People Vs Yabut

PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE - FULL TEXT
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

G.R. No. 39085 September 27, 1933
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ANTONIO YABUT
Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 39085 September 27, 1933
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appelle,

vs.
ANTONIO YABUT, defendant-appellant.
Felipe S. Abeleda for appellant.

Office of the Solicitor-General Hilado for appellee.
BUTTE, J.:
This is an appeal from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila,
convicting the appellant of the crime of murder and assessing the death penalty.
The appellant, Yabut, was charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila with
the crime of murder upon the following information:
That on or about the 1st day of August, 1932, in the City of Manila,
Philippine Islands, the accused Antonio Yabut, then a prisoner serving
sentence in the Bilibid Prison, in said city, did then and there, with intent
to kill, wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and treacherously, assault, beat
and use personal violence upon one Sabas Aseo, another prisoner also
serving sentence in Bilibid, by then and there hitting the said Sabas Aseo
suddenly and unexpectedly from behind with a wooden club, without any
just cause, thereby fracturing the skull of said Sabas Aseo and inflicting
upon him various other physical injuries on different parts of the body
which caused the death of the latter about twenty-four (24) hours
thereafter.
That at the time of the commission of this offense, the said Antonio Yabut
was a recidivist, he having previously been convicted twice of the crime
of homicide and once of serious physical injuries, by virtue of final
sentences rendered by competent tribunals.
Upon arraignment, the accused plead not guilty. The court below made the
following findings of fact which, from an independent examination of the entire
testimony, we are convinced, are supported by the evidence beyond reasonable
doubt:
La brigada de presos, conocida como Brigada 8-A Carcel, el 1. de agosto

de 1932, estaba compuesta de unos 150 o mas penados, de largas
condenas, al mando del preso Jose Villafuerte, como Chief Squad Leader,
y del preso Vicente santos, como su auxiliar. forman parte de esta brigada
el occiso Sabas Aseo, o Asayo, el acusado Antonio Yabut y los presos
llamados Apolonio Saulo, Isaias Carreon, Melecio Castro, Mateo Bailon
y los moros Taladie y Hasan.
Entre siete y media y ocho de la noche de la fecha de autos, estando ya

cerrado el pabellon de la brigada, pues se aproximaba la hora del
descanso y silencio dentro de la prision, mientras el jefe bastonero
Villafuerte se hallaba sentado sobre su mesa dentro de la brigada, vio al
preso Carreon cerca de el, y en aquel instante el acusado Yabut,
dirigiendose a Carreon, le dijo que, si no cobrada a uno que la debia, el
(Yabut) le abofetearia. El jefe bastonero Villafuerte trato de imponer
silencio y dijo a los que hablaban que se apaciguaran; pero, entre tanto, el
preso Carreon se encaro con el otro preso Saulo cobrandole dos cajetillas
de cigarillos de diez centimos cada una que le debia. Saulo contesto que
ya le pagaria, pero Carreon, por toda contestacion, pego en la cara a saulo
y este quedo desvanecido. En vista de esto, el jefe bastonero se dirigio a
su cama para sacar la porra que estaba autorizado a llevar.
Simultaneamente Villafuerte vio que el preso Yabut pegaba con un palo
(Exhibit C) al otro preso Sabas Aseo, o Asayo, primeramente en la nuca y
despues en la cabeza, mientras estaba de espaldas el agregido Sabas,
quien, al recibir el golpe en la nuca, se inclino hacia delante, como si se
agachara, y en ese momento el acusado Yabut dio un paso hacia delante y
con el palo de madera que portaba dio otro golpe en la cabeza a Sabas
Aseo, quien cayo al suelo.
El jefe bastonero Villafuerte se acerco al agresor Yabut para desarmarle,

pero este le dijo: "No te acerques; de otro modo, moriras." No obstante la
actitud amenazadora de Yabut, Villafuerte se acerco y Yabut quiso darle
un golpe que iba dirigido a la cabeza, pero Villafuerte lo pudo desviar
pcon la porra que Ilevaba. Los dos lucharon y Ilegaron a abrazarse hasta
que se le deslizo a Villafuerte la porra que llevaba. Continuaron luchando
ambos y el acusado Yabut llego a soltar el palo Exhibit C con que
acometia a Villafuerte y habia malherido al preso Sabas Aseo. Despues de
aquello, Yabut consiguio zafarse de Villafuerte y se dirigio al otro
extremo de la brigada, escondiendose dentro del bao y alli fue cogido
inmediatamente despues del suceso por el preso Proceso Carangdang, que
desempenaba el cargo de sargento de los policias de la prision.
We reject, as unworthy of belief, the testimony of Yabut that it was Villafuerte,

not he, who gave the fatal blow to the deceased Aseo. The testimonies of
Santiago Estrada, resident physician of the Bureau of Prisons and Dr. Pablo
Anzures of the Medico Legal Department of the University of the Philippines,
clearly establish that the death of Aseo was caused by subdural and cerebral
hemorrhages following the fracture of the skull resulting from the blow on the
head of Aseo. They further confirm the testimony of the four eyewitnesses that
the deceased was struck from behind.
On appeal to this court, the appellant advances the following assignments of

error:
1. The lower court erred in applying article 160 of the Revised Penal
Code.
2. The lower court erred in holding that the evidence of the defense are
contradictory and not corroborated.
3. The lower court erred in holding that the crime of murder was
established by appreciating the qualifying circumstance of alevosia.
4. The lower court erred in finding the accused guilty of the crime of
murder beyond reasonable doubt.
In connection with the first assignment of error, we quote article 160 of the
Revised Penal Code, in the Spanish text, which is decisive:
Comision de un nuevo delito durante el tiempo de la condena por otro

anterior Pena. Los que comentieren algun delito despues de haber
sino condenados por sentencia firme no empezada a cumpir, o durante el
tiempo de su condena, seran castigados con la pena sealada por la ley
para el nuevo delito, en su grado maximo, sin perjuicio de lo dispuesto en
la regla 5.a del articulo 62.
El penado conprendidoen este articulo se no fuere un delincuente habitual

sera indultado a los setenta aos, si hubiere ya cumplido la condena
primitiva, o cuando llegare a cumplirla despues de la edad sobredicha, a
no ser que por su conducta a por otras circunstancias no fuere digno de la
gracia.
The English translation of article 160 is as follows:
Commission of another crime during service of penalty imposed for

another previous offense Penalty. Besides the provisions of rule 5
of article 62, any person who shall commit a felony after having been
convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence, or
while serving the same, shall be punished by the maximum period of the
penalty prescribed by law for the new felony.
Any convict of the class referred to in this article, who is not a habitual
criminal, shall be pardoned at the age of seventy years if he shall have
already served out his original sentence, or when he shall complete it
after reaching said age, unless by reason of his conduct or other
circumstances he shall not be worthy of such clemency.
The appellant places much stress upon the word "another" appearing in the
English translation of the headnote of article 160 and would have us accept his
deduction from the headnote that article 160 is applicable only when the new
crime which is committed by a person already serving sentence is different from
the crime for which he is serving sentence. Inasmuch as the appellant was
serving sentence for the crime of homicide, the appellant contends the court
below erred in applying article 160 in the present case which was a prosecution
for murder (involving homicide). While we do not concede that the appellant is
warranted in drawing the deduction mentioned from the English translation of
the caption of article 160, it is clear that no such deduction could be drawn from
the caption. Apart from this, however, there is no warrant whatever for such a
deduction (and we do not understand the appellant to assert it) from the text itself
of article 160. The language is plain and unambiguous. There is not the slightest
intimation in the text of article 160 that said article applies only in cases where
the new offense is different in character from the former offense for which the
defendant is serving the penalty.
It is familiar law that when the text itself of a statute or a treaty is clear and
unambiguous, there is neither necessity nor propriety in resorting to the preamble
or headings or epigraphs of a section of interpretation of the text, especially
where such epigraphs or headings of sections are mere catchwords or reference
aids indicating the general nature of the text that follows. (Cf. In re Estate of
Johnson, 39 Phil., 156, 166.) A mere glance at the titles to the articles of the
Revised Penal code will reveal that they were not intended by the Legislature to
be used as anything more than catchwords conveniently suggesting in a general
way the subject matter of each article. Being nothing more than a convenient
index to the contents of the articles of the Code, they cannot, in any event have
the effect of modifying or limiting the unambiguous words of the text. Secondary
aids may be consulted to remove, not to create doubt.
The remaining assignments of error relate to the evidence. We have come to the
conclusion, after a thorough examination of the record, that the findings of the
court below are amply sustained by the evidence, except upon the fact of the
existence of treachery (alevosia). As some members of the court entertain a
reasonable doubt that the existence of treachery (alevosia) was established, it
results that the penalty assessed by the court below must be modified. We find
the defendant guilty of homicide and, applying article 249 of the Revised Penal
Code in connection with article 160 of the same, we sentence the defendant-
appellant to the maximum degree of reclusion temporal, that is to say, to twenty
years of confinement and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Sabas Aseo
(alias Sabas Asayo), in the sum of P1,000. Costs de oficio.
Avancea, C.J., Street, Malcolm, Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Hull, Vickers, and
Imperial, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

People Vs Yabut

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Yabut

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Yabut

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE - FULL TEXT

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

Republic of the Philippines

G.R. No. 39085 September 27, 1933

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appelle,

Felipe S. Abeleda for appellant.

La brigada de presos, conocida como Brigada 8-A Carcel, el 1. de agosto

Entre siete y media y ocho de la noche de la fecha de autos, estando ya

El jefe bastonero Villafuerte se acerco al agresor Yabut para desarmarle,

We reject, as unworthy of belief, the testimony of Yabut that it was Villafuerte,

On appeal to this court, the appellant advances the following assignments of

Comision de un nuevo delito durante el tiempo de la condena por otro

El penado conprendidoen este articulo se no fuere un delincuente habitual

The English translation of article 160 is as follows:

Commission of another crime during service of penalty imposed for

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

You might also like