PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. REGIE LABIAGA, APPELLANT.

People versus Labiaga

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines, as appellee, seek to sustain the conviction of Regie Labiaga, known by the alias Banok, for the shooting of two members of the Conde family on a December evening in Ajuy, Iloilo. The accused was charged in two separate cases: murder, for the killing of Judy Conde, and frustrated murder, for the wounding of her father Gregorio Conde. The case matters for the bar candidate because it is a compact illustration of three recurring examination points: the shifting of the burden of evidence once self-defense is invoked, the appreciation of treachery, and above all the fine but decisive line between a frustrated felony and an attempted felony, measured by whether the wound inflicted was mortal.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court of Barotac Viejo, Iloilo, Branch 66, after a joint trial, rendered a Joint Decision convicting the appellant of murder in the first case and of frustrated murder in the second, while acquitting his co-accused Cristy Demapanag for insufficiency of evidence. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals in Cebu, which denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction, modifying only the awards of damages by adding moral and exemplary damages in both cases. The appellant then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by appeal, and the Court resolved it in July 2013.

Facts

At around seven o'clock in the evening of 23 December 2000, Gregorio Conde and his two daughters, Judy and Glenelyn, were at their home in Barangay Malayu-an, Ajuy, Iloilo. Gregorio stepped outside, while Glenelyn stayed in the family store, which formed part of the house. Shortly thereafter, the appellant, standing about five meters away, shot Gregorio. Gregorio called out to Judy for help.

When Judy and Glenelyn rushed to Gregorio's aid, the appellant shot Judy in the abdomen. The two other accused stood behind the appellant, who said that she was already dead, and the three fled the scene. Judy was pronounced dead on arrival at the Sara District Hospital, while Gregorio recovered after treatment of his gunshot wound.

The appellant admitted being present at the shooting but claimed self-defense. He said that Gregorio, armed with a shotgun, challenged him to a fight and tried to shoot him, but the shotgun jammed. He claimed that during a struggle for the weapon the shotgun fired, and that he did not know whether anyone was hit. The trial court and the Court of Appeals rejected this account and gave full weight to the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses.

Issues

• Whether or not the appellant acted in self-defense, such that he should be acquitted.
• Whether or not treachery attended the shooting of the victims.
• Whether or not the appellant is guilty of frustrated murder, rather than attempted murder, for the wounding of Gregorio Conde.
• Whether or not the awards of damages should be modified.

Applicable Provisions

Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code defines the stages in the commission of felonies:

Article 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. — Consummated felonies as well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable. A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.

This provision supplies the test that decides whether the second conviction is for frustrated murder or attempted murder.

Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law governs the penalty to be imposed:

Section 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense.

This provision fixes the minimum and maximum terms of the sentence for attempted murder, once the Court lowers the conviction from frustrated to attempted.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court rejected self-defense. When the accused admits killing a person but pleads self-defense, the burden of evidence shifts to him to prove by clear and convincing evidence the elements of his defense. The appellant's version was uncorroborated, and his bare and self-serving assertions could not prevail over the positive identification by the two principal prosecution witnesses. His claim was further belied by his failure to report the alleged unlawful aggression to the police, and by his failure to tell the arresting officers that the shooting was merely accidental.

On the second issue, the Court affirmed the finding of treachery. A treacherous attack is one in which the victim was not afforded any opportunity to defend himself or resist the attack. The existence of treachery is not determined solely by the type of weapon used; if the weapon was deliberately chosen to insure the execution of the crime and to render the victim defenseless, treachery may be appreciated. The Condes were unarmed when shot with a twelve-gauge shotgun, which denied them any chance to fend off the offender.

On the third issue, the Court held that the appellant was guilty only of attempted murder for the wounding of Gregorio. In frustrated murder, there must be evidence showing that the wound would have been fatal were it not for timely medical intervention. Here, the physician who examined Gregorio testified that the patient was ambulatory and not in distress, and that the injuries were not serious. Since the gunshot wound was not mortal, the felony did not reach the frustrated stage. Under Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for attempted murder is two degrees lower than that for consummated murder, and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court fixed the sentence at two years, four months and one day of prision correccional as minimum, to eight years and one day of prision mayor as maximum.

On the fourth issue, the Court increased the damages in light of recent jurisprudence, awarding seventy-five thousand pesos as civil indemnity and thirty thousand pesos as exemplary damages in the murder case, while sustaining the fifty thousand pesos in moral damages, and awarding forty thousand pesos as moral damages and thirty thousand pesos as exemplary damages in the attempted murder case.

Doctrine

• When the accused admits the killing but pleads self-defense, the burden of evidence shifts to him to prove the elements of his defense by clear and convincing evidence; his uncorroborated testimony cannot overcome the positive identification by prosecution witnesses.
• Treachery is not determined by the weapon alone; it is present when the weapon was deliberately chosen to insure the execution of the crime and to render the victim defenseless, as when an armed offender shoots unarmed victims.
• A conviction for frustrated murder requires proof that the wound would have been fatal but for timely medical intervention; absent such proof, the accused is guilty only of attempted murder.
• The penalty for attempted murder is two degrees lower than that for consummated murder, and the Indeterminate Sentence Law fixes the minimum within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code.

Disposition

The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals with modifications: the appellant was found guilty of attempted murder, rather than frustrated murder, in the second case, with a lower indeterminate sentence, and the awards of damages in both cases were increased.

Remember This

The line to memorize is this: frustrated murder requires a mortal wound, and without proof that the injury would have killed the victim but for timely medical attention, the crime is only attempted murder. Examiners use this case to test the stages of felony and the shifting of the burden of evidence in self-defense.