CASE TITLE: People of the Philippines vs Jeronico Lobino alias "Hapon"

G.R. No. 123071 October 28, 1999

 
PLAINTIFF - APPELLEE: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
ACCUSED - APPELLANT: JERONICO M. LOBINO alias "HAPON"
 
FACTS OF THE CASE:
 Appellant Jeronico Lobino and the victim, Patricia Abajar, lived together as husband and wife for
twenty years.
 Prior to the incident, they often quarreled because the victim would often come home late at
night. On April 28, while both were standing on the seashore working on the nets, he stabbed the
victim because he could no longer "swallow" what was happening and he lost control of himself.
He stabbed the victim while she was picking up her share of the fish catch; and when he lost
control of himself, he again stabbed the victim two times.
 RTC decided that Lobino was 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
 
ISSUES:
ISSUES HELD
WON THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN Anent the issue that the trial court erred in not considering
DISREGARDING THE TESTIMONY OF appellant's testimony, oft-repeated is the rule that "the
THE ACCUSED JERONICO LOBINO. 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." Here, the
trial court evidently found the version of the prosecution
witnesses more credible.
WON THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN Under the Revised Penal Code, there is treachery when the
FINDING THAT THE KILLING OF offender commits any of the crimes against the person,
PATRICIA ABAJAR IS QUALIFIED BY employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof
TREACHERY AND AGGRAVATED BY which tend directly and specially to insure its execution,
SUPERIOR STRENGTH. 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. . . . 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.
WON THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT The Court disagrees. The second requisite of passion and
APPRECIATING IN FAVOR OF THE obfuscation is that said act which produced the obfuscation
ACCUSED THE MITIGATING was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a
CIRCUMSTANCE OF PASSION AND considerable length of time during which the perpetrator
OBFUSCATION. might recover his normal equanimity. 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.
 
The penalty for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion perpetua to death. In
accordance with Article 63 of the RPC 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.
 
DOCTINE: Article 13 of the RPC - Mitigating Circumstances, Par. 6 - That of having acted upon an impulse
so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation