THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ANTONIO YABUT, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This
is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila,
convicting the appellant of the crime of murder and assessing the death
penalty.

The appellant, Yabut, was charged in the Court of
First Instance of Manila with the crime of murder upon the following
information:

“That on or about the 1st day
of August, 1932, in the City of Manila, Philippine Islands, the accused
Antonio Yabut, then a prisoner serving sentence in the Bilibid Prison,
in said city, did then and there, with intent to kill, wilfully,
unlawfully, feloniously and treacherously, assault, beat and use
personal violence upon one Sabas Aseo, another prisoner also serving
sentence in Bilibid, by then and there hitting the said Sabas Aseo
suddenly and unexpectedly from behind with a wooden club, without any
just cause, thereby fracturing the skull of said Sabas Aseo and
inflicting upon him various other physical injuries on different parts
of the body which caused the death of the latter about twenty-four (24)
hours thereafter.

“That at the time of the commission of
this offense, the said Antonio Yabut was a recidivist, he having
previously been convicted twice of the crime of homicide and once of
serious physical injuries, by virtue of final sentences rendered by
competent tribunals.”

Upon arraignment, the
accused plead not guilty. The court below made the following findings
of fact which, from an independent examination of the entire testimony,
we are convinced, are supported by the evidence beyond reason able
doubt:

“La brigada de presos, conocida como
Brigada 8-A Carcel, el 1.º de agosto de 1932, estaba compuesta de unos
150 o mas penados, de largas condenas, al mando del preso Jose
Villafuerte, como Chief Squad Leader, y del preso Vicente Santos, como
su auxiliar. Formaban parte de esta brigada el occiso Sabas Aseo, o
Asayo, el acusado Antonio Yabut y los presos llamados Apolonio Saulo,
Isaias Carreon, Melecio Castro, Mateo Bailon y los moros Taladie y
Hasan.

“Entre siete y media y ocho de la noche de la fecha
de autos, estando ya cerrado el pabellon de la brigada, pues se
aproximaba la hora del descanso y silencio dentro de la prision,
mientras el jefe bastonero Villafuerte se hallaba sentado sobre su mesa
dentro de la brigada, vio al preso Carreon cerca de el, y en aquel
instante el acusado Yabut, dirigiendose a Carreon, le dijo que, si no
cobraba a uno que le debia, el (Yabut) le abofetearfa. El jefe
bastonero Villafuerte trato de imponer silencio y dijo a los que
hablaban que se apaciguaran; pero, entre tanto, el preso Carreon se
encaro con el otro preso Saulo cobrandole dos cajetillas de cigarrillos
de diez cintimos cada una que le debia. Saulo contesto que ya le
pagaria, pero Carreon, por toda contes- tation, pego en la cara a Saulo
y este quedo desvanecido. En vista de esto, el jefe bastonero se
dirigio a su cama para sacar la porra que estaba autorizado a Hevar.
Simultaneamente Villafuerte vio que el preso Yabut pegaba con un palo
(Exhibit C) al otro preso Sabas Aseo, o Asayo, primeramente en la nuca
y despues en la cabeza, mientras estaba de espaldas el agredido Sabas,
quien, al recibir el golpe en la nuca, se inclino hacia delante, como
si se agachara, y en ese momento el acusado Yabut dio un paso hacia
delante y con el palo de madera que portaba dio otro golpe en la cabeza
a Sabas Aseo, quien cayo al suelo.

“El jefe bastonero
Villafuerte se acerco al agresor Yabut para desarmarle, pero este le
dijo: ‘No te acerques; de otro modo, moriras.’ No obstante la actitud
amenazadora de Yabut, Villafuerte se acerco y Yabut quiso darle un
golpe que iba dirigido a la cabeza, pero Villafuerte lo pudo desviar
con la porra que llevaba. Los dos lucharon y llegaron a abrazarse hasta
que se le deslizo a Villafuerte la porra que llevaba. Continuaron
luchando ambos y el acusado Yabut llego a soltar el palo Exhibit C con
que acometia a Villafuerte y habia malherido al preso Sabas Aseo.
Despues de aquello, Yabut consiguio zafarse de Villafuerte y se dirigio
al otro extremo de la brigada, escondiendose dentro del baño y alli fue
cogido inmediatamente despues del suceso por el preso Proceso
Carangdang, que desempeñaba el cargo de sargento de los policias de la
prision.”

We reject, as unworthy of belief,
the testimony of Yabut that it was Villafuerte, not he, who gave the
fatal blow to the deceased Aseo. The testimonies of Santiago Estrada,
resident physician of the Bureau of Prisons and Dr. Pablo Anzures of
the Medico Legal Department of the University of the Philippines,
clearly establish that the death of Aseo was caused by subdural and
cerebral hemorrhages following the fracture of the skull resulting from
the blow on the head of Aseo. They further confirm the testimony of the
four eyewitnesses that the deceased was struck from behind.

On appeal to this court, the appellant advances the following assignments of error:

“1. The lower court erred in applying article 160 of the Revised Penal Code.

“2. The lower court erred in holding that the evidence of the defense are contradictory and not corroborated.

“3. The lower court erred in holding that the crime of murder was established by appreciating the qualifying circumstance of alevosia.

“4. The lower court erred in finding the accused guilty of the crime of murder beyond reasonable doubt.”

In connection with the first assignment of error, we quote article 160
of the Revised Penal Code, in the Spanish text, which is decisive:

“Comision de un nuevo delito durante el tiempo de la condena por otro anterior—Pena.—Los
que cometieren algun delito despues de haber sido condenados por
sentencia firme no empezada a cumplir, o durante el tiempo de su
condena, seran castigados con la pena señalada por la ley para el nuevo
delito, en su grado maximo, sin perjuicio de lo dispuesto en la regla
5.ª del articulo 62.

“El penado comprendido en este
articulo si no fuere un delincuente habitual sera indultado a los
setenta años, si hubiere ya cumplido la condena primitiva o cuando
llegare a cumplirla despues de la edad sobredicha, a no ser que por su
conducta o por otras circunstancias no fuere digno de la gracia.”

The English translation of article 160 is as follows:

“Commission of another crime during service of penalty imposed for another previous offense—Penalty.—Besides
the provisions of rule 5 of article 62, any person who shall commit a
felony after having been convicted by final judgment, before beginning
to serve such sentence, or while serving the same, shall be punished by
the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony.

“Any
convict of the class referred to in this article, who is not a habitual
criminal, shall be pardoned at the age of seventy years if he shall
have already served out his original sentence, or when he shall
complete it after reaching said age, unless by reason of his conduct or
other circumstances he shall not be worthy of such clemency.”

The appellant places much stress upon the word “another” appearing in
the English translation of the headnote of article 160 and would have
us accept his deduction from the headnote that article 160 is
applicable only when the new crime which is committed by a person
already serving sentence is different from the crime for which he is
serving sentence. Inasmuch as the appellant was serving sentence for
the crime of homicide, the appellant contends the court below erred in
applying article 160 in the present case which was a prosecution for
murder (involving homicide). While we do not concede that the appellant
is warranted in drawing the deduction mentioned from the English
translation of the caption of article 160, it is clear that no such
deduction could be drawn from the Spanish caption. Apart from this,
however, there is no warrant whatever for such a deduction (and we do
not understand the appellant to assert it) from the text itself of
article 160. The language is plain and unambiguous. There is not the
slightest intimation in the text of article 160 that said article
applies only in cases where the new offense is different in character
from the former offense for which the defendant is serving the penalty.

It is familiar law that when the text itself of a statute or a treaty
is clear and unambiguous, there is neither necessity nor propriety in
resorting to the preamble or headings or epigraphs of a section for
interpretation of the text, especially where such epigraphs or headings
of sections are mere catchwords or reference aids indicating the
general nature of the text that follows. (Cf. In re Estate of
Johnson, 39 Phil., 156, 166.) A mere glance at the titles to the
articles of the Revised Penal Code will reveal that they were not
intended by the Legislature to be used as anything more than catchwords
conveniently suggesting in a general way the subject matter of each
article. Being nothing more than a convenient index to the contents of
the articles of the Code, they cannot in any event have the effect of
modifying or limiting the unambiguous words of the text. Secondary aids
may be consulted to remove, not to create doubt.

The
remaining assignments of error relate to the evidence. We have come to
the conclusion, after a thorough examination of the record, that the
findings of the court below are amply sustained by the evidence, except
upon the fact of the existence of treachery (alevosia). As some members of the court entertain a reasonable doubt that the existence of treachery (alevosia)
was established, it results that the penalty assessed by the court
below must be modified. We find the defendant guilty of homicide and,
applying article 249 of the Revised Penal Code in connection with
article 160 of the same, we sentence the defendant-appellant to the
maximum degree of reclusion temporal, that is to say, to twenty years of confinement and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Sabas Aseo (alias Sabas Asayo), in the sum of P1,000. Costs de oficio.

Avanceña, C. J., Street, Malcolm, Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Hull, Vickers, and Imperial, JJ., concur.