Title
People vs. Labiaga
Case
G.R. No. 202867
Decision Date
Jul 15, 2013
Appellant convicted of Murder and Attempted Murder for shooting Judy and Gregorio Conde; self-defense claim rejected, treachery established, damages awarded.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 128157)

Key Dates

Incident: December 23, 2000; RTC Joint Decision: March 10, 2008; Court of Appeals decision: October 18, 2011; Supreme Court decision: July 15, 2013.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

The decision applies the 1987 Constitution (decision rendered post-1990) and criminal provisions of the Revised Penal Code, chiefly Article 6 (consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies), Article 248 (murder), and Article 51 (penalty for attempted felonies by degree reduction). The Indeterminate Sentence Law (Section 1) governs the structure of indeterminate sentences. The Court relied on controlling jurisprudence cited in the record (e.g., People v. Damitan; Serrano v. People; People v. Mangune; People v. Lucero).

Procedural Posture

Appellant was charged in two Informations: Criminal Case No. 2001-1555 for Murder with the use of an unlicensed firearm (victim: Judy Conde) and Criminal Case No. 2002-1777 for Frustrated Murder with the use of an unlicensed firearm (victim: Gregorio Conde). After joint trial, the RTC convicted appellant of murder (Judy) and frustrated murder (Gregorio), and acquitted Demapanag for insufficiency of evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification (awarding moral and exemplary damages). The Supreme Court reviewed the appeal.

Factual Summary — Prosecution Version

On December 23, 2000 at about 7:00 p.m., Gregorio and his daughters Judy and Glenelyn were at home. Gregorio stepped outside; appellant, from approximately five meters away, shot Gregorio. When Judy and Glenelyn rushed to assist, appellant allegedly shot Judy in the abdomen. Two co-accused stood behind appellant. Appellant purportedly declared “[s]he is already dead,” and the three fled. Judy was brought to Sara District Hospital and pronounced dead on arrival; Gregorio was treated for a one-centimeter gunshot wound to the right forearm and abrasions/hematoma to the right shoulder and recovered. Autopsy concluded Judy died from cardiopulmonary arrest secondary to cardiac tamponade due to gunshot wound.

Factual Summary — Defense Version

Appellant admitted presence at the scene but claimed self-defense: Gregorio allegedly challenged him with a shotgun; the shotgun jammed; a struggle ensued during which the shotgun fired accidentally while appellant wrestled it from Gregorio. Appellant asserted he did not know if anyone was hit. Demapanag claimed absence (at a ricemill 14 kilometers away), corroborated by his brother Frederick.

RTC Ruling

The RTC acquitted Cristy Demapanag for lack of sufficient evidence but convicted Regie Labiaga of murder in Criminal Case No. 2001-1555 (sentenced to reclusion perpetua, ordered to pay P50,000 civil indemnity) and of frustrated murder in Criminal Case No. 2002-1777 (imposed an appropriate penalty range for frustrated murder), with usual accessory penalties and deduction for time served.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals–Cebu affirmed the convictions but modified awards: it upheld the civil indemnity of P50,000 for Judy’s heirs and added P50,000 moral damages and P25,000 exemplary damages for the murder conviction; for the other case it imposed moral damages of P25,000 and exemplary damages of P25,000. The CA emphasized that civil indemnity and moral damages are distinct and both are appropriate.

Issues Presented on Appeal

Primary issues addressed by the Supreme Court: (1) Whether appellant’s claim of justifying circumstance of self-defense was proved; (2) Whether the proper classification of the crime against Gregorio is frustrated murder or attempted murder; (3) Whether treachery exists; and (4) Proper quantum and characterization of damages.

Analysis — Self-Defense and Burden of Proof

The Court applied the well-settled rule that when an accused admits the killing but pleads self-defense, the evidentiary burden shifts to the accused to prove the elements of self-defense by clear and convincing evidence (People v. Damitan). Appellant’s account was uncorroborated and self-serving, and the trial court’s credibility findings in favor of the Condes were given due weight. The Court noted factors undermining appellant’s claim: failure to report alleged aggression to the police, failure to assert accidental discharge when arrested, and lack of corroborating eyewitnesses. Given the RTC’s superior opportunity to observe witness demeanor and the absence of arbitrariness in those credibility determinations, the Court upheld rejection of self-defense.

Analysis — Treachery

The Court sustained the appreciation of treachery: treachery exists where the victim is denied a chance to defend or resist, and it is not determined solely by the weapon type but by whether the weapon was deliberately chosen to ensure execution of the crime and render the victim defenseless. Using a 12-gauge shotgun against unarmed victims supports treachery, satisfying an element elevating the killing to murder.

Analysis — Frustrated Murder versus Attempted Murder

The Court analyzed Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code and applied the Serrano distinctions: frustrated felonies require performance of all acts of execution that should produce the felony but for causes independent of the offender’s will; attempted felonies occur when the offender commences execution but does not perform all necessary acts. For frustrated murder, evidence must show the wound would have been fatal absent timely medical intervention. Medical testimony in this case (Dr. Edwin Figura) described Gregorio’s wound as non-serious and the patient ambulatory; there was no showing the wound was mortal absent medical aid. Consequently, the Court concluded the proper conviction for Gregorio’s case is attempted (not frustrated) murder.

Penal Consequences and Sentencing

For the murder conviction (Judy), the conviction for murder with treachery was upheld and the penalty of reclusion perpetua with accessory penalties was affirmed; usual deduction for time of detention was ordered. For Gregorio’s case, the Court reduced the conviction to attempted murder. Under Article 51

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.