People vs. Sabilul

A conditional plea of guilty—one made on the condition that a specific penalty be imposed—is not a valid plea of guilty and must be treated as a plea of not guilty; and a husband who kills his wife’s paramour in actual adultery, where the wife consented, is liable under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced to destierro, not acquitted on a defense-of-wife theory.

Moro Sabilul and Mora Mislayan were married and remained so at the time of the killing. In the afternoon of September 14, 1949, Sabilul was plowing in the vicinity of his house and, feeling thirsty, asked his wife for some water. Mislayan proceeded toward the creek, but no sooner had she arrived than Sabilul heard a noise. He rushed to the scene and found Moro Lario wrestling with and on top of Mislayan, who was shouting “don’t, don’t.” Picking up a pira, a Yakan bladed weapon, which he noticed nearby, Sabilul slashed Lario on the right side of the face. Lario attempted to flee, but Sabilul overtook him and slashed him a few more times, after which Lario fell and died. Sabilul then presented himself to the police authorities with the weapon he had used.

Mislayan corroborated Sabilul’s testimony, and their joint testimony was not contradicted by any direct evidence for the prosecution. The prosecution’s rebuttal evidence sought to show that Lario could not actually have had sexual intercourse with, much less raped, Mislayan because she was wearing tight Yakan pants from the ankle to the knee, similar to military breeches, and was 25 years old, healthy, and strong; and that if Sabilul had killed Lario after overtaking him about 100 meters from the place where the alleged sexual intercourse was accomplished, it was surprising that no trace of blood was found between the two points. The record showed that the scene was wet and muddy, indicating that it must have rained hard on the night of the day in question.

The appellant and his wife also testified that they were married and remained so at the time of the killing. The prosecution insinuated that they had admitted before the fiscal that they were divorced because, after Lario was once caught in Sabilul’s house near Mislayan, both Mislayan and Lario were fined P50 by Moro Imam Ilul, an indication of divorce. The spouses, however, positively admitted in open court that they had not been divorced; there was also evidence that the fines were not paid and that the spouses never lived apart.

Investigation by the authorities conducted the next day revealed that from the spot where Mislayan was alleged to have been attacked to the spot where Lario’s body was found, there was a distance of about 100 meters; that between the two points there were two fences, each about 1.5 meters high; that there was no trace of blood anywhere except near Lario’s body, where there was plenty; and that Lario sustained nine bolo wounds, one of which, in the face, was fatal.

On November 11, 1949, the City Fiscal of Basilan City filed an information for murder qualified by treachery and evident premeditation against Sabilul. Before the hearing on November 24, 1949, Sabilul’s counsel manifested that his client would plead guilty to the charge and prayed that he be sentenced to destierro because the murder was committed while Lario was in the act of committing sexual intercourse with Sabilul’s wife. The Fiscal argued that Lario was murdered in cold blood while taking a bath in the creek and that there was evidence that, before the killing, Sabilul’s wife, who had divorced Sabilul according to Moro custom, had illicit relations with Lario.

• Article 247 — Destierro: Appellant’s counsel argued that the killing was committed while the deceased was in the act of sexual intercourse with appellant’s wife, so appellant should be sentenced to destierro under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code.

• Murder in Cold Blood: Respondent, through the Fiscal, argued that the deceased was murdered in cold blood while taking a bath in the creek and that there was evidence of prior illicit relations between appellant’s wife and the deceased.
• Misunderstanding of Plea: The Solicitor General contended in the first appeal that there must have been a misunderstanding as to the entry of the plea of guilty and recommended a new trial.

• Conditional Plea of Guilty: Whether the trial court erred in treating appellant’s conditional plea of guilty as a valid plea of guilty and proceeding on that basis.
• Defense of Wife and Article 247: Whether appellant is entitled to acquittal under Article 11, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code for defense of his wife, or should be convicted under Article 247 for killing the deceased in actual adultery with his wife.

• Conditional Plea of Guilty: No. A conditional plea of guilty is invalid; appellant must be considered as having entered a plea of not guilty.
• Defense of Wife and Article 247: No, appellant is not entitled to acquittal. The majority held that he killed Moro Lario in actual adultery with his wife, who had consented, and sentenced him to destierro under Article 247 for 2 years, 4 months and 1 day.

• Conditional Plea of Guilty: The SC had already set aside the original judgment and ordered a new trial because there was a misunderstanding as to the entry of the plea of guilty. A conditional plea—one admitting guilt provided a certain penalty be imposed—is not allowed. The trial court again labored under a misconception when it assumed Sabilul had pleaded guilty and merely allowed the defense to present evidence. The manifestation of counsel showed that the plea was conditioned on the allegation that the killing was done when Sabilul surprised his wife with Lario. The SC therefore considered Sabilul as having entered a plea of not guilty. It cited U.S. vs. Jamad on the danger of improvident pleas of guilty and the need for additional evidence in grave crimes.

• Defense of Wife and Article 247: The majority did not adopt the ponente’s view that Sabilul was entitled to acquittal under Article 11, paragraph 2, because Lario was forcibly abusing Sabilul’s wife and the pira was a reasonable means of repelling the attack. Instead, the majority held that, all things considered, Sabilul killed Lario in actual adultery with his wife because she had consented; the majority reasoned that if the wife had really been forced by Lario, she would not have run away upon Sabilul’s arrival. On that finding, Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code applied, and the penalty was destierro for 2 years, 4 months and 1 day, with exclusion from a 25-kilometer radius of Basilan City.

• Conditional Plea of Guilty — An accused may not enter a conditional plea of guilty in the sense that he admits guilt provided a certain penalty be imposed; such a plea must be treated as a plea of not guilty. The SC applied this to Sabilul, whose plea was conditioned on destierro under Article 247.
• Article 247 — Killing a Spouse’s Paramour in Actual Adultery — A husband who kills his wife’s paramour in actual adultery is liable under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced to destierro, not acquitted on a defense-of-wife theory, where the wife consented. The majority inferred consent from the wife’s running away when the husband arrived.

• “an accused may not enter a conditional plea of guilty in the sense that he admits his guilt provided that a certain penalty be imposed upon him.” — The SC applied this rule to reject Sabilul’s conditional plea and to treat him as having pleaded not guilty.
• “the appellant in this case must be considered as having entered a plea of not guilty.” — This is the SC’s conclusion after finding that the trial court again misconceived Sabilul’s conditional plea.
• “the majority are of the opinion and so hold — and this conformable to the theory of appellant’s counsel — that, all things considered, the appellant had killed Moro Lario in actual adultery with appellant’s wife because she had consented and should therefore be sentenced to destierro under article 247 of the Revised Penal Code.” — This is the core majority holding on the killing and the applicable penalty.
• “Wherefore, modifying the appealed judgment, the appellant is found guilty under article 247 of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced to destierro for 2 years, 4 months and 1 day. The appellant shall not enter within a radius of twenty-five kilometers from the City of Basilan during said period.” — This is the dispositive portion of the decision.

• U.S. vs. Jamad, 37 Phil. 105 — Relied on for the rule that courts should take additional evidence in grave crimes to avoid improvident pleas of guilty; the SC cited it in setting aside the original judgment and again in treating the conditional plea as not guilty.
• U.S. vs. Padilla, 34 Phil. 641 — Cited by the ponente for the view that a bolo is a reasonable means of defending one’s wife and the defendant would be exempt from responsibility; the majority did not adopt this acquittal theory.

• Article 11, paragraph 2, Revised Penal Code — The ponente invoked this justifying circumstance in his view that Sabilul should be acquitted because Lario was forcibly abusing Sabilul’s wife and the pira was a reasonable means; the majority did not apply it.
• Article 247, Revised Penal Code — The majority applied this provision and sentenced Sabilul to destierro for 2 years, 4 months and 1 day, with a 25-kilometer exclusion from Basilan City.
• Section 106, Administrative Code for Mindanao and Sulu — The trial court applied this provision in imposing the indeterminate penalty for murder; the SC modified the judgment and instead imposed destierro under Article 247.

• Justice Tuazon (Dissenting) — The dissent argued that the SC went out of its way to exonerate Sabilul although counsel never pleaded acquittal and concentrated on destierro; that Sabilul and Mislayan’s version of rape and killing was highly contradictory and improbable; that Sabilul, having admitted the killing, bore the burden of proving justification beyond reasonable doubt; and that the physical evidence—no blood between the creek and the body, two high fences, nine bolo wounds, no bloodstains on Mislayan—belied the rape claim. The dissent also doubted even adultery, suggested Sabilul likely chased and killed Lario after seeing him at the creek with his wife, and concluded that the trial court and Solicitor General were right to discount rape. It agreed, however, that the killing was not murder because the qualifying circumstances were not established, so the most that could be imposed was homicide. It also defended the trial judge’s handling of the case and said the procedure was not objected to and no substantial rights were impaired.