Title
People vs. Sabilul
Case
G.R. No. L-3765
Decision Date
Jun 21, 1951
Moro Sabilul pleaded guilty to murder for killing Moro Lario, but the trial court failed to take evidence, relying on conflicting statements. The Supreme Court ordered a new trial due to procedural irregularities and potential misunderstanding of the plea.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-3765)

Charges and Initial Proceedings

Sabilul was charged with murder under the information stating that he unlawfully and feloniously attacked Moro Lario with evident premeditation. During the arraignment, with the assistance of his appointed counsel, Atty. Filoteo Dianela Jo, Sabilul pled guilty. The trial court, without hearing any evidence, dictated a sentence based solely on conflicting statements made by the provincial fiscal and counsel, leading to a significant issue regarding the appropriateness of the plea and resulting sentence.

Trial Court's Findings and Sentencing

The trial court ruled that while Sabilul was guilty of murder, there were mitigating circumstances: the accused acted under the influence of strong emotion, voluntarily surrendered, and entered a plea of guilty. The court stated the penalty should be lower than that prescribed for murder due to these mitigating factors, applying Article 64, paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code. Sabilul was ultimately sentenced to six years and one day to eight years in prison, along with a civil indemnity of P2,000 to the victim's heirs.

Appellant's Claims and Legal Errors

On appeal, Sabilul's counsel argued that the trial court erred by not applying the appropriate Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides for destierro instead of murder. The Solicitor General supported this claim, stating that there may have been a misunderstanding regarding Sabilul's guilty plea. The appellate court found that the proceedings in the lower court were irregular, citing a lack of evidence and a possible misunderstanding regarding the plea entered by Sabilul.

Examination of Procedural Failures

The appellate court criticized the trial court for its failure to take evidence before reaching a decision, emphasizing that a serious crime such as murder cannot be established solely on a guilty plea, especially without supporting evidence or witness testimonies. The procedural errors included claiming mitigating circumstances that were not substantiated by evidence, including that the accused was a "Yakan" belonging to a non-Christian tribe and allegedly ignorant.

Conclusion and Rem

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.