People vs. Echaluce

Nighttime, when it constitutes an integral element of the qualifying circumstance of treachery, is absorbed by the latter and cannot be independently considered a generic aggravating circumstance. Where the sole remaining aggravating circumstance (dwelling) is offset by the mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilty, the penalty for murder must be imposed in its medium period, i.e., reclusion perpetua.

On the night of 25 April 1968, in Barrio Salvacion, Bagamanoc, Catanduanes, Severiano Echaluce was bludgeoned to death with a piece of wood. The information charged his wife Bonifacia Echaluce, their son Jose Echaluce, and Jose Sabas with parricide, alleging conspiracy, treachery, evident premeditation, and the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and dwelling. Sabas, unrelated to the victim, could not be liable for parricide; the trial court ruled that the information, if proven, would sustain murder as to him.

• The Information: The three accused were charged with conspiring to kill Severiano Echaluce on the night of 25 April 1968. The information alleged treachery, evident premeditation, nighttime, and dwelling. Sabas, described as a stranger, was specifically accused of hammering the victim with a piece of wood on the head, throat, knee, and other body parts, causing mortal injuries that directly caused death.
• Plea and Motion to Quash: Upon arraignment, Sabas, with counsel, moved to quash the information on the ground that the facts charged did not constitute parricide because he was not related to the victim. The trial court denied the motion, ruling that the allegations could support a murder conviction as to Sabas.
• Re-arraignment and Guilty Plea: Sabas was subsequently re-arraigned and pleaded guilty to the charge. The information’s allegation of the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and dwelling was admitted by the plea.
• Trial Court Ruling: The trial court found Sabas guilty of murder, appreciating nighttime and dwelling. One aggravating circumstance was offset by the mitigating plea of guilty, leaving a net aggravating circumstance; the court imposed the death penalty and recommended executive clemency. The co-accused Jose Echaluce later pleaded guilty to parricide in an amended information and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua; the case against Bonifacia Echaluce was provisionally dismissed.

• Nighttime Absorbed by Treachery: Sabas maintained that the aggravating circumstance of nighttime was already absorbed by the qualifying treachery and therefore could not stand as a separate aggravating circumstance.
• Dwelling Not Alleged: Sabas contended that dwelling was not properly alleged in the information and thus could not be appreciated against him.
• Passion or Obfuscation: Sabas argued that the trial court should have appreciated the mitigating circumstance of passion, pointing to the trial court’s observation that “the crime is one of passion.”

• Nighttime: The Solicitor General concurred with Sabas that nighttime was absorbed by treachery and should not have been considered an independent aggravating circumstance.
• Dwelling: The People maintained that dwelling was clearly alleged in the information and was correctly appreciated.
• Passion: The Solicitor General countered that passion is mitigating only when it arises from legitimate feelings, which was not the case here.

• Nighttime: Whether nighttime may be considered a separate aggravating circumstance when treachery already qualifies the killing to murder.
• Dwelling: Whether dwelling was properly alleged and should be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.
• Passion: Whether the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation should have been appreciated.

• Nighttime: Nighttime was absorbed by the qualifying circumstance of treachery and could not be considered an independent generic aggravating circumstance. The Solicitor General’s concession was well-taken, and this conclusion was supported by settled jurisprudence.
• Dwelling: Dwelling was clearly stated in the information — the charging instrument expressly alleged “the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and dwelling.” Sabas pleaded guilty to that information, and the allegation was thus properly appreciated.
• Passion: The mitigating circumstance of passion was not available. Under the rule in U.S. v. Hicks, passion is mitigating only when it originates from legitimate feelings. The trial court’s remark that the crime was “one of passion” merely alluded to the existence of a love triangle; it did not constitute a finding of passion as a legal mitigating circumstance. Because any passion entertained by Sabas did not proceed from lawful sentiments, it could not mitigate the penalty.

• Absorption of Nighttime by Treachery — When treachery qualifies a killing to murder, the circumstance of nighttime, if it constituted an integral element of the treacherous execution, is absorbed and cannot be separately appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance.
• Passion or Obfuscation Must Arise from Legitimate Feelings — For passion to mitigate criminal liability, the act must have been committed in a state of passion or obfuscation that proceeded from lawful, legitimate sentiments. An illicit relationship or a “love triangle” does not satisfy this requirement.
• Plea of Guilty as Offset — A voluntary plea of guilty constitutes one mitigating circumstance that offsets one aggravating circumstance, thereby affecting the period of the imposable penalty.

• “As regards nighttime, the Solicitor General agrees with the appellant that said aggravating circumstance, the presence of which was admitted when the plea of guilty was entered, is nevertheless absorbed by the qualifying circumstance of treachery and therefore should have not been considered by the trial court in imposing the penalty.”
• “Contrary to the appellant’s claim, dwelling was clearly alleged in the information to which he pleaded guilty, thus: ‘That in the commission of the offense the aggravating circumstance of nighttime and dwelling were present.’”
• “Moreover, passion may be considered mitigating only when it arose from legitimate feelings, which is evidently not the case here.”

• People v. Enot, L-17530, 30 October 1962, 6 SCRA 325; People v. Curiano, L-15256-57, 31 October 1963, 9 SCRA 323; People v. Catalino, L-25403, 15 March 1968, 22 SCRA 1091 — These cases were cited as controlling authority for the rule that nighttime is absorbed by treachery and cannot be a separate aggravating circumstance.
• U.S. v. Hicks, 14 Phil. 217 — The Court relied on this early precedent for the principle that passion or obfuscation is mitigating only if it springs from legitimate feelings.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Definining and penalizing murder, which the information sufficiently charged against Sabas.
• Article 14, Revised Penal Code — The aggravating circumstances of nighttime and dwelling were invoked; nighttime was absorbed by treachery, while dwelling was properly appreciated.
• Article 13(7), Revised Penal Code — The plea of guilty was credited as a mitigating circumstance, offsetting the sole remaining aggravating circumstance of dwelling.

Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Esguerra, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., and Martin, JJ., concurred. Antonio, J., was on leave. Muñoz Palma, J., took no part.