People vs. Yabut

Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code applies to any felony committed by a person while serving sentence for a previous offense, regardless of whether the new felony is of the same character as the prior offense, the word "another" in the English translation of the headnote being a mere catchword that cannot modify or limit the clear and unambiguous text of the provision.

Antonio Yabut was a prisoner serving sentence in Bilibid Prison, having previously been convicted twice of the crime of homicide and once of serious physical injuries by virtue of final judgments rendered by competent tribunals. Sabas Aseo, the victim, was likewise a prisoner serving sentence in the same institution. The incident occurred within Brigada 8-A Carcel, a prison brigade composed of approximately 150 or more long-term convicts under the supervision of prisoner Jose Villafuerte as Chief Squad Leader and Vicente Santos as his auxiliary.

On or about August 1, 1932, inside the Bilibid Prison in Manila, the brigade known as Brigada 8-A Carcel was composed of approximately 150 or more long-term convicts under the supervision of prisoner Jose Villafuerte as Chief Squad Leader and prisoner Vicente Santos as his auxiliary. Among the members of this brigade were the deceased Sabas Aseo (alias Sabas Asayo), the accused Antonio Yabut, and prisoners Apolonio Saulo, Isaias Carreon, Melecio Castro, Mateo Bailon, and the Moros Taladie and Hasan. At the time, Yabut was already serving sentence, having previously been convicted twice of homicide and once of serious physical injuries.

Between seven-thirty and eight o'clock in the evening of that date, the brigade's pavilion had already been closed as the hour for rest and silence in the prison was approaching. While Chief Squad Leader Villafuerte was seated at his table inside the brigade, he observed prisoner Carreon nearby. At that moment, Yabut, addressing Carreon, said that if Carreon did not collect a debt owed to him, Yabut would slap him. Villafuerte attempted to impose silence and told those speaking to quiet down. Meanwhile, Carreon confronted prisoner Saulo to collect two packs of ten-centavo cigarettes owed to him. Saulo answered that he would pay later, but Carreon responded by striking Saulo in the face, rendering him unconscious. In view of this, Villafuerte proceeded to his bed to retrieve the club he was authorized to carry.

Simultaneously, Villafuerte saw Yabut strike fellow prisoner Sabas Aseo with a wooden club (Exhibit C), first at the nape of the neck and then on the head, while Aseo had his back turned. Upon receiving the blow to the nape, Aseo leaned forward as if to crouch, and at that moment Yabut stepped forward and delivered another blow to the head with the wooden club, causing Aseo to fall to the ground. Villafuerte approached Yabut to disarm him, but Yabut threatened: "Do not come near; otherwise, you will die." Despite the threatening attitude, Villafuerte closed in, and Yabut attempted a blow aimed at Villafuerte's head, which Villafuerte deflected with his own club. The two struggled and grappled until Villafuerte's club slipped from his grasp. They continued to struggle until Yabut released the club (Exhibit C) with which he had attacked both Villafuerte and Aseo. Yabut then managed to break free from Villafuerte and fled to the other end of the brigade, hiding inside the bathroom, where he was immediately apprehended by prisoner Proceso Carangdang, who served as sergeant of the prison police.

The testimony 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, established that Aseo's death was caused by subdural and cerebral hemorrhages following a skull fracture resulting from the blow to the head. Their findings further confirmed the testimony of four eyewitnesses that the deceased was struck from behind. The defense offered the testimony of Yabut himself, who claimed that it was Villafuerte, not he, who delivered the fatal blow to Aseo. This testimony was rejected as unworthy of belief. The trial court found the accused guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt, appreciating the qualifying circumstance of alevosia (treachery), and imposed the death penalty.

• Application of Article 160: Appellant contended that the lower court erred in applying Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code, placing emphasis on the word "another" in the English translation of the headnote and arguing that the provision applies only when the new crime committed by a person already serving sentence is different from the crime for which he is serving sentence. Since appellant was serving sentence for homicide, he argued Article 160 could not apply in a prosecution for murder, which he characterized as involving the same class of offense.
• Credibility of Defense Evidence: Appellant asserted that the lower court erred in holding that the evidence of the defense was contradictory and uncorroborated.
• Appreciation of Treachery: Appellant challenged the lower court's appreciation of the qualifying circumstance of alevosia (treachery) as establishing the crime of murder.
• Reasonable Doubt: Appellant argued that the lower court erred in finding him guilty of the crime of murder beyond reasonable doubt.

• Statutory Construction of Article 160: Whether Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code applies when the new felony committed by a person serving sentence is of the same character as the prior offense for which he is serving sentence.
• Qualifying Circumstance of Treachery: Whether the qualifying circumstance of alevosia (treachery) was sufficiently established to sustain a conviction for murder.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the evidence established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

• Statutory Construction of Article 160: Yes. Article 160 applies to any felony committed while serving sentence, regardless of whether the new offense differs in character from the prior offense, the clear and unambiguous text of the provision containing no such limitation.
• Qualifying Circumstance of Treachery: No. Some members of the Court entertained a reasonable doubt that the existence of treachery (alevosia) was established, necessitating modification of the conviction from murder to homicide.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Yes, but only for homicide, not murder. The findings of the trial court were amply sustained by the evidence as to the killing itself, though not as to the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

• Statutory Construction of Article 160: The appellant placed reliance on the word "another" in the English translation of the headnote of Article 160, deducing therefrom that the provision applies only when the new crime is different from the crime for which the defendant is serving sentence. The Court rejected this deduction, noting that no such limitation could be drawn from the caption and, more fundamentally, that there was no warrant for it in the text itself. The language of Article 160 is plain and unambiguous, containing not the slightest intimation that it applies only when the new offense differs in character from the former offense. It is familiar law that when the text of a statute is clear and unambiguous, there is neither necessity nor propriety in resorting to preamble, headings, or epigraphs for interpretation, especially where such headings are mere catchwords or reference aids. A glance at the titles to the articles of the Revised Penal Code reveals they were intended as nothing more than convenient indices to the contents of the articles and cannot modify or limit the unambiguous words of the text. Secondary aids may be consulted to remove, not to create, doubt.
• Qualifying Circumstance of Treachery: After a thorough examination of the record, the Court concluded that the trial court's findings were amply sustained by the evidence, except on the existence of treachery (alevosia). Because some members of the Court entertained a reasonable doubt that treachery was established, the penalty imposed by the lower court had to be modified. The conviction was accordingly reduced from murder to homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: The Court conducted an independent examination of the entire testimony and was convinced that the trial court's findings of fact were supported by evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of the resident physician and the medico-legal expert established that Aseo's death resulted from subdural and cerebral hemorrhages following a skull fracture caused by the blow to the head, and confirmed the four eyewitnesses' account that the deceased was struck from behind. Yabut's testimony that Villafuerte delivered the fatal blow was rejected as unworthy of belief.

• Statutory Construction — Primacy of Clear Text Over Headnotes and Captions — When the text of a statute is clear and unambiguous, there is neither necessity nor propriety in resorting to the preamble, headings, or epigraphs of a section for interpretation, especially where such headings are mere catchwords or reference aids indicating the general nature of the text that follows. Headings or titles of articles in a code, being nothing more than a convenient index to the contents, cannot modify or limit the unambiguous words of the text. Secondary aids may be consulted to remove, not to create, doubt. The Court relied on this principle to reject the appellant's argument that the word "another" in the English headnote of Article 160 limited its application to offenses different from the prior conviction.
• Article 160, Revised Penal Code — Commission of a Felony While Serving Sentence — 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. The provision contains no requirement that the new felony be different in character from the offense for which the person is already serving sentence. Applied in this case to impose the maximum period of reclusion temporal for homicide, since Yabut was already serving sentence when he committed the killing.

• "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 of 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." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi on the statutory construction issue, establishing the principle that headnotes and captions cannot override clear statutory text.
• "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 the text. Secondary aids may be consulted to remove, not to create, doubt." — This formulation is frequently cited in subsequent jurisprudence on statutory construction, crystallizing the rule that interpretive aids serve to resolve ambiguity, not to introduce it.
• "As some members of the court entertain a reasonable doubt that the existence of treachery (alevosia) was established, it results that the penalty assessed by the court below must be modified." — This passage explains the modification of the conviction from murder to homicide, reflecting the Court's application of the reasonable doubt standard to qualifying circumstances.

• In re Estate of Johnson, 39 Phil. 156 — Cited in support of the principle that when the text of a statute is clear and unambiguous, resort to headings or epigraphs for interpretation is unnecessary and improper. The Court referenced this precedent (at page 166) as comparative authority for the rule that section titles are mere catchwords and cannot modify the text.

• Article 160, Revised Penal Code — Prescribes that 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. Applied to Yabut, who was already serving sentence when he committed the killing of Sabas Aseo, resulting in the imposition of the maximum period of the penalty for homicide.
• Article 249, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes the crime of homicide. Applied in connection with Article 160 to impose the maximum period of reclusion temporal, fixed at twenty years of confinement, after the Court found the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not established beyond reasonable doubt.

Avanceña, C.J., Street, Malcolm, Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Hull, Vickers, and Imperial, JJ., concurred.