G.R. No. L-60946 December 10, 1982
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GENEROSO QUINLOB and LORETO QUINLOB, accused-appellants.
FACTS
Accused-appellants Generoso and Loreto Quinlob were convicted of murder for the killing of their brother, Domingo Quinlob, by the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte. The prosecution established that on the evening of July 4, 1975, Generoso fetched Domingo from his home. Later, a gunshot was heard, followed by Domingo’s dying declaration, heard by his wife and son, identifying his brothers as his assailants. The autopsy revealed multiple gunshot and severe lacerated wounds, including fatal injuries to the back and neck.
The trial court found the killing attended by treachery but ruled no aggravating or mitigating circumstances were present. It imposed an indeterminate sentence of 12 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua, prompting further review by the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly appreciated the circumstances and imposed the proper penalty for the crime of murder.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder, qualified by treachery, as the manner of attack—executed at night by two assailants armed with a gun and a bolo, inflicting multiple fatal wounds from behind—ensured the victim had no opportunity to defend himself. However, the Court found that both lower courts erred in their penalty imposition. The Court clarified that under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for murder is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. With no mitigating circumstance and the presence of the generic aggravating circumstance of relationship (the victim being the appellants’ brother), which was overlooked by the lower courts, the penalty should be imposed in its maximum period: death. Due to the lack of the necessary votes for capital punishment, the penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua. The Court modified the penalty accordingly but affirmed the judgment in all other respects.