G.R. No. L-3444 - City of Manila vs. Cheng y Chiang

Occurrence in New Bilibid Prison where convict-against-convict killings were not unusual, reflecting a pattern of feuds and rivalries among prisoners.
On the night of July 26, 1972, between seven and eight o’clock, an assault took place in the corridor near cell 2 of dormitory 4-A-2, located within the prison in Muntinlupa, Rizal.
The victim, prisoner Rodolfo Ibanez (aged 22), was attacked and sustained multiple wounds: sixteen stab wounds and six incised wounds, with eight wounds proving fatal by injuring his internal organs.
Ibanez died upon arrival at the hospital.

Prisoner Amador Atienza was identified as the initiator of the assault on Ibanez.
Four other prisoners—Tomas Sarmiento, Ignacio Barraca, Jr., Alfredo Regular, and Benito Pablatin—were alleged to have collaborated with Atienza in the attack.
Despite these allegations, Atienza persistently declared, in his extrajudicial confession and subsequent testimonies, that he acted alone in the killing.

The alleged motive for the assault was vengeance over the killing of prisoner Alfredo Mariano in September 1971, which Ibanez had committed.
Atienza’s confession and later testimonies mentioned that Ibanez had attempted to recruit him into further violent gang activities (specifically, to stab members of the Bahala Na Gang), suggesting an internal conflict rooted in rivalry and personal threat.
Atienza claimed that, when confronted with Ibanez’s proposal and subsequent taunts, he acted preemptively: as Ibanez appeared ready to draw a weapon, Atienza stabbed him in the chest and continued the assault with additional stabs.

Atienza initially pleaded not guilty along with his accomplices, but later voluntarily changed his plea to guilty.
In his extrajudicial confession, Atienza admitted to stabbing Ibanez, claiming that his action was a response to Ibanez’s aggressive behavior.
In later court testimonies (notably on November 6, 1973, and February 11, 1974), he reaffirmed that he was solely responsible for the attack while denying the participation of the other prisoners mentioned by the investigator.
Atienza’s version of events claimed self-defense, stating that Ibanez’s behavior and words justified his preemptive action—even though this version directly conflicted with his earlier guilty plea.

The trial court determined that only Atienza was responsible for the assault, thereby acquitting the other four alleged accomplices.
It convicted Atienza of murder qualified by treachery, evident premeditation, and recidivism, imposing the death penalty on the basis that he was a quasi recidivist.
Additionally, Atienza was ordered to pay an indemnity of twenty thousand pesos to the heirs of the deceased, Ibanez.
The case was later elevated to the Supreme Court for the automatic review of the death penalty.

The Court scrutinized Atienza’s claim of self-defense and found it untenable, particularly because there was no evidence that Ibanez was armed (no weapon was recovered on his body).
The self-defense argument was further undermined by its inconsistency with Atienza’s earlier guilty plea and his detailed confession.
While the Solicitor General conceded that the killing should be treated as homicide—disavowing the aggravating circumstances of treachery and premeditation—the Court found quasi-recidivism applicable given Atienza’s criminal history.
Consequently, the Court set aside the trial court’s sentencing which had imposed the death penalty and ordered a new conviction for homicide, with a revised sentence.

People vs. Resurreccion, et al. (conviction for homicide in the killing of a prisoner on March 25, 1971).
People vs. Garcia, et al. (conviction related to the killing of four prisoners on April 9, 1971).

These prior offenses, involving crimes against property (robbery and attempted robbery with homicide), influenced the analysis concerning quasi-recidivism, although true recidivism could not be invoked for a homicide case.

Whether Atienza’s claim of self-defense is tenable in light of his earlier guilty plea and inconsistent testimonies.
Whether the initial conviction for murder, qualified by treachery, evident premeditation, and recidivism, was properly sustained under the circumstances of the case.
How the doctrine of quasi-recidivism applies to the current offense in contrast to actual recidivism, given Atienza’s prior convictions for crimes against property.
Whether the penalty for homicide should be imposed in its maximum degree considering the established facts and Atienza’s criminal record.