of the deceased was brought.
following: 4. Before she could be transferred to the Baguio
a. Nancy Gaoan, Julie Dang-la and Nelson General Hospital for specialized treatment,
Apyoten, (the first two were to get Segundina died in the morning of the following day
massaged or hilot and the last accompanied (October 22, 1996) due to hypovolomic shock
them while waiting for a ride to Manila) secondary to massive hemorrhage/
who became eyewitnesses to the actual 5. The trial court found the appellant guilty of the
stabbing of Segundina Cay-no; crime of murder in its Decisioni dated January 16,
i. The first two saw appellant sat 1998 and imposed penalty of reclusion perpetua and
down in front of his aunt and to indemnify the heirs of the victim of P50,000,
uttered something to her in a very actual damages of P125,500, and costs of suit.
soft voice.
ii. Nancy did not hear what he said
because of her distance from them ISSUES:
while Julie could not make out the 1. Whether the Information against Lab-eo for murder
conversation because of the sound was correct—YES.
coming from a running motor 2. Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery is
engine. attendant in this case—YES.
iii. What they only heard was 3. Whether passion and obfuscation, and sufficient
Segundinas answer which was provocation, were mitigating circumstances attendant
uttered in a loud angry voice here
koma-an ka tay baka mahigh 4. Whether the Indeterminate Sentence Law applies—
bloodac (you get out because I NO.
might suffer high blood). They
saw appellant leave. RULING: The appealed decision convicting WILSON LAB-
iv. When appellant returned EO of murder is hereby AFFIRMED, with the
Segundina was showing the MODIFICATION that appellant is ordered to pay the heirs of
women how to repair jeans garters Segundina Cay-no P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P82,500.00
when she was stabbed in the back. as actual damages, and P50,000.00 as moral damages.
Appellant’s jacket was left
hanging on the knife handle until HELD:
Julie removed both the jacket and
knife. 1. In the first assigned error, the appellant faults the lower
 court for finding him guilty of murder even when the Revised Penal Code. Article 248 does
Information, as written, could only have charged him with not use the word qualifying or
the crime of homicide. However, the Information aggravating in enumerating the
specifically alleges that evident premeditation, treachery, circumstances that raise a killing to the
and abuse of superior strength attended the commission category of murder. Article 248 merely
of the offense. This is more than sufficient to comply refers to the enumerated circumstances
with the requirements of Article 248. as the attendant circumstances.
a. Argument of appellant: the circumstances, ii. Moreover, there are four kinds of
alleged in a separate paragraph, are not part of aggravating circumstances, namely: (1)
the recital of facts constituting the offense as generic or those that can generally
charged in the first paragraph. Second, the apply to all crimes; (2) specific or those
circumstances of treachery and evident that apply only to particular crimes; (3)
premeditation [Art. 248 (1) and (5)] are qualifying or those that change the
designated merely as generic aggravating nature of the crime; and (4) inherent or
circumstances. those that must of necessity accompany
b. The Court answered: The rule on sufficiency of the commission of the crime. Thus,
information is found in Section 6, Rule 110 of except for scoffing at the victims
the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure1 which corpse, all the qualifying circumstances
was applicable then. enumerated in Article 248 of the
i. Under Section 6, the Information is Revised Penal Code are also
sufficient if it contains the full name of aggravating circumstances because they
the accused, the designation of the are likewise found in Article 14 of the
offense given by the statute, the acts or same Code enumerating the aggravating
omissions constituting the offense, the circumstances.
name of the offended party, the d. The New Rules on Criminal Procedure, which
approximate date, and the place of the took effect on December 1, 2000, re-enacted
offense. The test of sufficiency of verbatim Section 6, Rule 110 of the old Rules on
Information is whether it enables a sufficiency of the Information. Sections 8 and 9,
person of common understanding to Rule 110ii of the new Rules, moreover, now
know the charge against him, and the require that both the qualifying and aggravating
court to render judgment properly. The circumstances must be specifically alleged in the
Information in this case complied with Information to be appreciated as such. Under the
these conditions. The Information old Rules, only the qualifying circumstances
included the specific allegation that the were required to be alleged in the Information,
aggravating circumstances of evident and aggravating circumstances, even if not
premeditation, treachery, abuse of alleged, could still be appreciated, except in
superior strength and craft attended the cases where an aggravating circumstance would
commission of the offense. result in the imposition of the death penalty. iii In
c. The fact that the qualifying circumstances were any event, even if Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110 of
recited in the second paragraph and not in the the new Rules, which are more favorable to the
first paragraph of the Information, as commonly accused, are applied to this case, the Information
done, is a matter of form or style for which the for murder against the appellant would still
prosecution should not be faulted. As long as the remain sufficient and valid. Three of the
requirements of the law are observed, the circumstances enumerated in Article 248 of the
Information will pass judicial scrutiny. The Revised Penal Code raising a killing to murder
Information is all the allegations made therein are specifically alleged in the Information in this
taken together in their entirety. case, satisfying Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of
i. The fact that the circumstances were the new Rules.
described as aggravating instead of
qualifying does not take the Information 2. Treachery attended the stabbing of the victim Segundina
out of the purview of Article 248 of the Cay-no.
a. As a rule, a sudden attack by the assailant, is
1 treachery if he deliberately adopted such mode of
SEC. 6. Sufficiency of Information - A complaint or
attack with the purpose of depriving the victim
information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused;
of a chance to either fight or retreat.
the designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or
b. To constitute treachery, two conditions must
omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name
concur: (1) the employment of means of
of the offended party; the approximate date of the commission
execution which tend directly and specially to
of the offense; and the place where the offense was
insure the accomplishment of the crime without
committed.
risk to the assailant arising from the defense the
When an offense is committed by more than one person, all of
victim might make; and (2) a deliberate or
them shall be included in the complaint or information. (6a)
conscious adoption of the means of execution. iv
 When a victim is unexpectedly attacked from jurisprudence to be so overwhelming as to
behind, depriving him of any opportunity to overcome reason and self-restraint.
defend himself, undeniably there is alevosia. c. Neither was the mitigating circumstance of
The essence of treachery is that the attack is sufficient provocation by the victim proven.
deliberate and without warning, done in a swift From the testimonies of witnesses, it was shown
and unexpected manner, affording the victim no that it was in fact the appellant who provoked the
chance to resist or escape. victim.
c. In this case, the victim was stabbed, undoubtedly d. Moreover, this Court has held that the
from behind. Dr. Milagros Inhumang, the provocation sufficient to mitigate an offense
physician who attended to the victim at the time must be proportionate to the gravity of the
of the incident, as well as eyewitness Nancy retaliatory act (People vs. Leonor, where a push
Gaoan testified that the wound inflicted on the and bad words did not justify retaliation with a
victim was found at the back, left side portion. knife). In this case, the victim merely shouted at
i. Not only did the appellant deliberately the appellant and asked him to leave. Stabbing
attack from behind, he did it without her to death could hardly be proportionate in
any warning to the victim. The gravity to her act of shouting.
appellant executed the assault in a e. There is, however, the mitigating circumstance
manner that left the victim defenseless of voluntary surrender duly proven during the
and without any opportunity to even trial which must be considered in favor of the
escape or flee, at the same time accused. After the incident, the appellant went to
avoiding risk to himself from any the municipal hall and surrendered to the
defense the victim might make. authorities. This fact was admitted by Inspector
ii. The deadly nature of the weapon used, Cea, Chief of Police of the Tadian Police Station.
the traitorous manner, and the location f. With the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
of the wound inflicted upon the victim, surrender, the lower of the two indivisible
conjointly demonstrate a deliberate and penalties of reclusion perpetua and death shall be
determined assault with intent to kill. meted out in accordance with Article 63 of the
d. Abuse of superior strength was absorbed in Revised Penal Code. Consequently, for the
treachery. murder of Segundina Cay-no, the appellant shall
e. Craft was absorbed in treachery as shown by the suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
fact that the appellant hid the knife under his 4. The Indeterminate Sentence Lawv is not applicable in this
jacket to prevent the victim from seeing it and case. Section 2 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law states
from being alerted of an impending assault. Craft that it shall not apply to persons convicted of offenses
may be absorbed in treachery if it is deliberately punishable by death or life imprisonment. This law does
adopted as the means, method or form for the not apply to persons convicted of offenses punishable
treacherous strategy. It may co-exist with reclusion perpetua (People v. Aquino).
independently from treachery only when both
circumstances are adopted for different purposes *Since all the receipts presented in evidence add up to only
in the commission of the crime. In this case, craft P82,500.00, then only this reduced amount shall be awarded.
could not be appreciated independently from We also award P50,000.00 as moral damages for the wounded
treachery because the appellant deliberately feelings and moral shock of the heirs, as testified to by Jerry
utilized it as a means of accomplishing his Cay-no, son of the deceased.
treacherous plan.
3. Appellant is not entitled to the mitigating circumstance of
passion and obfuscation, as the following elements should
concur: (1) there should be an act both unlawful and
sufficient to produce such condition of mind; (2) the act
which produced the obfuscation was not far removed
from the commission of the crime by a considerable
length of time, during which the perpetrator might recover
his normal equanimity.
a. For a person to be motivated by passion and
obfuscation, there must first exist an unlawful act
that would naturally produce an impulse
sufficient to overcome reason and self-control.
b. In asking the appellant to leave, the victim did
not do anything unlawful. There is an absolute
lack of proof that the appellant was utterly
humiliated by the victims utterance. Nor was it
shown that the victim made that remark in an
insulting and repugnant manner. The victims
utterance was not the stimulus required by