G.R. No. L-46338 January 27, 1981
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. HERBITO LACSON alias “HERBIT”, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Herbito Lacson was charged with murder for the killing of Atty. Jose L. Almario. The information alleged the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, treachery, and that the crime was committed for a price or reward. Initially, Lacson pleaded guilty and was sentenced to death, but the Supreme Court remanded the case due to an insufficient record regarding the voluntariness of his plea. Upon re-arraignment, Lacson entered a qualified plea, stating he killed the victim but not for a price. The court thus entered a plea of not guilty and proceeded to trial. The prosecution evidence established that on February 7, 1970, Lacson stabbed Atty. Almario from behind on a street in Masbate, causing his instantaneous death. Testimonies and Lacson’s own extrajudicial confession revealed that days before the killing, he was hired by co-accused Lorenzo Mantal and Anacito de la Costi to commit the murder for a sum of money. He conducted surveillance on the victim and executed the plan three days later.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the trial court correctly convicted Lacson of murder qualified by treachery and aggravated by evident premeditation and reward, warranting the imposition of the death penalty.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and the death penalty. The legal logic rests on the conclusive proof of the qualifying and aggravating circumstances. Treachery (alevosia) was present because the attack was sudden, from behind, and gave the unarmed victim no opportunity to defend himself, ensuring the execution of the crime without risk to the assailant. Evident premeditation was proven by clear evidence of the planning and preparation over a three-day period, from the agreement to kill for a price on February 4, the surveillance to identify the victim, to the final execution on February 7, demonstrating a persistent criminal resolve. The circumstance of price or reward was established through credible testimony, including that of a witness who overheard the hiring conspiracy and Lacson’s own judicial admission in his extrajudicial confession, which he never successfully repudiated. His alternative claim of mistaken identity was rejected as a mere afterthought, inconsistent with the detailed evidence of a contract killing. With these aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstance offsetting them, the imposition of the supreme penalty was in accordance with law. The decision was affirmed in toto.