Title
People vs. Atienza
Case
G.R. No. L-38571
Decision Date
Mar 31, 1980
Prisoner Atienza stabbed Ibanez in revenge, claiming self-defense. Court ruled homicide, not murder, due to lack of treachery or premeditation. Quasi-recidivism applied, imposing maximum penalty.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 196355)

Incident Description

On July 26, 1972, at approximately 7:00 to 8:00 PM, Rodolfo Ibanez was repeatedly stabbed, suffering a total of sixteen stab wounds and six incised wounds, eight of which were lethal. He succumbed to his injuries upon his arrival at a hospital. Following the attack, prison investigator reports indicated that Atienza initiated the assault, and he was joined by four accomplices: Tomas Sarmiento, Ignacio Barraca, Jr., Alfredo Regular, and Benito Pablatin. However, Atienza was the only one who surrendered to the authorities post-incident.

Motive and Confession

Atienza claimed that the assault was motivated by a sense of vengeance; he asserted that Ibanez had previously killed one of his fellow inmates, Alfredo Mariano. In his extrajudicial confession, Atienza stated that he acted in self-defense, alleging that Ibanez had attempted to persuade him to join in an attack against members of a rival gang and was about to pull out a weapon. He acknowledged that when Ibanez allegedly made this move, he stabbed Ibanez in the chest and continued to attack him.

Trial Proceedings

In the trial, Atienza initially pleaded not guilty but later changed his plea to guilty after the prosecution began presenting evidence. He maintained that he acted alone and denied the involvement of the other four prisoners, which the trial court accepted. This led to the acquittal of the four companions of Atienza.

Court Findings and Conviction

The trial court ultimately convicted Atienza of murder, aggravating the crime by treachery and evident premeditation, resulting in the imposition of the death penalty. The court also mandated Atienza to provide indemnity to the heirs of Ibanez amounting to twenty thousand pesos. Following the conviction, the case was automatically reviewed by the Supreme Court, where legal arguments focused on the classification of the crime and the propriety of the imposed penalty.

Assessment of Self-Defense Claim

The Supreme Court evaluated Atienza's claim of self-defense, concluding that this argument was not tenable since no weapon was found on Ibanez. The court noted the inconsistency in Atienza's defense since he had previously entered a guilty plea after acknowledging the charges against him. Furthermore, the Solicitor General indicated that the offense committed by Atienza was more appropriately classified as homicide rather than murder, as the aggravating factors initially cited—treachery and premeditation—did not apply.

Reevaluation of Charges and Sentencing

The Supreme Court ruled that recidivism, which typically enhances penalties, could not be considered in this instance as Atienza's prior crimes involved offenses against property, wherea

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.