PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. WILSON LAB-EO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Lab-eo

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Wilson Lab-eo for the killing of Segundina Cay-no. The accused admitted the stabbing but insisted that he should be convicted only of homicide, not murder, because the Information against him, as written, allegedly failed to charge a qualifying circumstance. The case matters because it fixes the standard for the sufficiency of an Information in murder: the qualifying circumstance need only be recited somewhere in the Information, however styled or arranged, and the Information is read in its entirety, not in truncated portions.

Procedural History

The accused was arraigned before the Regional Trial Court, First Judicial Region, Branch 35, Bontoc, Mountain Province, where he pleaded not guilty with the assistance of counsel. After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered its Decision dated January 16, 1998, convicting him of murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of 50,000 pesos, to pay actual expenses of 125,500 pesos, and to pay the costs. The accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the conviction for murder, the finding of treachery, the failure to appreciate passion and obfuscation and sufficient provocation, and the failure to apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

Facts

On the morning of October 21, 1996, at the dap-ayan or barangay hall in front of the Tadian Public Market in Mountain Province, Segundina Cay-no was vending rummage goods. Nancy Gaoan and Julie Dang-la came to be massaged by her, and Nelson Apyoten sat nearby waiting for a ride. Before noon, the accused, a nephew of the victim, approached her and spoke in a very soft voice. The victim answered loudly and angrily, telling him to get out because she might suffer high blood. The accused left.

About five meters away, at a butcher's shop, the accused took a knife with a nine-inch blade and returned to the dap-ayan within three to five minutes. The knife was wrapped in his blue jacket. The victim had her back to him, engrossed in showing the women how to repair pants. Without warning, the accused thrust the knife into the left portion of her back, the entire blade penetrating her body, then ran away, leaving the knife and jacket hanging on her back.

The accused surrendered to the Chief of Police. The victim was brought to the Luis Hora Memorial Hospital, where a stab wound at the left scapula was found to have penetrated the left lung and caused massive bleeding in the thorax. She died the following morning from hypovolemic shock secondary to massive hemorrhage.

Issues

• Whether or not the Information sufficiently charged murder, considering that the qualifying circumstances were recited in a separate paragraph and described as aggravating rather than qualifying.
• Whether or not treachery attended the stabbing of the victim.
• Whether or not the mitigating circumstances of passion and obfuscation and sufficient provocation should be appreciated in favor of the accused.
• Whether or not the Indeterminate Sentence Law should be applied.

Applicable Provisions

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides:

Article 248. Murder. - Any person who, not falling within the provision of Article 246, shall kill another, shall be guilty of Murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 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; With evident premeditation.

This is the provision under which the accused was charged, and it supplies the attendant circumstances that raise a killing to murder.

Section 6, Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, the rule in force at the time of the crime, provides:

Section 6. Sufficiency of Information - A complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate date of the commission of the offense; and the place where the offense was committed. When an offense is committed by more than one person, all of them shall be included in the complaint or information.

This is the test the Court applied in holding the Information sufficient.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Information validly charged murder. It must be read in its entirety, not in truncated portions, and the placement of the qualifying circumstances in a separate paragraph is a matter of form or style. Article 248 does not use the words qualifying or aggravating; it speaks only of attendant circumstances, and the Information alleged that treachery, evident premeditation, and abuse of superior strength attended the commission of the offense. The test is whether the Information enables a person of common understanding to know the charge and the court to render judgment properly, and the accused never claimed surprise.

On the second issue, the Court held that treachery attended the stabbing. The victim was stabbed from behind, without warning, leaving her no chance to resist or escape, as confirmed by the physician's finding of a wound at the back. Abuse of superior strength and craft were absorbed in treachery, the latter because the accused hid the knife under his jacket.

On the third issue, the Court rejected passion and obfuscation and sufficient provocation. The victim did nothing unlawful in asking the accused to leave, and the provocation must be proportionate to the retaliation; shouting at the accused could hardly justify stabbing her to death.

Doctrine

• An Information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused, the designation of the offense given by the statute, the acts or omissions constituting the offense, the name of the offended party, the approximate date, and the place of the offense.
• Qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the Information to satisfy the accused's constitutional right to be informed, but they may appear in any paragraph and need not be labeled qualifying; Article 248 speaks only of attendant circumstances.
• The Information is read in its entirety, not in truncated portions.
• Treachery requires the employment of means of execution that insure the crime without risk to the assailant, and a deliberate adoption of those means; an unexpected attack from behind constitutes treachery.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Wilson Lab-eo for murder, with the modifications stated in the decision.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the Information is not its first, second, or third paragraph taken separately, but all the allegations taken together in their entirety. Examiners use this case to test sufficiency of an Information and the pleading of qualifying circumstances in murder.