PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. WILFREDO SABORNIDO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Sabornido

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Wilfredo Sabornido, a criminal case for murder. The victim, Felipe Daaco, was killed at a dance held inside the compound of a mining company in San Vicente, Palawan. The person who actually slashed the victim's throat, Mordido Petero, fled and was never tried. Sabornido stood trial alone, and the question that carries the case is whether a man who did not inflict the fatal wound can still be convicted as a co-principal. The Supreme Court answers yes, by conspiracy. The case matters because it gathers in one place the working rules on conspiracy, on alibi, and on the penalty for murder, and it shows how the acts before, during, and after a killing can supply the proof of a common design.

Procedural History

An information for murder was filed against Petero and Sabornido before the Regional Trial Court of Palawan, Branch 52. Only Sabornido was arraigned, and he pleaded not guilty; Petero remained at large. After trial, the trial court rendered its decision on 9 June 1989, finding Sabornido guilty beyond reasonable doubt as a co-principal in the murder of Felipe Daaco. The trial court sentenced him to eighteen years, eight months, and one day to twenty years of reclusion temporal in its maximum period, ordered him to pay the heirs thirty thousand pesos as civil indemnity, and to pay the costs.

Sabornido appealed to the Court of Appeals. In a decision dated 28 June 1991, the appellate court affirmed the conviction with modification. It imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua and increased the civil indemnity to fifty thousand pesos. Because the penalty imposed was reclusion perpetua, the Court of Appeals elevated the records to the Supreme Court for review, as the Rules then required. The Supreme Court reviewed the decision and the entire records and affirmed the Court of Appeals.

Facts

Before starting its mining operations in Pamuayan, Port Barton, San Vicente, Palawan, Vulcan Mining Company held its traditional festivities, known as the sagda, on 31 October 1984. A public dance was held inside the company compound. Guests began arriving around six o'clock in the evening and were served food and drinks. Among those present were Felipe Daaco, several other visitors, the accused Wilfredo Sabornido, and Mordido Petero.

Petero arrived shortly after six o'clock. Soon after, Sabornido arrived carrying a sickle, a hook-shaped farm implement used for gathering tuba or coconut wine, kept inside a scabbard. He went to the table where the radio phono owned and operated by Marina Valeriano was set up and deposited the sickle on top of that table. He then joined Petero, and they drank liquor. Dancing began around eight o'clock in the evening, with music from the radio phono and light from an electric lamp provided by the company.

At about eight thirty in the evening, Sabornido took the sickle from the table and handed it to Petero. Petero then stealthily approached Felipe Daaco from behind and, without warning, slashed the victim's throat with the sickle, while Sabornido, armed with a knife, stood in front of the victim about two meters away. The wounded victim ran out of the dance hall, pursued by both men. When he fell, Petero and Sabornido stood on opposite sides of the body, glowering at him with their weapons. After making sure he was dead, they left together. That same night both disappeared from San Vicente. About a month later, Sabornido returned and was apprehended by the police, while Petero was nowhere to be found.

Issues

• Whether or not conspiracy was established between Sabornido and Petero, such that the act of one is the act of all.
• Whether or not Sabornido's defense of alibi can prevail over his positive identification by the prosecution witnesses.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua and increased the civil indemnity.

Applicable Provisions

Section 13, Rule 124 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, which brought the case to the Supreme Court, provides:

Whenever the Court of Appeals imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, it shall render judgment but shall refrain from entering the same in its judgment book and shall certify the case and the entire record to the Supreme Court for review.

This is the procedural bridge that placed the case before the Supreme Court rather than leaving it final in the appellate court.

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, which fixes the penalty for murder, provides:

The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death shall be imposed upon any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another under any of the following circumstances: 1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense, or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity; 2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise; 3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a streetcar or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin; 4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic, or any other public calamity; 5. With evident premeditation; 6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.

This is the provision under which the Court measured the penalty, and it explains why the appellate court's modification to reclusion perpetua was correct.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that conspiracy was established. To establish conspiracy, it is not essential that all the accused commit together each and every act constitutive of the offense. One is a party to a conspiracy when he intentionally participates in an act or deed with a view to furthering a common design and purpose. There must be unity of purpose and unity in the execution of the unlawful objective. Conspiracy implies concert of design but not necessarily participation in every detail of execution. The Court found that Sabornido's act of providing the murder weapon, posting himself armed with a knife in front of the victim to prevent escape, and pursuing the victim when he ran, was not minor participation. His assistance and moral support were material and indispensable, and they emboldened Petero to execute the plan. The Court added that direct proof is not essential to prove conspiracy, as it may be inferred from the acts of the accused, from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated, and from the conditions attending its commission. Where conspiracy is established, the act of one is the act of all, and each is held to the same degree of liability.

On the second issue, the Court held that alibi cannot prevail over positive identification by three prosecution witnesses. Alibi is one of the weakest defenses, easily fabricated, and must be viewed with suspicion. To be given credence, it must not only appear that the accused was elsewhere, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene at the time of the crime. Sabornido's house was only about three hundred meters from the scene, so even assuming he left at six o'clock, it was not physically impossible for him to have returned by eight thirty.

On the third issue, the Court held that the Court of Appeals correctly modified the penalty. Under Article 248, the penalty for murder is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, and where death appears to be the proper penalty, the court shall not impose it but shall sentence the accused to reclusion perpetua. With no aggravating or mitigating circumstance, reclusion perpetua was proper, and the increase of civil indemnity to fifty thousand pesos was in accord with prevailing jurisprudence.

Doctrine

Conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence, since direct proof is not essential; it is enough that at the time the offense was committed the accused had the same purpose and were united in its execution, as shown by their acts before, during, and after the crime. A co-conspirator who supplies the weapon, stands guard to prevent escape, and joins the pursuit is a co-principal, not a mere accomplice, because his assistance was material and indispensable. Alibi, to succeed, must show that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene of the crime. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, murder carries reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, but where death is the proper penalty the court imposes reclusion perpetua.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals in full, with costs against the accused-appellant.

Remember This

The line to memorize is that conspiracy implies concert of design but not necessarily participation in every detail of execution, so the act of one is the act of all. Examiners use this case to test whether a co-conspirator who did not strike the fatal blow is a co-principal, and to test the strict requirements of alibi.