and appellee, vs. ANTONIO YABUT, defendant and appellant.
1. CRIMINAL LAW; REVISED PENAL CODE; STATUTORY
CONSTRUCTION ; COMMISSION OF ANOTHER CRIME DURING SERVICE OF PENALTY IMPOSED FOR ANOTHER PREVIOUS OFFENSE.·The appellant places much stress upon the word "another" appearing in the English translation of the headnote of article 160 of the Revised Penal Code and would have the court to accept his deduction from the headnote that article 160 is applicable only when the new crime which is committed by a person already serving sentence is different from the crime for which he is serving sentence. Inasmuch as the appellant was serving sentence for the crime of homicide he contends the court below erred in applying article 160 in the present case which is a prosecution for murder involving homicide. No such deduction is warranted from the text itself of article 160, nor from the Spanish caption.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.·It is familiar law that when the text itself of a statute or a treaty is clear and unambiguous, there is neither necessity nor propriety in resorting to the preamble or headings or epigraphs of a section for interpretation of the text, es
500
500 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Yabut
pecially where such epigraphs or headings of sections are
mere catchwords or reference aids indicating the general nature of the text that follows. (Cf. In re Estate of Johnson, 39 Phil., 156, 166.)
3. ID. ; ID.; ID.; ID.·A mere glance at the titles to the articles of the Revised Penal Code will reveal that they were not intended by the Legislature to be used as anything more than catchwords conveniently suggesting in a general way the subject matter of each article. Being nothing more than a convenient index to the contents of the article of the Code, they cannot in any event have the effect of modifying or limiting the unanabiguous words of the text. Secondary aids may be consulted to remove, not to create doubt.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of
Manila imposing death penalty. Torres, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Felipe S. Abeleda for appellant. Solicitor-General Hilado for appellee.
BUTTE, J.:
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First
Instance of Manila, convicting the appellant of the crime of murder and assessing the death penalty. The appellant, Yabut, was charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila with the crime of murder upon the following information: "That on or about the 1st day of August, 1932, in the City of Manila, Philippine Islands, the accused Antonio Yabut, then a prisoner serving sentence in the Bilibid Prison, in said city, did then and there, with intent to kill, wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and treacherously, assault, beat and use personal violence upon one Sabas Aseo, another prisoner also serving sentence in Bilibid, by then and there hitting the said Sabas Aseo suddenly and unexpectedly from behind with a wooden club, without any just cause, thereby fracturing the skull of said Sabas Aseo and inflicting upon him various other physical injuries on different parts of the body which caused the death of the latter about twenty-f our (24) hours thereafter.
501
VOL. 58, SEPTEMBER 27, 1933 501
People vs. Yabut "That at the time of the commission of this offense, the said Antonio Yabut was a recidivist, he having previously been convicted twice of the crime of homicide and once of serious physical injuries, by virtue of final sentences rendered by competent tribunals." Upon arraignment, the accused plead not guilty. The court below made the following findings of fact which, from an independent examination of the entire testimony, we are convinced, are supported by the evidence beyond reason able doubt: "La brigada de presos, conocida como Brigada 8-A Cárcel, el 1.° de agosto de 1932, estaba compuesta de unos 150 o más penados, de largas condenas, al mando del preso José Villaf uerte, como Chief Squad Leader, y del preso Vicente Santos, como su auxiliar. Formaban parte de esta brigada el occiso Sabas Aseo, o Asayo, el acusado Antonio Yábut y los presos llamados Apolonio Sáulo, Isaías Carreón, Melecio Castro, Mateo Bailón y los moros Taladie y Hasan. "Entre siete y media y ocho de la noche de la fecha de autos, estando ya cerrado el pabellón de la brigada, pues se aproximaba la hora del descanso y silencio dentro de la prisión, mientras el jefe bastonero Villafuerte se hallaba sentado sobre su mesa dentro de la brigada, vió al preso Carreón cerca de él, y en aquel instante el acusado Yabut, dirigiéndose a Carreón, le dijo que, si no cobraba a uno que le debía, él (Yabut) le abofetearía. El jefe bastonero Villafuerte trató de imponer silencio y dijo a los que hablaban que se apaciguaran; pero, entre tanto, el preso Carreón se encaró con el otro preso Sáulo cobrándole dos cajetillas de cigarrillos de diez céntimos cada una que le debía. Sáulo contestó que ya le pagaría, pero Carreón, por toda contestación, pegó en la cara a Sáulo y éste quedó desvanecido. En vista de esto, el jefe bastonero se dirigió a su cama para sacar la porra que estaba autorizado a llevar. Simultáneamente Villafuerte vió que el preso Yábut pegaba con un palo (Exhibit C) al otro preso Sabas Aseo, o Asayo, primeramente en la nuca y después en la cabeza, mientras estaba de espaldas el agredido Sabas, quien, al recibir el
502
502 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Yabut golpe en la nuca, se inclinó hacia delante, como si se agachara, y en ese momento el acusado Yábut dió un paso hacia delante y con el palo de madera que portaba dió otro golpe en la cabeza a Sabas Aseo, quien cayó al suelo. "El jefe bastonero Villafuerte se acercó al agresor Yábut para desarmarle, pero éste le dijo: 'No te acerques; de otro modo, morirás.' No obstante la actitud amenazadora de Yábut, Villaf uerte se acercó y Yábut quiso darle un golpe que iba dirigido a la cabeza, pero Villafuerte lo pudo desviar con la porra que llevaba. Los dos lucharon y llegaron a abrazarse hasta que se le deslizó a Villafuerte la porra que llevaba. Continuaron luchando ambos y el acusado Yábut llegó a soltar el palo Exhibit C con que acometía a Villaf uerte y había malherido al preso Sabas Aseo. Después de aquello, Yábut consiguió zafarse de Villafuerte y se dirigió al otro extremo de la brigada, escondiéndose dentro del baño y allí f ué cogido inmediatamente después del suceso por el preso Proceso Carangdang, que desempeñaba el cargo de sargento de los policías de la prisión." We reject, as unworthy of belief, the testimony of Yabut that it was Villafuerte, not he, who gave the fatal blow to the deceased Aseo. The testimonies of Santiago Estrada, resident physician of the Bureau of Prisons and Dr. Pablo Anzures of the Medico Legal Department of the University of the Philippines, clearly establish that the death of Aseo was caused by subdural and cerebral hemorrhages f ollowing the fracture of the skull resulting from the blow on the head of Aseo. They further confirm the testimony of the four eyewitnesses that the deceased was struck from behind. On appeal to this court, the appellant advances the following assignments of error:
"1. The lower court erred in applying article 160 of the
Revised Penal Code. "2. The lower court erred in holding that the evidence of the defense are contradictory and not corroborated.
503
VOL. 58, SEPTEMBER 27, 1933 503
People vs. Yabut "3. The lower court erred in holding that the crime of murder was established by appreciating the qualifying circumstance of alevosía. "4. The lower court erred in finding the accused guilty of- the crime of murder beyond reasonable doubt."
In connection with the first assignment of error, we quote
article 160 of the Revised Penal Code, in the Spanish text, which is decisive: "Comisión de un nuevo delito durante el tiempo de la condena, por otro anterior·Pena.·Los que cometieren algún delito después de haber sido condenados por sentencia firme no empezada a cumplir, o durante el tiempo de su condena, serán castigados con la pena señalada por la ley para el nuevo delito, en su grado máximo, sin perjuicio de lo dispuesto en la regla "5.a del artículo 62. "El penado comprendido en este artículo si no fuere un delincuente habitual será indultado a los setenta años, si hubiere ya cumplido la condena primitiva o cuando llegare a cumplirla después de la edad sobredicha, a no ser que por su conducta o por otras circunstancias no fuere digno de la gracia." The English translation of article 160 is as follows: "Commission of another crime during service of penalty imposed for another previous offense·Penalty.·Besides the provisions of rule 5 of article 62, any person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same, shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony. "Any convict of the class referred to in this article, who is not a habitual criminal, shall be pardoned at the age of seventy years if he shall have already served out his original sentence, or when he shall complete it after reaching said age, unless by reason of his conduct or other circumstances he shall not be worthy of such clemency."
504
504 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Yabut
The appellant places much stress upon the word "another"
appearing in the English translation of the headnote of article 160 and would have us accept his deduction from the headnote that article 160 is applicable only when the new crime which is committed by a person already serving sentence is different from the crime for which he is serving sentence. Inasmuch as the appellant was serving sentence for the crime of homicide, the appellant contends the court below erred in applying article 160 in the present case which was a prosecution for murder (involving homicide). While we do not concede that the appellant is warranted in drawing the deduction mentioned from the English translation of the caption of article 160, it is clear that no such deduction could be drawn from the Spanish caption. Apart from this, however, there is no warrant whatever for such a deduction (and we do not understand the appellant to assert it) from the text itself of article 160. The language is plain and unambiguous. There is not the slightest intimation in the text of article 160 that said article applies only in cases where the new offense is different in character from the former offense for which the defendant is serving the penalty. It is familiar law that when the text itself of a statute or a treaty is clear and unambiguous, there is neither necessity nor propriety in resorting to the preamble or headings or epigraphs of a section for interpretation of the text, especially where such epigraphs or headings of sections are mere catchwords or reference aids indicating the general nature of the text that follows. (Cf. In re Estate of Johnson, 39 Phil., 156, 166.) A mere glance at the titles to the articles of the Revised Penal Code will reveal that they were not intended by the Legislature to be used as anything more than catchwords conveniently suggesting in a general way the subject matter of each article. Being nothing more than a convenient index to the contents of the articles of the Code, they cannot in any event have the effect of modifying or limiting the unambiguous words of
505
VOL. 58, SEPTEMBER 27, 1933 505
Orbeta vs. Sotto
the text. Secondary aids may be consulted to remove, not to
create doubt. The remaining assignments of error relate to the evidence. We have come to the conclusion, after a thorough examination of the record, that the findings of the court below are amply sustained by the evidence, except upon the fact of the existence of treachery (alevosía). As some members of the court entertain a reasonable doubt that the existence of treachery (alevosía) was established, it results that the penalty assessed by the court below must be modified. We find the def endant guilty of homicide and, applying article 249 of the Revised Penal Code in connection with article 160 of the same, we sentence the defendantappellant to the maximum degree of reclusión temporal, that is to say, to twenty years of confinement and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Sabas Aseo (alias Sabas Asayo), in the sum of P1,000. Costs de oficio.
Avanceña, C. J., Street, Malcolm, Villa-Real, Abad
