THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. BLAS ABLAO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. BLAS ABLAO, FELIX ARCILLA AND MODESTO MANGUBAT, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

People versus Ablao

The Case

This is a criminal case reviewing a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte imposing the death penalty upon three accused persons: Blas Ablao, Felix Arcilla, and Modesto Mangubat. They were charged with robbery with homicide and double frustrated homicide for a brutal nighttime attack on a family in their home. The case matters for the Bar because it clarifies how the Court appreciates and weighs aggravating and mitigating circumstances in a capital offense, and it demonstrates the rule that when the votes of the Justices are insufficient to impose the death penalty, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua must be imposed.

Procedural History

The prosecution began before the justice of the peace court, which forwarded the case to the Court of First Instance. Upon arraignment, Ablao and Arcilla pleaded guilty after expressly waiving their right to counsel. Mangubat pleaded not guilty and was tried. The trial court found all three guilty and sentenced them to death, ordering them to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of three thousand pesos and to pay six hundred pesos to Maria Vargas. The record was forwarded to the Supreme Court for automatic review pursuant to the Rules of Court, as required in cases involving the death penalty.

Facts

Early in the morning of December 23, 1957, the three accused were drinking wine in a store in the municipality of Mercedes, Camarines Norte. There they agreed and planned to raid the house and store of Leoncio Egos, located about three hundred meters away near the seashore. They proceeded to the place, and Modesto Mangubat and Blas Ablao entered through the kitchen door while Felix Arcilla stood guard at that entrance, armed with a piece of wood.

Upon discovering Leoncio Egos asleep, Mangubat stabbed him several times with a knife. The eleven-year-old son, Dominador, was awakened and shouted, whereupon Ablao struck him with a hammer even as Mangubat stabbed him several times. Mangubat then went to another bed and stabbed Leoncio's wife, Maria Vargas, who was also hit by Ablao. Leoncio Egos died soon after; his wife and son sustained wounds that would have produced death had it not been for timely medical services. Several canned goods disappeared from the store, together with Maria Vargas' money amounting to six hundred pesos, which Mangubat took from her aparador. The accused were apprehended after four days at the indication of the injured boy, and they voluntarily signed statements revealing their complicity.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, unlawful entry, nighttime, and superior strength.
• Whether or not the accused are entitled to the mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty and intoxication.
• Whether or not the death penalty may be imposed given the circumstances present in this case.

Applicable Provisions

Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines the penalty for robbery with homicide, provides:

Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer: 1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed, or when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson.

This provision governs the offense charged and fixes the penalty range within which the Court must determine the proper sentence.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court agreed with the counsel de oficio that there was no evident premeditation, nor unlawful entry. The Solicitor General's brief admitted error in the matter. The Court also held that nighttime should not be appreciated as a separate aggravating circumstance, not for the reason indicated by counsel de oficio, but because it is imbibed in the circumstance of treachery, which necessarily must be taken into account because two armed men attacked a sleeping person and a boy. Against the accused, the Court considered the circumstance of dwelling and disregard of the sex of one of the offended parties.

On the second issue, the Court held that Ablao and Arcilla are entitled to the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty. All three accused have in their favor the circumstance of intoxication, since the evidence showed they had been drinking wine immediately before committing the crime.

On the third issue, the Court found that there is a majority of aggravating circumstances. However, due to lack of sufficient votes, the death penalty may not be imposed. Instead, the prisoners will be confined for life.

There is thus a majority of aggravating circumstances. However, due to lack of sufficient votes, the death penalty may not be imposed. Instead, the prisoners will be confined for life.

Doctrine

Nighttime is not appreciated as a separate aggravating circumstance when it is absorbed in treachery, because the essence of treachery lies in the unexpected and sudden attack on an unsuspecting victim. A plea of guilty is a mitigating circumstance that benefits the accused who admits responsibility for the crime. Intoxication, when shown to have preceded the commission of the crime, is a mitigating circumstance in favor of the accused. When the Supreme Court lacks the required number of votes to impose the death penalty, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua must be imposed.

Disposition

The judgment of the trial court was modified, and the prisoners were sentenced to reclusion perpetua instead of death, with costs against the accused.

Remember This

Remember that nighttime is absorbed in treachery and cannot be separately appreciated, and that a plea of guilty and intoxication are mitigating circumstances. Examiners like to use this case to test whether you know that the death penalty requires the concurrence of the required number of votes, and that its absence results in the imposition of reclusion perpetua.