G.R. No.

133438 January 16, 2002

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

Facts:

"That on or about October 21, 1996, at the Barangay Hall, Poblacion, Tadian, Mountain Province, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused with intent to kill and with the use of a sharp knife, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, strike and stab Segundina Cay-no with a well-honed and pointed knife and thereby
inflicting a mortal stab wound upon the victim as reflected in that medico-legal certificate, to wit:

Stab wound infrascapular area left, penetrating with massive hemathorax, which caused the death of the victim thereafter.

That the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, treachery, abuse of superior strength and craft attended the
commission of the offense. Contrary to law."

The prosecution presented the oral testimonies of the following: (1) Nancy Gaoan, Julie Dang-la and Nelson Apyoten, eyewitnesses
to the actual stabbing of Segundina Cay-no; (2) Jerry Cay-no, son of the deceased; (3) Police Officers Leonardo Cea and Angelito
Beddy who were in-charge of the investigation of the stabbing incident; and (4) Drs. Elizabeth Tican and Milagros Inhumang, the
attending physicians at the Luis Hora Memorial Hospital where the deceased was brought. For its part, the defense presented the
appellant himself as well as Inspector Eleuterio Camtugan and Mrs. Gantula Latap, as witnesses.

Appellant sat down in front of his aunt and uttered something to her in a very soft voice. Nancy did not hear what he said because of
her distance from them while Julie could not make out the conversation because of the sound coming from a running motor engine.
What they only heard was Segundina's answer which was uttered in a loud angry voice "koma-an ka tay baka mahigh bloodac"
("you get out because I might suffer high blood). They saw appellant leave. Segundina died in the morning of the following day
(October 22, 1996). The cause of death was determined to be "hypovolomic shock secondary to massive hemorrhage.

"Segundina Cayno was engaged in the business of selling rummage goods. Early in the morning of October 21, 1996, her son, Jerry
Cayno, went to the "dap-ayan" or barangay hall, in front of the Tadian Public Market at Tadian, Mountain Province, to display the
goods for sale while his mother was still at their boarding house. After displaying the goods, Segundina arrived and took over while
he proceeded to their new boarding house to do some cleaning (TSN, July 16, 1997, pp. 3-15, 28).

At about 9 o'clock that morning, Nancy Gaoan and Julie Dangla went to see Segundina to be massaged by the latter ("hilot")

At about 11:20 a.m., Nelson Apyoten arrived in order to wait for a ride going to Masla. He saw Nancy and Segundina and sat with
them while waiting for his ride

Before noontime, while Nancy and Julie were plucking the white hair strands of Segundina, appellant Wilson Lab-eo arrived and
approached his aunt, Segundina. Upon seeing him, Nancy went to a distance of about 2 meters while Julie was still near
Segundina. Appellant sat down in front of his aunt and uttered something to her in a very soft voice. Nancy did not hear what he said
because of her distance from them while Julie could not make out the conversation because of the sound coming from a running
motor engine. What they only heard was Segundina's answer which was uttered in a loud angry voice "koma-an ka tay baka mahigh
bloodac" ("you get out because I might suffer high blood). They saw appellant leave.

When appellant returned about 3-5 minutes after, Segundina was sitting on a low rattan stool. In front of her were Nancy and Julie,
as she was showing to them how to repair and put garter on the pants Nancy had bought for her child. Engrossed, they did not
notice appellant's return, especially Segundina who had her back to appellant. When Julie saw appellant approach Segundina from
the back, Julie thought that he would just box his aunt because she did not see the knife, which was wrapped in his blue jacket.
Then appellant suddenly made a thrusting motion and he stabbed Segundina on the left portion of her back. He then ran away
leaving the knife at the victim's back with the jacket he had covered it with, hanging by the knife's handle. The entire length of the
knife's 9-inch blade had penetrated the victim's body. Upon seeing that Segundina was stabbed, Julie removed the knife with the
jacket from the victim's back and placed them down on the pavement while Nancy, Nelson and the other people who saw the
incident shouted for help.

Issue
In this appeal, appellant Wilson Lab-eo asks this Court to declare him guilty of the crime of homicide instead of murder as found by
the lower court. The appellant assigns as errors the following:

I.

THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF MURDER.

II.

THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF TREACHERY IS
ATTENDANT IN THE CASE AT BAR.

III.

THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF PASSION AND
OBFUSCATION AND SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION ATTENDED THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME CHARGED.

IV.

GRANTING THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED, THE LOWER COURT FAILED TO APPLY
THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW.6

RULING

First, We affirm the conviction of appellant Wilson Lab-eo for the crime of murder.

In the first assigned error, the appellant faults the lower court for finding him guilty of murder even when the Information, as written,
could only have charged him with the crime of homicide.

Nothing in the law prohibits the prosecutor from adopting such a form or style. As long as the requirements of the law are observed,
the Information will pass judicial scrutiny.

The Information is not just the first, second or third paragraph of the prosecutor's sworn accusation taken individually or separately,
but all the allegations made therein taken together in their entirety.

Sectond, Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. Article 248 does not use the word "qualifying" or "aggravating" in enumerating the
circumstances that raise a killing to the category of murder.

In the instant case, the Information specifically alleges that evident premeditation, treachery, and abuse of superior strength
"attended the commission of the offense." This is more than sufficient to comply with the requirements of Article 248.

Four kinds of aggravating circumstances, namely: (1) generic or those that can generally apply to all crimes; (2) specific or those
that apply only to particular crimes; (3) qualifying or those that change the nature of the crime; and (4) inherent or those that must of
necessity accompany the commission of the crime.

Third, assigned error, the appellant argues for the appreciation of the mitigating circumstances of passion and obfuscation, as well as
of sufficient provocation, in his favor. There is no justification for this.

In order to be entitled to the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation, the following elements should concur: (1) there
should be an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of mind; (2) the act which produced the obfuscation was not
far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his normal
equanimity.

Fourth, The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable in this case. Section 2 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law states that it
shall not apply to persons convicted of offenses punishable by death or life imprisonment. In the case of People vs. Aquino, this
Court held that the appellant could not avail of the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law because this law does not apply to
persons convicted of offenses punishable with reclusion perpetua.