THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. VICTOR ABLETES AND JULIO PAMERO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

People versus Abletes

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Victor Abletes and Julio Pamero for the killing of Rufo Cote. The two accused were convicted of murder by the trial court, and they brought the case to the Supreme Court to challenge that conviction. The case matters for the Bar because it is a compact illustration of several doctrines examined together: conspiracy inferred from conduct, treachery or alevosia as a qualifying circumstance, the rule that a qualifying circumstance cannot be offset by a generic mitigating circumstance, the requisites of evident premeditation, and the correct designation of the penalty for murder.

Procedural History

A complaint for murder was filed by the Chief of Police against Abletes and Pamero the day after the stabbing. After preliminary examination, the case was elevated, and the Fiscal filed an amended information for murder in the Court of First Instance. After trial, the trial court convicted both accused of murder and sentenced each to what it called life imprisonment, or cadena perpetua, and ordered them to indemnify the heirs of Cote. Both accused appealed. The appeal reached the Supreme Court, which reviewed the records and the assignments of error and rendered the decision now before us.

Facts

At twilight on the evening of September 30, 1969, in the poblacion of Giporlos, Eastern Samar, Rufo Cote, a twenty-three year old tailor, and Alice Depalco, his twenty-one year old relative, were taking a paseo on a bicycle. Alice sat behind Cote, and they were headed for the beach. Near the lighted house of Filomeno Abayan, after turning a street corner, they were confronted by Victor Abletes and Julio Pamero, farmers aged twenty-four and twenty-one. Abletes carried a bolo, and Pamero had a bolo tucked at his waist. The two had been waiting near the house of Venan Castillo at the corner. As Cote approached, Pamero said, they are now here, Victor Abletes.

Pamero seized with both hands the right handlebar of the bicycle, and it inclined to the left. While the bicycle was in that position, Abletes stabbed Cote, who fell to the ground. Abletes and Pamero fled to the west, and Alice, frightened, ran to her house about seventy meters away. The stabbing was witnessed by Zosimo Nabelgas and Victor Abadilla. Nabelgas brought the mortally wounded Cote to his house, and Cote died two hours later. The physician found a stab wound on the right side of the chest that penetrated the right lung, and death was due to severe hemorrhage.

The motive was a personal grudge. Twelve days before the stabbing, Cote and Abletes had an inconclusive duel in which they hacked each other, and Abletes ran away. Abletes surrendered to a patrolman on the night of the killing, while Pamero went into hiding and was arrested later. At trial, Pamero interposed alibi, claiming he was making copra in a barangay six kilometers away. Abletes pleaded self-defense, claiming that Cote, allegedly drunk, chased him and stabbed at him, and that he wrested the weapon and stabbed Cote in the struggle.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in rejecting the plea of self-defense of Abletes and the alibi of Pamero, and in finding that the prosecution eyewitnesses positively identified both accused.
• Whether or not conspiracy attended the killing, such that both accused are liable for the act of the other.
• Whether or not the killing was qualified by treachery, or alevosia, so as to constitute murder.
• Whether or not evident premeditation may be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.
• Whether or not the qualifying circumstance of treachery may be offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
• Whether or not the penalty imposed by the trial court was correctly designated and correctly graduated.

Applicable Provisions

Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code, on aggravating circumstances, provides:

That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia). 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.

This is the provision under which the Court qualified the killing as murder, because the sudden interception of Cote while he was riding a bicycle insured the killing without risk to the offenders.

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, on murder, provides:

The crime of murder is committed by any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another, with any of the circumstances mentioned in Article 14, or with any of the circumstances mentioned in Article 14, or with any of the circumstances mentioned in Article 14, or with any of the circumstances mentioned in Article 14, or with any of the circumstances mentioned in Article 14.

This is the crime of which the accused were convicted, and it fixes the penalty that the Court then graduated under the rules on mitigating circumstances.

Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code, on the rules for the application of penalties, provides:

When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, they shall impose the penalty prescribed by law in its medium period.

This provision, read with the rule that a mitigating circumstance lowers the penalty to its minimum period, is the basis for the Court's imposition of the penalty in its minimum period.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court affirmed the trial court. The plea of self-defense of Abletes could not overthrow the clear testimony of the prosecution eyewitnesses that he inflicted a mortal chest wound on Cote while Pamero held the bicycle. His story that an intoxicated Cote chased several persons defied common sense. The alibi of Pamero was fabricated, because he was well known to the eyewitnesses, who positively identified him. The Court also held that the graphic details in the narrations of the witnesses were indicia of verisimilitude, and that the failure to produce a statement given to the Chief of Police was of no moment.

On the second issue, the Court held that conspiracy may be inferred from the conduct of the accused. They waited for Cote, both were armed, they coordinated their movements, Pamero held the handlebar to enable Abletes to inflict the fatal thrust, and they fled in the same direction. There was community of design.

On the third issue, the Court held that there was treachery, because the accused suddenly intercepted Cote while he was riding on a bicycle, an occasion when he least expected harm, and resorted to a mode of execution that insured the killing without risk to themselves. Abuse of superior strength, if present, would be merged with treachery.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that evident premeditation could not be regarded as aggravating, because the record did not clearly show the time when the offenders determined to commit the crime, the act manifesting that they clung to their determination, and the sufficient interval of time between conception and execution.

On the fifth issue, the Court held that the trial court erred in holding that treachery was offset by voluntary surrender. A qualifying circumstance cannot be offset by a generic mitigating circumstance. Voluntary surrender was correctly appreciated in favor of Abletes, and lack of instruction in favor of Pamero.

On the sixth issue, the Court held that the penalty for murder should be imposed in its minimum period, which is reclusion temporal maximum, and that the accused are entitled to an indeterminate sentence. The designation of life imprisonment or cadena perpetua was erroneous, because cadena perpetua was abolished by the Revised Penal Code, and the correct term is reclusion perpetua.

Doctrine

Conspiracy may be inferred from the conduct of the accused, including their waiting for the victim, their being armed, their coordinated movements, and their fleeing together after the act. Treachery qualifies a killing as murder when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution that tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense the offended party might make. A qualifying circumstance cannot be offset by a generic mitigating circumstance. Evident premeditation requires clear proof of the time of determination, the act manifesting that determination, and a sufficient interval between conception and execution. The penalty for murder is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, and where a mitigating circumstance is present, it is imposed in its minimum period, with an indeterminate sentence. The correct term is reclusion perpetua, not cadena perpetua, which was abolished.

Disposition

The Court affirmed the conviction of both accused for murder, modified the penalty to an indeterminate sentence of sixteen years to twenty years of reclusion temporal as maximum, and affirmed the judgment in all other respects, with costs against the appellants.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that a qualifying circumstance cannot be offset by a generic mitigating circumstance. Examiners like to use this case to test conspiracy inferred from conduct, treachery by sudden attack, and the correct designation of the penalty for murder.