EN BANC

[G.R. No. 123071. October 28, 1999]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JERONICO M. LOBINO alias

DECISION
PURISIMA, J.:

This is an appeal from the decision of Branch 13 of the Regional Trial Court, Oroquieta City, in Criminal
Case No. 1250, finding appellant Jeronico M. Lobino alias Hapon guilty of murder for the killing of his common
law wife Pacita Abajar and sentencing him to Death.
Filed on June 24, 1994 by 2nd Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Franklin E. Omandam, the Information
indicting appellant of Murder alleges:

That on or about the 28th day of April, 1994 at about 8:00 oclock in the morning, more or less, at
barangay Southern Looc, municipality of Plaridel, province of Misamis Occidental, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused with treachery and
with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab
PATRICIA ABAJAR with the use of a hunting knife, in a sudden and unexpected manner while the
latter was unaware and defenseless, thereby inflicting upon the body of said Patricia Abajar several
stab wounds which caused her immediate death.

CONTRARY TO LAW, with the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery and the
aggravating circumstance of superior strength, the victim being a woman.[1]

With the appellant entering a negative plea upon arraignment on August 23, 1994, trial ensued with the
prosecution presenting Artemio Nisnisan, Julie Lobino, Alberto Abajar and Dr. Israelson Taclob as its
witnesses.Appellant took the stand as lone witness for his defense.
Appellant Jeronico Lobino and the victim, Patricia Abajar, lived together as husband and wife for twenty
years. They have four children, one of whom was prosecution witness Julie Lobino. Alberto Abajar, another
prosecution witness, is the victims son by a previous marriage.
On April 28, 1994, at about 8 oclock in the morning, prosecution witness Artemio Nisnisan was at the
seashore of Southern Looc, Plaridel, Misamis Occidental. He was then fishing with the use of a baling (fishnet)
for an hour. There were eighteen (18) persons thereat including the appellant, Jeronico Lobino, the victim, Patricia
Abajar; and their daughter, Julie Lobino. While said fishermen were dividing their catch, Artemio Nisnisan, from
a distance of one fathom, saw appellant stab Patricia Abajar. The victim ran but was overtaken by appellant who
stabbed her twice. Julie Lobino shouted for help but it was only after appellant had stabbed the victim thrice that
Nisnisan and other people were able to apprehend the former and take him to the police station. The victim was
brought to the provincial hospital where she died two days later. The hunting knife used by appellant was not
recovered.[2]
On cross examination, Nisnisan stated that he usually went fishing at about 7 oclock in the morning; that he
had observed no altercation between the appellant and the victim prior to the stabbing incident; that he was not
paying particular attention to appellant and the victim then; that at the time she was stabbed, the victim was in a
stooping position with appellant in front of her; that the first thrust hit the right side of the victims stomach; that
the victim ran in a staggered manner enabling appellant to catch up with her; that the appellant made two more
thrusts to the victim who thereafter slumped to the ground unconscious.[3]
Julie Lobino narrated as follows: on that fateful day, her mother, Patricia Abajar, and her father (herein
appellant) and she were at the seashore, catching fish using the fishnet of Artemio Nisnisan. While her mother
was getting her share of the fish, appellant, using a stainless knife, stabbed Patricia, first at the right side. She was
one fathom away from the place where her mother was stabbed. She admonished her father but fearing he might
also attack her, she ran for help. The second thrust hit her mothers lower right armpit while the third thrust hit her
lower right arm. The people helped in bringing her mother to the hospital. Her father ran amuck and the knife he
used was never recovered. Her mother had been confined at the hospital for two days, before she died on April
30, 1994. She was buried at the Lao cemetery,[4] recounted Julie Lobino, who further disclosed that she was the
second of four children and she does not know whether her parents were legally married; that she was not aware
of any quarrel in the family; that she did not observe any altercation between her parents on that particular day;
that she was surprised by the suddenness of her fathers attack; and only after appellant had stabbed her mother
three times were the people able to bring her mother to the hospital.[5]
Alberto Abajar was also out fishing on that day. When he reached the shore, he was informed by several
people that his mother, Patricia Abajar, was stabbed by the appellant. His mother was brought to the provincial
hospital where she died two days after. He spent a total of P5,000.00 for medical and funeral expenses. A medico-
legal certificate was issued.[6]
On cross-examination, witness testified that his mother and the appellant started living together in 1974, and
he never noticed any quarrel between them.[7]
Dr. Israelson Taclob, who has been connected with the Misamis Occidental Provincial Hospital in Oroquieta
City since 1993, narrated that on April 28, 1994, he examined Patricia Abajar who did not survive. The cause of
death was a stab wound at the right upper quadrant abdomen penetrating perforating with severe hemorrhage. He
issued the medico-legal certificate[8] and certificate of death of the deceased.[9]
As the lone witness for the defense, appellant testified that he and the victim were not legally married but
had lived together for twenty years. They were blessed with four children. Prior to the April 28, 1994 incident,
they had several misunderstandings. They often quarreled because the victim would often come home late at night
and when confronted, the victim answered why do you ask, you cant refrain me. The victim was not in their house
to take care of him when he was sick on April 5. On that fateful day, he stabbed the victim because he could no
longer swallow what was happening and he lost control of himself. He only remembered stabbing the victim once
and before the incident, he did not plan to kill her. He stayed at the beach until he was brought by a neighbor to
the municipal building.[10]
On cross-examination, he stated that on that morning of April 28, 1994, they were at the seashore using the
fishnet of Artemio Nisnisan. He stabbed the victim while she was picking up her share of the fish; and when he
lost control of himself, he again stabbed the victim two times.[11]
On October 9, 1995, the trial court decided the case, disposing thus

WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused Jeronico M. Lobino is hereby found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt for the crime of Murder, defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, and he is hereby sentenced to DEATH.

With costs de oficio.

Now, before the Court on automatic review, appellant contends, by way of assignment of errors, that:
I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE TESTIMONY OF THE ACCUSED

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE KILLING OF PATRICIA ABAJAR IS
QUALIFIED BY TREACHERY AND AGGRAVATED BY SUPERIOR STRENGTH.
III

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING IN FAVOR OF THE ACCUSED THE
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF PASSION AND OBFUSCATION.

Appellant theorizes that the trial court erred in not giving credence to his assertion that he killed the victim
because she provoked him, and that mere suddenness of the attack did not mean that treachery attended the
killing. The fact that the victim was in a stooping position was purely incidental and was not deliberately sought
by him; otherwise, the victim would not have been able to run after she was first stabbed. Neither could the
prosecution witnesses, Artemio Nisnisan and Julie Lobino, see the victim in the alleged stooping position as they
were one fathom away; appellant argued.
 It is appellants submission that he would not stab his common law wife without any apparent reason. He
attacked her because he could no longer stand her going home late at night and her sarcastic remarks whenever
her attention was called to what she was doing. The trial court should have credited him with the mitigating
circumstance of passion and obfuscation, appellant maintains.
Finally, appellant contends that the trial court should not have considered abuse of superior strength as a
qualifying circumstance, and should have only found him guilty of homicide and not murder.
Anent the issue that the trial court erred in not considering appellants testimony, oft-repeated is the rule that
the evaluation by the trial judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the ascribing of the evidentiary weight to
their testimony is well-nigh conclusive on an appellate court, barring patent arbitrariness in arriving at his
conclusions. This court has consistently, on the basis of reason and experience, sustained the factual findings of
the trial court considering that the court was in a better position to assess the evidence before it and to view the
witnesses as they gave their testimony.[12] Here, the trial court evidently found the version of the prosecution
witnesses more credible.
According to appellant, he could not have killed his common law wife without a reason. He asserts that
because of her provocation, he lost control of himself, and therefore, the charge should be reduced to homicide
only.
The Court disagrees. The requisites of passion and obfuscation are:
1. that there be an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a condition of mind; and
2. that said 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.[13]
It has been held that [T]here is passional obfuscation when the crime was committed due to an uncontrollable
burst of passion provoked by prior unjust or improper acts, or due to a legitimate stimulus so powerful as to
overcome reason.[14]
The obfuscation must originate from lawful feelings. The turmoil and unreason which naturally result from
a quarrel or fight should not be confused with the sentiment or excitement in the mind of a person injured or
offended to such a degree as to deprive him of his sanity and self-control, because the cause of this condition of
mind must necessarily have preceded the commission of the offense.[15]
Moreover, the act producing the obfuscation must not be far removed from the commission of the crime by
a considerable length of time, during which the accused might have recovered his normal equanimity. [16]
Here, there is no evidence to support appellants theory that he and the victim quarreled. Julie Lobino, who
lived with her parents, testified that she knew of no quarrel or altercation between them. None of the prosecution
witnesses testified that a quarrel preceded the attack. Appellant alleges that the victim did not take care of him
when he was ill on April 5, 1994, but the said date was far removed from the time appellant committed the crime
on April 28, 1994. Such length of time would have been sufficient to enable the appellant to recover his
equanimity. As succinctly put by the Solicitor General:

Appellants insinuations regarding his common-law wifes late night trysts, or her lack of concern for
a sick husband are not cogent enough to drive anyone to passion or obfuscation and commit the
crime at the spur of the moment. Besides being vague and generic, the alleged provocative acts do
not even proximately precede the time of the commission of the crime. If at all, such allegations
proved instead that appellant harbored certain ill-feelings against his common-law wife. As the
unfolding of the events mirrored, disdain and contempt were all that appellant evoked. In a spirit of
lawlessness, therefore, absent any passion or obfuscation to arouse his pent-up feelings, appellant
unremorsefully stabbed to death his common-law wife.[17]

Did treachery attend the crime so as to qualify it to murder?

Under the Revised Penal Code, there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes
against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend
directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which
the offended party might make. Thus, for treachery to be present, two conditions must concur,
namely: (a) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to
defend himself or retaliate, and (b) the means of execution was deliberately or consciously
adopted. x x x In People vs. Estrellanes, we declared in no uncertain terms that `the mere fact that
the victim had no weapon with which he could have defended himself is not sufficient to prove the
existence of the first element of treachery, for settled is the rule that treachery cannot be presumed;
it must be proved by clear and convincing evidence or as conclusively as the killing itself.
Furthermore, there must be some evidence, none of which, however, obtains in the instant case,
showing that this mode of assault is deliberately or consciously adopted to insure the execution of
the crime without risk to the offender. Accordingly, if the attack was not preconceived and
deliberately adopted but was just triggered by the sudden infuriation on the part of the accused
because of the provocation on the part of the victim, then no treachery attended the commission of
the crime. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack without the slightest
provocation on the part of the person being attacked. x x x.[18]

In the case under scrutiny, appellant stabbed the victim as she was kneeling to get her share of the
fish. Obviously, in that position, the victim was not in a position to defend herself. She had no inkling of what
appellant was about to do. A sudden attack against an unarmed victim constitutes treachery. The fact that the
victim was still able to run after the first strike would not negate the fact that appellant adopted such approach to
prevent any defense on the part of the victim. Thus, with the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery,
murder was perpetrated by the appellant.
The Court finds merit in the submission of the Solicitor General that the trial court erred in considering insult
or disregard of respect due to the offended party as an aggravating circumstance to justify the imposition of the
death penalty.
It is necessary to prove the specific fact or circumstance, other than that the victim is a woman, (or an old
man or one of high rank) showing insult or disregard of sex (age or rank) in order that it may be considered as
aggravating circumstance (People vs. Valencia, C.A., 43 O.G. 3740). There must be evidence that in the
commission of the crime, the accused deliberately intended to offend or insult the sex or age of the offended
party.(People vs. Mangsant, 65 Phil. 548, 550-551)[19] Absent any proof that appellant attacked the victim with
the intention to add insult to her, there is no basis for reckoning the said aggravating circumstance.
The penalty for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion perpetua to death. In
accordance with Article 63, supra, there being no mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty
should be imposed. Conformably, as recommended by counsel for the People, appellant should be sentenced only
to reclusion perpetua and not death.
In line with the current policy of the Court, appellant should be held liable to pay the heirs of the deceased
the sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity.
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED with the modification that the appellant
Jeronico Lobino is sentenced to suffer only reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of the late Patricia Abajar the
sum of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos as indemnity. Costs against appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Melo, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, and De
Leon, JJ., concur.
Bellosillo, Puno, Quisumbing, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., on official leave.

[1]
Original Record, p. 1.
[2]
TSN, pp. 2-5, September 19, 1994.
[3]
Ibid, pp. 6-7.
[4]
TSN, pp. 2-5, September 20, 1994.
[5]
Cross-examination, ibid, pp. 5-7.
[6]
TSN, pp. 2-4; September 26, 1994.
[7]
Ibid, p. 4.
[8]
Exhibit A, Original Record, p. 3.
[9]
Exhibit B, ibid, p. 45.
[10]
TSN, pp. 2-7, December 5, 1994.
[11]
Ibid, pp. 7-8.
[12]
People of the Philippines vs. Modesto de Roxas y Razon @ Mody, et al., G.R. No. 106783, February 15, 1995, 241 SCRA 369, 375
[13]
Reyes, Revised Penal Code, Vol. I, Fourteenth Ed., 1998, p. 272, citing People vs. Alanguilang, 52 Phil. 663, 665 citing earlier cases;
People vs. Ulita, 108 Phil. 730, 743; People vs. Gravino, 122 SCRA 123, 134.
[14]
People of the Philippines vs. Ramy Valles, G.R. No. 110564, January 28, 1997, 267 SCRA 103, 116.
[15]
People of the Philippines vs. Wilfredo Bautista y Niales, G.R. No. 109800, March 12, 1996, 254 SCRA 621, 629.
[16]
Reyes, supra, p. 274.
[17]
Appellees Brief, p. 13, Rollo.
[18]
267 SCRA 103, pp. 114-115.
[19]
Reyes, supra, p. 328.