PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ABUNDIO LABINIA AND MICHAEL ANDAYA, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

People versus Labinia

The Case

This is People versus Labinia, a criminal case for murder arising from a killing inside the New Bilibid Prisons in Muntinlupa. The People of the Philippines prosecuted three inmates — Abundio Labinia, Michael Andaya, and Jimmy Heights — for the stabbing death of a fellow prisoner, Edilberto de los Santos. The case matters for the bar candidate because it gathers in one decision several doctrines tested together: the discretionary nature of withdrawing a plea of not guilty, the requisites of treachery, the burden in self-defense, proof of conspiracy by inference, the hearsay bar on an affidavit of a witness who died before trial, the meaning of corpus delicti, and the special aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism.

Procedural History

The information for murder was filed before the Circuit Criminal Court of Pasig, Rizal. Before trial began, the third accused, Jimmy Heights, was allowed, with the conformity of the Fiscal, to withdraw his plea of not guilty and plead guilty to the lesser offense of homicide; he was sentenced accordingly. After arraignment and trial, the trial court convicted Labinia and Andaya of murder and sentenced them to death. The case reached the Supreme Court on automatic review of the death sentence.

Facts

Labinia had entrusted forty pesos to de los Santos, who could go in and out of the brigade, so that the latter could buy goods for resale to fellow inmates. De los Santos misappropriated the money and lost it in gambling, and this aroused Labinia's anger. On the morning of October 15, 1970, Labinia confided his grievances to his friend Andaya.

At about four forty-five in the afternoon of that same day, de los Santos was stabbed somewhere in the plaza between the Reception and Diagnostic Center and Dormitory 5-B by Jimmy Heights. The victim ran toward the dormitory where Labinia stood at the door of the brigade, and Labinia stabbed him four or more times with an ice pick about eleven inches long. Andaya then stabbed him with an improvised weapon called a matalas. The victim staggered toward the kitchen, where Labinia and Andaya followed and stabbed him again until he slumped dead. The stabbing in the kitchen was witnessed by prison guard Andres Esporlas, then on duty as Acting Food Supervisor.

The three inmates surrendered to prison guard Polistico and gave up their improvised weapons. The victim sustained twenty stab wounds, two of them fatal. The three were investigated and executed sworn statements admitting their participation. Esporlas executed an affidavit about the kitchen stabbing but was killed by prisoners before he could testify. Labinia admitted stabbing the victim but claimed self-defense; Andaya claimed he only went to the succor of Labinia.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in denying Labinia's motion to withdraw his plea of not guilty and substitute a plea of guilty to the lesser offense of homicide.
• Whether or not the qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the killing.
• Whether or not Labinia acted in self-defense.
• Whether or not conspiracy existed among the three accused.
• Whether or not the affidavit of the deceased prison guard Esporlas was admissible in evidence.
• Whether or not the prosecution established the corpus delicti.
• Whether or not evident premeditation and quasi-recidivism were properly appreciated.

Applicable Provisions

Section 6, Rule 118 of the Rules of Court provides:

Sec. 6. Plea of guilty - Withdrawal of. - The court may in its discretion at any time before sentence permit a plea of guilty to be withdrawn. If judgment of conviction has been entered thereon and the same has not become final, the court may set aside such judgment, and allow a plea of not guilty, or, with the consent of the fiscal, allow a plea of guilty of a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the charge.

This governs Labinia's first assigned error, because it makes the change of plea a matter of discretion, not of right.

Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

Under Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code, quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance where a person, after having been convicted by final judgment, shall commit a new felony before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same.

This is the provision the Court applies to both accused, who were serving sentence when they killed de los Santos.

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for Murder is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death.

This fixes the penalty bracket, which the Court then raises to its maximum because of quasi-recidivism.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the withdrawal of a plea of not guilty to one of guilty to a lesser offense rests within the sound discretion of the court and of the Fiscal, and is not a matter of strict right. The trial court was bound to inquire carefully into the circumstances. Unlike Jimmy Heights, who changed his plea before trial, Labinia offered his change only after the prosecution had rested and had apparently established murder. To allow it then would be to help the accused avoid a more severe penalty.

On treachery, the Court found it clearly present. The initial attack was made when the victim's back was turned; Labinia then stabbed him, followed by Andaya; and when the victim staggered toward the kitchen he was chased and stabbed again while helpless and unarmed. The Court stated the rule: there is treachery where the victim, after the first stabbing, runs away and is pursued by his assailants and in that defenseless state is stabbed once more.

On self-defense, the Court held that the burden lies on the accused, who must show with clear and convincing evidence that he was not the unlawful aggressor, that there was lack of sufficient provocation on his part, and that he employed reasonable means to repel the aggression. A mere threatening attitude, like aiming to throw a pot, is not sufficient; the offensive act must positively determine the aggressor's intent to cause injury. The victim never hit Labinia with the pot, and Labinia's chasing the victim to the kitchen belied his plea.

On conspiracy, the Court held that it need not be proved by direct evidence but may be inferred from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated. The tacit and spontaneous cooperation of the three accused in inflicting multiple stab wounds showed a community of criminal purpose.

On Esporlas's affidavit, the Court held its admission to be reversible error, because the affiant could not have been cross-examined. Even without it, however, conviction could stand on the accused's own admission of the killing.

On corpus delicti, the Court held that the fact of death or the killing is the corpus delicti in murder, and that the necropsy report with photographs, together with the admissions of both accused, sufficiently established it.

On the aggravating circumstances, the Court held that evident premeditation could not be appreciated for want of proof of planning and sufficient lapse of time for reflection. Quasi-recidivism, however, was properly appreciated against Labinia, who was serving sentence for murder, and against Andaya, since the information alleged the crime was committed while the accused were confined at the New Bilibid Prison. Quasi-recidivism is punished by the maximum period of the penalty for the new felony and cannot be offset by any ordinary mitigating circumstance.

Doctrine

• The withdrawal of a plea of not guilty to a lesser offense is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and the Fiscal, and is not a matter of right; it is highly improper after the prosecution has established the greater crime.
• Treachery exists where the victim, after the first stabbing, runs away and is pursued and stabbed again in a defenseless state.
• Self-defense must be proved by the accused with clear and convincing evidence of the three requisites; a mere threatening attitude is not unlawful aggression.
• Conspiracy may be inferred from the mode and manner of perpetration; prior agreement is not essential.
• An affidavit of a witness who died before trial is hearsay and inadmissible for want of cross-examination.
• Corpus delicti is the fact that a crime was actually committed, provable by the necropsy report and the accused's admissions.
• Quasi-recidivism under Article 160 is a special aggravating circumstance that raises the penalty to its maximum period and cannot be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance.

Disposition

The Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, but for lack of the necessary votes commuted the death penalty to reclusion perpetua, and ordered both accused jointly and severally to pay an indemnity of twelve thousand pesos to the heirs of Edilberto de los Santos.

Remember This

Memorize this line: quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance that carries the maximum period of the penalty for the new felony and cannot be offset by any ordinary mitigating circumstance. Examiners use this case for the requisites of treachery and self-defense, the discretionary change of plea, and the hearsay rule on a dead witness's affidavit.