G.R. No. L-30917 February 14, 1983
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LOPE TABIAN Y PANTI alias “ARMANDO” and BONIFACIO PANGANIBAN alias “BENNY” alias “BEN” (at large), defendants, LOPE TABIAN Y PANTI alias “ARMANDO”, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The accused, Lope Tabian and Bonifacio Panganiban (at large), were charged with Murder for the killing of Rolando Monforte. The prosecution evidence established that in the early morning of March 26, 1969, the accused, along with another companion, took a taxi to España Extension in Quezon City. Tabian and Panganiban alighted near a Shell gas station where the victim was asleep inside a parked Fiat jeep. A witness saw Tabian enter the jeep, later alight carrying an icepick, and flee with Panganiban back to the waiting taxi. The victim emerged, shouting that he had been stabbed, and later died from two fatal chest wounds.
Only Tabian was apprehended and tried. He admitted participation but claimed it was Panganiban who actually stabbed the victim with a balisong, asserting his own role was merely that of an “alalay” or helper in Panganiban’s vendetta against the victim for a prior mauling. The trial court convicted Tabian of Murder qualified by treachery and evident premeditation and sentenced him to death, prompting an automatic review.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted appellant Lope Tabian of Murder as a principal, and properly appreciated the qualifying and aggravating circumstances.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua due to lack of the necessary votes for death. The Court upheld the finding of conspiracy. Tabian’s own admission and the sequence of events—planning the vendetta days in advance, traveling together to the scene, Tabian entering the victim’s jeep while Panganiban acted as lookout, and their coordinated flight—proved a community of criminal design. As a conspirator, Tabian is liable as a principal for all acts executed pursuant to the conspiracy, irrespective of who delivered the fatal blows.
The qualifying circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated. The attack was sudden and executed while the victim was asleep inside his jeep, rendering him utterly defenseless and ensuring the execution of the crime without risk to the assailants. The Court also found evident premeditation present, as Tabian admitted the plan to kill was formed three days prior, providing ample time for reflection and confirming persistence in the criminal resolve. The Court rejected Tabian’s claimed mitigating circumstances. His completion of the fourth grade negated “lack of instruction,” and his claim of being a mere “alalay” was an admission of conspiracy, not a plea of guilty to a lesser role of accomplice. His guilt as a principal was established.