G.R. No. L-22087 November 15, 1967
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MAURICIO LABIS and ISABELO CABILES, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Mauricio Labis and Isabelo Cabiles were charged with murder for the killing of Clarito Fabria on August 1, 1959, in Barrio Taytay, El Salvador, Misamis Oriental. The prosecution’s version, based on eyewitnesses Vidal Masong and Ahenor Pagasihan, established that at about 3:00 p.m., Labis, armed with a bolo, chased Fabria. As Fabria passed a coconut tree, Cabiles grabbed and held him, enabling Labis to overtake and stab Fabria in the back. Fabria was brought to the hospital and died two hours later from the stab wound, which entered at the back lumbar region and exited at the left lower abdomen. The defense presented a different account, claiming Fabria and his brother-in-law, Raul Espejon, were the aggressors. According to the defense, Fabria, armed with a bolo, attacked Labis, wounding him on the wrist. During the struggle, as Fabria bent to pick up his dropped bolo, Labis stabbed him in the back in self-defense. Cabiles denied holding Fabria and claimed he tried to pacify the parties. The trial court convicted both accused of murder and sentenced each to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

The main issue is whether the trial court correctly convicted appellants of murder, appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery and the generic aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation, and whether the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be considered.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s judgment. It affirmed the conviction for murder but found that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not sufficiently proven, as the attack was frontal and the victim was armed. However, the Court held that the killing was committed with the aid of armed men (Cabiles), constituting the qualifying circumstance under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court rejected the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation for lack of proof. It appreciated the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in favor of both appellants, as they did not flee and voluntarily surrendered to the police. With one mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstance, the penalty for murder (reclusion temporal maximum to death) was imposed in its minimum period, which is reclusion temporal maximum. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court sentenced appellants to an indeterminate penalty of a minimum of seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal medium to a maximum of twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal maximum. The indemnity and costs were affirmed.