G.R. No. L-28273 January 18, 1982
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SOFRONIO AMOTO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On October 11, 1965, in Butuan City, Sofronio Amoto, the live-in partner of Amalia Florendo, attacked and stabbed Florendo’s daughter, Milagros Pagalan, with a pair of scissors. The incident occurred in their home. Witnesses heard Milagros shouting for help and saw her emerge from the house, bleeding from her mouth and covering her breasts. As she was assisted by a neighbor, she told a responding police officer that she was “raped and stabbed by Daddy,” referring to Amoto. Milagros died upon reaching the hospital. An autopsy revealed multiple stab wounds on her chest, which caused her death, and genital findings consistent with recent sexual activity.
Amoto was arrested on the same day. He initially gave a sworn statement admitting to the killing, claiming he acted after Milagros rebuffed his advice. He later recanted this statement, presenting a different narrative. The trial court convicted him of murder qualified by abuse of superior strength and sentenced him to death. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the trial court correctly convicted Amoto of murder and properly appreciated the qualifying and modifying circumstances, leading to the imposition of the death penalty.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The Court upheld the finding that the killing was qualified by abuse of superior strength. The evidence established that Amoto, an adult male, used a deadly weapon to inflict multiple fatal wounds on the young female victim, clearly exploiting his physical superiority to ensure the execution of the crime without risk to himself.
The Court rejected Amoto’s claim of the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong. His deliberate use of scissors to stab the victim’s vital parts repeatedly demonstrated a clear intent to kill. The claim of voluntary surrender was also dismissed. The evidence showed he was arrested while allegedly on his way to deliver a note, not to surrender, and he had earlier refused to help carry the dying victim, negating any intent to submit to authorities.
With the crime of murder proven and the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength established, the prescribed penalty is reclusion temporal maximum to death. The trial court erroneously found the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength without any mitigating circumstance, warranting the maximum penalty. The Supreme Court corrected this, ruling that abuse of superior strength, in this context, is a qualifying circumstance that determines the crime’s classification, not a generic aggravating circumstance for penalty graduation. With no other modifying circumstances present, the penalty should be imposed in its medium period, which is reclusion perpetua.