View full case

PEOPLE v. BENITO LABABO IAS 'BEN

FACTS:

The accused-appellants, Benito, Wenefredo, Junior, and FFF Lababo, were charged with Murder and Frustrated Murder before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Catarman, Northern Samar. They were alleged to have conspired and armed themselves with weapons, attacking and shooting the victims, AAA and BBB. AAA died from the attack while BBB sustained gunshot wounds. The defense denied the charges and presented a different version of events. The RTC rendered a decision finding the accused guilty. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision, modifying the penalties and damages imposed. The decision of the CA was affirmed with modifications. The accused-appellants then appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA erred in affirming their conviction.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the killing of AAA is attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

  2. Whether the attack on BBB qualifies as frustrated murder.

  3. Whether the conviction of the accused can be sustained solely based on circumstantial evidence.

  4. Whether the accused-appellant committed the crimes charged

  5. Whether there was conspiracy among the accused-appellant and his co-accused

  6. Whether the penalties imposed by the RTC were correct

  7. Whether the Court of Appeals (CA) correctly modified the penalty imposed on FFF, a minor at the time of the commission of the crime.

  8. Whether FFF should benefit from a suspended sentence under the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006.

RULING:

  1. Yes. It has been sufficiently established that the killing of AAA is attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The prosecution proved that AAA, an unarmed minor, sustained a single, but fatal wound on his back from a firearm, which was sudden and unexpected, giving him no opportunity to defend himself.

  2. Yes. The attack on BBB qualifies as frustrated murder. BBB sustained eight gunshot wounds, which would have caused his death if he did not receive timely medical attention. It was established that his survival was independent of the perpetrator's will.

  3. Yes. Convictions based entirely on circumstantial evidence are allowed. The prosecution was able to meet the requirements for a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt anchored purely on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances proved form an unbroken chain that leads to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused as the perpetrator.

  4. The court found the accused-appellant guilty of the crimes charged based on the evidence presented by the prosecution. The findings of the trial court, affirmed by the appellate court, were considered conclusive as there was no evidence to support a modification or reversal of the outcome of the case. The court agreed with the findings that it was the accused-appellant who attacked the victims.

  5. The court determined that there was conspiracy among the accused-appellant and his co-accused. To prove conspiracy, the prosecution must establish that two or more persons came to an agreement concerning the commission of a crime, and the execution of the felony was decided upon. The court held that the mere presence of the co-accused at the scene of the crime, while armed with weapons, was sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they conspired with the accused-appellant to commit the crimes charged.

  6. The court found that the RTC erred in the penalties imposed. However, the specific details of the penalties were not provided in the given text.

  7. The CA correctly modified the penalty imposed on FFF. FFF, being 17 years old at the time of the commission of the crime, is entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority. Pursuant to Article 68(2) of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty to be imposed on a person under 18 but above 15 shall be the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law, but always in the proper period. Murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death, but due to the proscription of the death penalty under RA No. 9346, the penalty imposed on FFF is reclusion temporal. The CA correctly applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law and imposed the penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum.

  8. FFF, being a minor at the time of the commission of the offense, should benefit from a suspended sentence under Section 38 of RA 9344. The provision mandates the automatic suspension of sentence for a child in conflict with the law who is found guilty of the offense charged, regardless of the imposable penalty. The age of the child at the time of the promulgation of judgment of conviction is immaterial. The aim is to promote the welfare of the child and provide the opportunity for restoration, rehabilitation, and reintegration.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The elements of murder.

  • The qualifying circumstance of treachery in murder.

  • When an act of killing becomes frustrated.

  • The conditions for sustaining a judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence.

  • Findings of fact of the trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, are conclusive absent any evidence that both courts ignored, misconstrued, or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances of substance which would warrant a modification or reversal of the outcome of the case.

  • Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The elements of conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and the evidence must be strong enough to show the community of criminal design. It is necessary that a conspirator should have performed some overt act as a direct or indirect contribution to the execution of the crime committed.

  • Mere presence at the scene of the crime, without actively participating in the conduct thereof, is insufficient to prove conspiracy. However, if the presence of an accused at the scene of the crime serves the purpose of lending moral support and ensuring the successful perpetration of the crime, it can be considered as an overt act and proof of conspiracy.

  • A minor who commits a crime is entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority. The penalty to be imposed should be the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law, but always in the proper period. (Article 68(2) of the Revised Penal Code)

  • The indeterminate sentence law and its provisions apply to divisible penalties. The minimum of the indeterminate penalty is determined from the full range of the minimum penalty, while the maximum is imposed in its medium period. (People v. Delos Reyes, G.R. No. 230065, April 1, 2019)

  • The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 provides for the automatic suspension of sentence for a child in conflict with the law, regardless of the imposable penalty and the age of the offender at the time of the promulgation of judgment of conviction. The purpose is to promote the welfare and rehabilitation of the child. (RA 9344, Section 38)

  • A child in conflict with the law may be made to serve his/her sentence, in lieu of confinement in a regular penal institution, in an agricultural camp and other training facilities established, maintained, supervised, and controlled by the Bureau of Corrections (BUCOR), in coordination with the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). (Section 51, Republic Act No. 9344)

  • The child in conflict with the law is still civilly liable for the crime committed. (Section 6, Republic Act No. 9344)

  • The amount of damages awarded for crimes involving the death of a victim and where the penalty consists of indivisible penalties may be modified based on the case of People v. Jugueta.