A.C. No. 3324 - Villarin vs. Sabate, Jr.

On December 12, 1969, at about 5:30 p.m., the victim, Pedro Moncayo, Jr.—Assistant Chief of Personnel Transaction and Acting Chief of the Administrative Division of the Civil Service Commission—was driving his car on P. Paredes Street in front of the Commission’s office.
As the victim’s car approached the intersection of P. Paredes and Lepanto Streets, the accused, Alberto Benito y Restubog, followed him and fired eight shots with a .22 caliber revolver, resulting in the victim’s death.

The accused was at one time employed by the Civil Service Commission, a fact which established a superior-subordinate relationship between him and the victim.
The personal animosity stemmed partly from the accused’s dismissal (later contested and exonerated by the Civil Service Board of Appeals) following multiple criminal and administrative charges related to his integrity, which provided a conceivable motive for the crime.
Prior contact between the accused and the victim is highlighted by several attempts of communication and confrontations which later contributed to establishing a motive.

Initially, the accused entered a plea of not guilty. However, when the case was called for trial, he subsequently withdrew that plea and entered a plea of guilty—accompanied by a reservation to prove mitigating circumstances.
The trial court repeatedly explained and warned the accused about the nature and consequences of a guilty plea, emphasizing that the maximum penalty was death.
The accused, assisted by his counsel, affirmed the plea of guilty and proceeded to present evidence intending to prove mitigating circumstances.

Voluntary Surrender – After committing the crime, rather than fleeing, the accused voluntarily approached the Manila Police Department, indicated a willingness to assist in the investigation, and eventually confessed his identity once detained.
Vindication of a Grave Offense – The accused argued that the killing was a response to an alleged insulting remark by the victim regarding the Civil Service Commission, which the accused perceived as a personal affront given his pending charges.

Evident Premeditation – The prosecution introduced evidence, including the accused’s own declaration (Exhibit “A”), which detailed his repeated attempts to communicate with the victim, his frustration, and a clear motive arising from his personal grievances, suggesting a calculated act of vengeance.
Disregard of Rank – Although the accused had been dismissed from his post, the Court considered that his prior employment status and the recognition of the victim as his superior did establish a circumstance of disrespect or disregard for rank.

The trial court found the accused guilty as principal in the murder, considering the mitigating circumstances of his plea of guilty and voluntary surrender against the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and disregard of respect due to the victim.
Based on the finding of guilt, the accused was originally sentenced to death.
Applicable remedies included the award of specific indemnity amounts to the deceased’s heirs alongside payment of costs.

In a mandatory review of the circuit criminal court judgment, the Supreme Court evaluated whether the lower court properly considered the mitigating and aggravating circumstances.
The Court scrutinized the evidence regarding the accused’s voluntary surrender, the alleged provocation arising from the victim’s remarks, and whether the aggravating circumstances were validly applied even though some were not explicitly alleged in the information.

Whether the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was properly recognized despite the accused’s initial hesitation in immediately confessing his identity.

The issue centered on whether the accused’s actions after the crime—specifically his voluntary approach to the authorities and surrendering of the fatal weapon—satisfied the legal requirements for voluntary surrender.

Whether the mitigating circumstance of vindication of a grave offense (stemming from an alleged insulting remark by the victim) justified a reduction in penalty.

The question involved assessing if the general and non-specific remark could be interpreted as sufficient provocation to justify an immediate retaliatory act.

Whether the alleged mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation or threat (specifically the victim’s statement on the night preceding the crime) should be credited, considering the time lapse between the remark and the criminal act.

The Court had to determine if the threat or provocation, given almost a day in advance, could be causally linked to the immediate act of murder.

Whether the aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank was applicable even though the accused had been dismissed from the Civil Service Commission prior to the incident, and if his dismissal should negate the application of that aggravating circumstance.

The issue was whether the prior relationship and interaction between the accused and the victim sufficed to maintain relevance for the aggravating circumstance notwithstanding the administrative dismissal.

Whether the evidence adduced, particularly regarding evident premeditation, was sufficient to overcome the accused’s plea of guilt and offset the mitigating circumstances.

The matter involved evaluating if the detailed admissions and the timeline in the accused’s own declaration established a clear and calculated plan prior to the commission of the crime.