GR L 29776; (August 1975) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-29776 August 27, 1975
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE ECHALUCE, BONIFACIA ECHALUCE, and JOSE SABAS, defendants, JOSE SABAS, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
Jose Sabas, along with Jose Echaluce and Bonifacia Echaluce, was charged with parricide for the killing of Severiano Echaluce on April 25, 1968. The information alleged conspiracy, treachery, evident premeditation, and the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and dwelling. Sabas initially moved to quash, arguing that as a stranger unrelated to the victim, he could not be liable for parricide. The trial court denied the motion, holding the allegations could sustain a murder charge against him. Subsequently, Sabas was re-arraigned and pleaded guilty to the charge as alleged.
The trial court rendered judgment, convicting Sabas of murder. It appreciated the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and dwelling, offsetting one with the mitigating circumstance of his plea of guilty. Consequently, it imposed the death penalty. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review, with Sabas contending the trial court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstances and in not considering the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court correctly appreciated the aggravating circumstances and mitigating circumstances in imposing the penalty upon Jose Sabas.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the penalty. It held that the aggravating circumstance of nighttime, though alleged and admitted in the plea, was absorbed by the qualifying circumstance of treachery and should not have been separately considered. This aligns with established jurisprudence. However, the aggravating circumstance of dwelling was properly appreciated, as it was expressly alleged in the information to which Sabas pleaded guilty.
The Court rejected the claim for the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation. The trial court’s reference to the crime as “one of passion” merely indicated it involved a love triangle, not that the passion arose from legitimate feelings, which is a requisite for it to be considered mitigating. With only the aggravating circumstance of dwelling properly appreciated, and with the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty offsetting it, the penalty should be imposed in its medium period. For murder, this is reclusion perpetua. The Court also ordered an indemnity of P12,000.00 to the heirs of the victim, excluding the co-accused Jose Echaluce. Thus, the judgment was affirmed with modifications as to the penalty and civil indemnity.