G.R. No. L-28273 - People vs. Amoto

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-28273)

Accusation and Arraignment

An information dated November 4, 1965 charged Amoto with murder. It alleged that with malice aforethought and deliberate intent to take the life of Milagros Pagalan, he willfully and feloniously attacked and stabbed her with a pair of scissors, wounding her on vital parts of her body, from which she died. The information pleaded the presence of abuse of superior strength. Upon arraignment on May 3, 1967, Amoto pleaded not guilty.

Trial Court Findings and Nature of the Conviction

The Court of First Instance found Amoto guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt. It sentenced him to the maximum penalty of DEATH by electrocution, and ordered him to indemnify the heirs of Milagros Pagalan in the amount of P12,000.00, with payment of costs. The trial court also ordered the pair of scissors, Exh. “B,” confiscated in favor of the Government for proper disposal. The trial court premised its conclusion on circumstances it treated as establishing the qualifying killing character, and it determined that no mitigating circumstance existed to offset the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength.

Prosecution Evidence and Circumstances of the Incident

The prosecution presented a narrative of how Milagros Pagalan was found wounded within the same residential extension where Amoto lived with his common-law wife Amalia Florendo and two children, including Milagros. On October 11, 1965, witness Carmelita Dangculos, who was in the adjacent extension separated only by a wooden partition, heard the house shake and later heard someone shout for help. The voice was identified as Milagros by Carmelita and her sister Venturada, who was washing clothes at the time. When Carmelita and Venturada looked out, they saw Milagros covering her breasts with her left arm and her mouth oozing with blood. Milagros appeared to be heading toward the nearby house of Ildefonso Goldemaro, about five to six meters away. Witnesses later saw Milagros coming down from Goldemaro’s house with Goldemaro assisting her toward the street.

Police witness Wilfredo Aparre, then about 25 meters from the scene, asked Milagros what happened. Milagros replied: “I was raped and stabbed by Daddy.” Around 12:00 o’clock noon that same day, Amoto was arrested by Aparre.

Autopsy Results and Cause of Death

Milagros reached a hospital with assistance from Goldemaro but died before reaching the hospital. Dr. Angeluz R. Tupaz conducted an autopsy and reported multiple stab wounds mostly on the anterior chest walls, including stab wounds to the neck region and to the chest with perforation of internal structures. The autopsy report described significant internal injuries, including perforation of the chest walls and incisions affecting the diaphragm and the right dome of the liver, along with severe hemothorax and hemoperitoneum. The report gave the cause of death as shock, severe internal hemorrhage secondary to stab wounds of the chest. It also recorded genital findings, including an old deep hymenal laceration and whitish secretion coming from the vaginal canal.

Accused’s Statements and Contradictory Versions

During police investigation on the afternoon of October 11, 1965, Amoto gave a statement in question-and-answer form in which he admitted killing Milagros. He explained that when he advised her to behave as a woman, she demurred. He then stated that after going downstairs and drinking intoxicating liquor, he stabbed her with a pair of scissors about six (6) times.

On October 14, 1965, Amoto gave another statement before a different counsel, in which he denied the reasons he earlier gave. In the later version, he claimed that around 8:00 in the morning Milagros and he were alone after his common-law wife left to work; he said he had sexual intercourse with Milagros, wanted to repeat the act later that day, and that Milagros agreed. He recounted that after drinking, he saw Milagros asleep on a table in the kitchen; he mounted the table, awakened her, and intercourse occurred. He further alleged that Milagros noticed someone in another room and shouted for help. He said he told her to keep quiet, but she shouted again, whereupon he forgot himself and stabbed her repeatedly with a pair of scissors he found near the table. He claimed Milagros was held in his arms and could not escape, and that after both fell, he continued stabbing her, until Milagros later escaped and ran toward Goldemaro’s house.

Issues Raised on Appeal

Amoto assigned errors alleging that the trial court: (a) failed to consider mitigating circumstances under Art. 13 of the Revised Penal Code, particularly Sec. 3 (lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong) and Sec. 7 (voluntary surrender), and therefore erred in imposing the maximum penalty for murder; (b) treated the act as murder despite alleged facts warranting homicide; and (c) imposed a penalty allegedly contrary to law if the crime should have been homicide.

Parties’ Arguments on Mitigation and Degree of Offense

Amoto’s central submission was that he should have been convicted of homicide rather than murder, and that he should have benefited from two mitigating circumstances: lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong and voluntary surrender. He insisted that these circumstances should reduce criminal liability and affect the penalty. The Court rejected the contentions and maintained that the evidence supported the conviction for murder.

Qualification as Murder: Abuse of Superior Strength

The Court held that during the commission of the crime, Amoto took advantage of his superior strength. It treated the attack—carried out by a man armed with a deadly weapon such as a pair of scissors—against an unarmed and defenseless young woman as constituting the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength. In the Court’s view, Amoto’s sex and the weapon used provided more than sufficient means to overcome and render Milagros defenseless. This circumstance qualified the killing as murder under Art. 248.

The Court also corrected an error attributed to the trial court’s appreciation of the aggravating framework. It stated that it was error for the trial court to consider abuse of superior strength as a generic aggravating circumstance after holding the presence of treachery, because treachery—if present—would absorb abuse of superior strength.

Alleged Lack of Intention to Commit So Grave a Wrong

The Court found Amoto’s claim of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong to be without merit. It relied on the principle that intention, as an internal state, must be judged through external acts such as the weapon used, the part of the body injured, the nature and manner of the infliction, and the accused’s attitude when attacking. Applying that approach, the Court emphasized that the evidence showed repeated stabbing by scissors, including wounds inflicted on the chest and the left side of the neck, and lacerated wounds on the left hand, and that the accused held Milagros in a tight embrace while stabbing her. It held that the repeated infliction of stab wounds in rapid succession demonstrated an intention to take life and negated any claim of lack of intention. Accordingly, the accused could not avail of the mitigating circumstance under Art. 13, Sec. 3.

Claim of Voluntary Surrender

Amoto argued that he was entitled to voluntary surrender under Art. 13, Sec. 7, asserting he was on his way to the police station when arrested by Patrolman Aparre. The Court rejected the claim for lack of evidentiary support. It noted that the allegation that Amoto was going to the police station was made by the accused himself and was very doubtful. Even assuming he had been going to the police station, the Court held that it did not follow that he was going there to surrender. It pointed to Aparre’s explanation that Amoto would deliver a certain note coming from the

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-28273)

Nature of review

The case reached the Supreme Court as an automatic review of a Court of First Instance decision.
The trial court’s judgment was promulgated on September 18, 1967 in Criminal Case No. 3168.
The charged offense was murder under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code.
The trial court imposed death by electrocution, reflecting the view that the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength attended the killing.

Parties and procedural posture

The People of the Philippines acted as plaintiff-appellee.
Sofronio Amoto acted as defendant-appellant.
The accused was arraigned on May 3, 1967 and pleaded not guilty.
The accused assigned errors challenging the trial court’s appreciation of mitigating circumstances and the characterization of the offense as murder rather than homicide.

Information and arraignment

The information charged the accused with killing Milagros Pagalan at about 11:00 o’clock in the morning of October 11, 1965 at Agusan Pequeno, City of Butuan, within the court’s jurisdiction.
The information alleged that the accused acted with malice aforethought and deliberate intent to take life.
The information alleged that the accused attacked and stabbed the victim with a pair of scissors, using abuse of superior strength, wounding her in vital parts, causing her death.
The information alleged contrary to law under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code.
The accused arraigned on May 3, 1967 entered a not guilty plea.

Core factual narrative

The incident occurred in the extension of a house in Agusan Pequeno, City of Butuan, where the accused lived with his common-law wife Amalia Florendo and the couple’s children, including Milagros Pagalan.
Witnesses Carmelita Dangculos and Venturada observed the victim after hearing noises and cries for help.
The victim was seen covering her breasts with her left arm, while her mouth oozed with blood, as she moved toward the nearby house of Ildefonso Goldemaro.
Wilfredo Aparre, a member of the City Police Department, was about 25 meters from the scene and asked the wounded victim what happened.
The victim replied, “I was raped and stabbed by Daddy.”
The accused was arrested by Wilfredo Aparre at about 12:00 o’clock noon on the same day.
Dr. Angeluz R. Tupaz conducted an autopsy and reported multiple stab wounds mostly on the anterior chest walls.
The cause of death was identified as shock and severe internal hemorrhage secondary to stab wounds of the chest.
The autopsy also reflected genital findings described as an old deep hymenal laceration and whitish secretion from the vaginal canal, with other internal findings recorded in the report.

Accused’s statements to authorities

On October 11, 1965, the accused gave a question-and-answer statement in which he admitted killing Milagros and explained that when he advised her to behave as a woman she demurred.
In that October 11 statement, the accused admitted stabbing the victim with a pair of scissors about six times after he had gone down from the house and drank intoxicating liquor.
The accused signed the October 11 statement under oath before Special Counsel Francisco Parcon.
On October 14, 1965, the accused executed another statement before Special Counsel Ricardo S. Castillo denying the truth of the reasons he previously gave.
In the October 14 statement, the accused claimed that he had sexual intercourse with Milagros when he and she were alone, and that when Milagros shouted because she noticed someone in the other room, he forgot himself and stabbed her repeatedly with scissors he found near a table.
The accused asserted that because Milagros was held tight in his embrace she could not escape, and that he continued stabbing until they both fell, after which Milagros ran to Ildefonso Goldemaro.

Trial court’s disposition

The trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder under Art. 248.
The trial court treated abuse of superior strength as an aggravating circumstance and imposed the maximum penalty of death by electrocution.
The trial court ordered the pair of scissors used in the commission of the crime to be confiscated in favor of the government.
The trial court required payment of indemnity to the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P12,000.00 and ordered payment of costs.
The trial court stated there was no mitigating circumstance to offset the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength.

Issues raised on appeal

The accused argued that the trial court failed to consider mitigating circums