7/24/2019 ART 13 People vs Sabilul.pdf

1/1

GR L-3765 JUNE 21, 1951

J. MONTEMAYOR

PEOPLE vs MORO SABILUL(Mitigating Circumstances must be based from established evidence and not from statements & contentions alone.)

Facts:

Moro Sabilul was charged with Murder in CFI Zamboanga. Without taking any evidence and merely on the basis of thestatements and contentions made by the provincial and counsel de oficio, which were conflicting, Presiding Judge Pablo

Villalobos sentenced:

Defendant is charged and found guilty of Murder. Sentenced to Prisio Mayor.

Attended by (3) Mitigating Circumstances: (a) acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion orobfuscation (b) voluntary surrender and (c) plea of guilty. No Aggravating Circumstances.

Taking also into consideration that the accused is a Yakan belonging to the Non-Christian Tribes and hopelessly ignorant,Sec. 106 of the Admin Code for the Dept. of Mindanao and Sulu was applied.

Defendant thru counsel appealing and claims that the Lower Court erred in Applying Art. 248 sub section 1 of RPC instead of

Art. 247 applying the penalty ofdestierro.

The Court however agreed with the Solicitor Generals claims that there has been a possible misunderstanding on the part ofAccused-Appellant when he entered the plead of guilty and that his counsel believed the plea of guilty was conditioned on thepenalty provided for Art. 247 of the RPC. Counsel should have known that an accused may not enter a conditional plea of

guilty in the sense that he admits his guilt provided that a certain penalty be imposed.

Issue:

The trial court dictated its decision in open court containing facts or findings of facts which are not supported by the evidencefor the simple reason that no evidence whatsoever has been presented.

Decision:

Court SET ASIDE the decision appealed and acted on SolGens recommendation. Remanded to the Trial Court for a new trial.

Rationale:

What the trial court did was to listen to the conflicting statements and claims of the Fiscal and Counsel de Officio, acceptedsome and rejected others and then dictated its sentence on what it thought to be the facts of the case, plus the plea of guilty of

the accused. The procedure is wrong.

Finding of fact of a court must have basis and support. The court should not content itself with a plea of guilty but should

receive evidence to satisfy itself.

The decision enumerates as one of the mitigating circumstances the fact that the accused acted upon an impulse so powerful

as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation. No witness, not event the accused was put on the witness stand. Sonaturally this supposed mitigating circumstance could not have been established.

The same thing may be said of Voluntary Admission and on the circumstance that the accused is a Yakan belonging to thenon-Christian Tribe and hopelessly ignorant. No evidence was taken.

In cases where grave crimes are charged, it is advisable to take additional evidences as to the guilt of the accused and thecircumstances attendant upon the commission of the crime. Evidence should be sufficient to sustain a judgment of convictionor leave no room for reasonable doubt as to the possibility of a misunderstanding on the part of the Accused-Appellant.

As correlated to the Mitigating Circumstances Par. 6 (Passion or Obfuscation)

Prosecution stated that: The Victim Moro Lario and the Appellants wife Mora Masilayan had been maintaining illicit relation,because of this appellant divorced her according to Moro Custom and to avenge the dishonor caused him, surprised the victimtaking a bath in a river, attacked causing multiple wounds and killed him, with a Pira a Yakan bladed weapon.

Defense stated that: Wife went to the river to fetch water but the deceased saw her, attacked and succeeded in having sexualintercourse with her, she shouted for help and heard by the husband-appellant, finding the deceased was still on top of his wife,

attacked, pursued and eventually killed Lario with a bladed weapon.