PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. PABLO LUSABIO, JR. G.R. No. 186119, Oct. 27, 2009
Criminal Case Digest / Digested Case
Murder
FACTS:
For the death of Edwin Labini on 12 June 2001, an information was filed on 14 September 2001 before Branch 65 of the RTC of Bulan, Sorsogon, charging accused-appellant Pablo Lusabio, Jr., Tomasito de los Santos and one John Doe with Murder. The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 01-459.
The Information reads:
That on or about 9:00 o’clock in the evening of June 12, 2001, at Barangay Biton, municipality of Magallanes, province of Sorsogon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another with intent to kill, treachery, evident premeditation, and abuse of superior strength, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stabbed one Edwin Labini, who sustained mortal/fatal injuries that caused his instantaneous death, to the damage and prejudice of his legal heirs.
On 24 September 2001, based on a complaint of accused-appellant Pablo Lusabio, Jr., an information was filed before the same court charging Tomasito de los Santos, alias Guapo, and Ronnie Dig, alias Tabong, with Attempted Murder. The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 01-464.
In Criminal Case No. 01-459 (Murder), the prosecution presented four witnesses, namely: Doris Labini, Dr. Irene V. Ella, Jose Labini and Elsie Gocoyo. In Criminal Case No. 01-464 (Attempted Murder), private complainant Pablo Lusabio, Jr., Dr. Antonio Lopezand Ricardo Cabrera took the witness stand.
The RTC convicted Labini for murder. As to Tomasito de los Santos, the trial court ruled that he had no participation whatsoever in the stabbing of Edwin Labini. The decision was questioned before the CA, alleging insufficiency of evidence, and questioning the credibility of the deceased’s wife. The decision was however affirmed by the CA.
ISSUE:
Is the conviction for murder proper?
HELD:
Yes. Accused-appellant brands Doris Labini as a biased witness, thus unreliable, because she was the wife of Edwin Labini. The fact that she was the wife of the victim did not necessarily make her a partial witness. It is well-settled that mere relationship of a witness to the victim does not impair the witness’ credibility. On the contrary, a witness’ relationship to a victim of a crime would even make his or her testimony more credible, as it would be unnatural for a relative who is interested in vindicating the crime, to accuse somebody other than the real culprit.
In the case at bar, Doris Labini positively identified Pablo Lusabio, Jr. as the one who stabbed her husband. Such declaration was corroborated by the testimony of Tomasito de los Santos that it was, indeed, Lusabio who inflicted the stab wounds on Edwin Labini. Doris Labini was eight meters away from her husband when the latter was stabbed by Lusabio. Aside from this, the crime scene was well-lighted, making it easy for her to identify Lusabio as the perpetrator.
Finally, accused-appellant submits that if ever he committed a crime, he merely committed homicide. He maintains that the prosecution failed to prove that he deliberately and consciously adopted a particular mode of attack in order to eliminate the risk to his person from any defense that Edwin Labini might offer.
The lower court was correct in appreciating treachery in the commission of the crime. There is treachery when the following essential elements are present, viz: (a) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (b) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods or forms of attack employed by him. It was clearly established that Edwin Labini, while talking to Pablo Lusabio, Jr. face to face, was suddenly stabbed by the latter with a ten-inch bladed weapon for no reason at all. The suddenness of the stabbing and the fact that Edwin Labini was unarmed gave him no opportunity to defend himself. It is likewise apparent that accused-appellant consciously and deliberately adopted his mode of attack, making sure that the victim would have no chance to defend himself by reason of the surprise attack.