GR 123071; (October, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 123071 October 28, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JERONICO M. LOBINO alias “HAPON”, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Jeronico M. Lobino was charged with Murder for the killing of his common-law wife, Patricia Abajar, on April 28, 1994, in Plaridel, Misamis Occidental. The Information alleged the killing was attended by treachery and aggravated by superior strength. Appellant pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented witnesses Artemio Nisnisan, Julie Lobino (daughter), Alberto Abajar (victim’s son), and Dr. Israelson Taclob. Their testimonies established that while the victim was picking up her share of fish at the seashore, appellant, without any prior altercation, stabbed her. Nisnisan and Julie Lobino, from a distance of one fathom, saw appellant stab the victim first on the right side of the stomach while she was in a stooping position. The victim ran but appellant overtook and stabbed her two more times. The victim died two days later from a stab wound. The appellant, as lone defense witness, admitted stabbing the victim but claimed he lost control due to prolonged provocation, as the victim often came home late and made sarcastic remarks. The trial court found him guilty of Murder and sentenced him to Death.
ISSUE
1. Whether the trial court erred in disregarding appellant’s testimony.
2. Whether the trial court erred in finding that the killing was qualified by treachery and aggravated by superior strength.
3. Whether the trial court erred in not appreciating the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation.
RULING
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction but MODIFIED the penalty.
1. The trial court’s evaluation of witness credibility is conclusive barring arbitrariness. The court correctly found the prosecution witnesses’ version more credible than appellant’s claim of provocation.
2. The killing was qualified by treachery. The attack was sudden and unexpected, while the victim was in a defenseless position (stooping to pick up fish), ensuring the execution without risk to the appellant. The circumstance of abuse of superior strength was absorbed by treachery.
3. The mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation was not appreciated. The requisites are: (a) an unlawful act sufficient to produce such a condition of mind, and (b) that the act was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time. The appellant’s claimed provocations (victim’s late homecomings and sarcasm) were not immediate and were insufficient to produce obfuscation. The killing was not a spontaneous reaction to an unlawful act close in time to the incident.
The penalty for Murder is reclusion perpetua to death. With no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua is imposed. Appellant is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim P50,000.00 as civil indemnity.