Case Digest (G.R. No. L-38571)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Amador Atienza, G.R. No. L-38571, March 31, 1980, the Supreme Court En Banc, Aquino, J., writing for the Court.The prosecution (the People of the Philippines) charged prisoner Amador Atienza and four other inmates with murder for the stabbing death of fellow prisoner Rodolfo Ibanez on the night of July 26, 1972, at the New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa. Ibanez suffered sixteen stab wounds and six incised wounds, eight of which were fatal; he died upon arrival at the hospital. A prison investigator reported that Atienza initiated the assault and that Tomas Sarmiento, Ignacio Barraca, Jr., Alfredo Regular and Benito Pablatin collaborated; only Atienza surrendered to guards. The investigator attributed motive to vengeance for the earlier killing of prisoner Alfredo Mariano by Ibanez.
Atienza made an extrajudicial confession saying he stabbed Ibanez when Ibanez allegedly moved to pull out a sharp weapon; Atienza claimed he acted first and repeatedly stabbed the victim. He denied other prisoners’ accusations that Sarmiento, Regular, Barraca and Pablatin joined him. Atienza later withdrew his not-guilty plea at the initial hearing and pleaded guilty; he also testified as a prosecution witness reiterating that he alone killed Ibanez, then later testified in his own defense repeating that he acted because Ibanez reached for a weapon. No weapon was found on the victim.
The trial court acquitted the four named co-accused and found that Atienza alone perpetrated the attack; it convicted Atienza of murder qualified by treachery, aggravated by evident premeditation, and recidivism, imposed the death penalty (as he was deemed a quasi-recidivist), and ordered indemnity of ₱20,000 to the heirs. The case reached the Supreme Court for automatic review of the death sentence.
On appeal the Solicitor General conceded that the killing was homicide and that treachery and evident premeditation did not aggravate the killing. The Office nevertheless maintained issues concerning self-defense, recidivism and the proper penalty. The Court considered the evidence, the confes...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is Atienza’s plea of self-defense tenable in light of his prior guilty plea and the evidentiary record?
- Did the killing constitute murder qualified by treachery and evident premeditation, or only homicide?
- Can recidivism be considered given Atienza’s prior convictions, and if not, does quasi-recidivism apply to increase the penalty?
- What is the appropriate penalty a...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)