Title
People vs. Daeng
Case
G.R. No. L-44187
Decision Date
Nov 12, 1981
Inmates George Daeng and Rolando Castillo, serving sentences, killed a fellow prisoner during breakfast. Convicted of murder, their death penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua due to insufficient votes.
inmates
murder
conspiracy

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-44187)

Procedural History and Earlier Supreme Court Interventions

The record showed that in an information filed on June 18, 1971, Daeng and Castillo, together with Conrado Bautista and Gerardo Abuhin, were charged with murder alleged to have been committed on December 13, 1970 at New Bilibid Prisons. The information alleged that while the accused were confined in the institution, they conspired and acted together, each armed with improvised deadly weapons, to assault Basilio Beltran, who was then serving final sentence in the same institution and was unarmed and unable to defend himself, resulting in Beltran’s death. The information further alleged that the offense was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery and by generic aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and obvious ungratefulness.

On June 29, 1971, the trial court, considering the accused’s “spontaneous and voluntary confession of guilt,” imposed the death penalty on all four. On automatic appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the decision after finding that the accused had not been made to understand and appreciate the real nature and consequences of their plea of guilty, and remanded the case for a new arraignment. The Supreme Court later noted that pursuant to the remand, the four accused were arraigned on March 10, 1973, when they pleaded not guilty. Before the prosecution could rest its case, Daeng and Castillo withdrew their plea and entered pleas of guilty, which resulted in convictions: Daeng was sentenced to death on September 1, 1973, and Castillo was sentenced to death on September 15, 1973.

A further sequence of appellate remand followed. The trial court later narrated that the two September 1973 convictions had been elevated and then remanded anew by the Supreme Court for “mandatory presentation of evidence,” relying on the doctrine in People vs. Epifanio Flores. During the third arraignment on February 19, 1976, Daeng and Castillo again entered pleas of guilty. The prosecution then presented evidence to substantiate murder, including testimony from a medico-legal officer and prison personnel, as well as an eyewitness. The trial court again convicted them of murder and imposed the death penalty, finding the qualifying circumstance of treachery and the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and obvious ungratefulness, as well as that the felony was committed while serving sentence by virtue of final judgment. The present decision subjected that conviction to the Court’s mandatory review for final disposition.

Issues Raised by the Appellants

The appellants assigned multiple errors. They argued that the trial court disregarded the mandate of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. L-34091, particularly the directive that the new trial should be conducted consistent with the views expressed by the Supreme Court. They further contended that the court erred in finding treachery, evident premeditation, and obvious ungratefulness, and in concluding that they committed the crime while serving sentence by virtue of a final judgment. They also challenged the finding of guilt for murder and the imposition of the death penalty.

The Trial Court’s Compliance and the Alleged Failure to Ask “Searching Questions”

The Supreme Court addressed the appellants’ central procedural complaint: that the trial court failed to inquire from them their versions of the incident as directed in G.R. No. L-34091, thereby allegedly requiring nullification and another remand. The Supreme Court acknowledged that the transcript showed that the procedure outlined in G.R. No. L-34091 was not followed “to the letter.” However, it declined to order another remand on the basis that the objectives underlying the directive had been attained in the case at bar. The Court emphasized that the critical purposes of the requirement were fulfilled by the evidentiary admissions and corroborative testimony in the record.

The Court relied on three concrete considerations. First, it noted that in their sworn statements marked as Exhibits “B” and “C”, Daeng and Castillo “unequivocally, and in detail, admitted” that they stabbed the deceased while the victim was holding the breakfast ration. Second, the Supreme Court found the taking and regularity of the sworn statements to be established through the testimonies of prison guard Jesus Tumagan and supervising prison guard Ignacio Ferrer, and the sworn statements remained unrebutted and un-denied until the end of the proceedings. Third, it cited eyewitness testimony by Armando Miranda, who positively stated during trial that the appellants and the other accused rushed out and “without provocation” stabbed inmate Basilio Beltran while he was bringing breakfast to them, thereby confirming the details recounted in the sworn statements.

The Court’s Assessment of Guilt After Multiple Guilty Pleas

The Supreme Court further reasoned that the appellants had pleaded guilty three times. The case had been sent back twice for purposes of rearraignment. In both instances, the accused held on to their plea and the trial court again imposed death after conviction based on their guilty pleas. While the Court recognized that doubts may have existed during the earlier arraignment regarding the accused’s appreciation of the nature and consequences of a plea of guilty, it held that when they entered the same plea for the third time, the plea showed awareness of the “large probability” of a death sentence. The Court treated the repeated acceptance of guilt, after prior instructions and remands, not as a continuing misapprehension, but as a “carefully considered acceptence of guilt.” In that light, it viewed another remand for strict compliance with the probing-question procedure as dilatory and without substantial utility.

Substantive Defense: Claims of Homicide Instead of Murder

On the merits, the appellants sought reclassification to homicide, arguing that the killing was not attended by treachery, evident premeditation, or obvious ungratefulness. The Supreme Court reviewed the sworn statements and corroborating evidence. It narrated that at about 6:15 in the morning of December 13, 1970, prison guard Armando Miranda was with inmate cadet Basilio Beltran and Mallari, who carried breakfast rations in Dormitory 8-C-2. When Miranda opened the door, Daeng and Castillo with Bautista and Abuhin, all armed with improvised deadly weapons, suddenly rushed out and stabbed Beltran to death without provocation. The Court referred to Daeng’s sworn statement that he was the first one who stabbed the victim, hitting him in the stomach. It also referred to Castillo’s sworn statement that he stabbed the victim when the latter was lying on his back (“nakatihaya na po sa pupa sa may harapan ng 8-C”).

The Supreme Court also described the motive context narrated in the sworn statements. Daeng stated that they killed Beltran because they were being threatened (“pagbabanta”) by Beltran and other inmate cadets. Castillo stated that inmate cadets appropriated cigarettes, soap, and money given by friends, and that they paid call-slip deliveries delivered by the inmate cadets during times visitors came.

To corroborate the nature of injuries, the Court cited the necropsy report of Dr. Jose V. Villasin, Medico-Legal Officer of the NBI, which showed that Beltran sustained twelve stab wounds at the chest, back, abdomen, left shoulder, and arms. It also reiterated that eyewitness Miranda positively identified Daeng and Castillo as two of the four persons who killed Beltran.

Adoption of Findings from the Related Case

The Supreme Court declined to disturb the murder findings by invoking its prior assessment in the related case People v. Bautista, et al., G.R. No. L-38624, July 25, 1975, involving the other accused originally charged with the same murder. It held that it saw no reason to depart from the conclusions reached therein. In that related ruling, the Court had upheld treachery based on the sudden, concerted, and unprovoked attack by armed assailants who stabbed the victim after pushing open the cell door, throwing off Miranda, and striking the victim while the victim held bread and coffee and had no position to defend himself from the unexpected assault.

As to evident premeditation, the Supreme Court cited the related findings: the attack was sudden, concerted, and calculated to throw off the victim while he was giving food, implying planning; the accused were armed with improvised deadly weapons not supposed to be possessed, which the Court inferred were secretly prepared for a long time; and the accused admitted in their sworn statements that they “attacked first” because they had heard that a rival gang would liquidate them, which the Court interpreted as planning to counter by beating the supposed attackers to the draw.

For obvious ungratefulness, the Supreme Court referenced the conclusion that the victim was suddenly attacked while in the act of giving breakfast bread and coffee to the assailants, and that instead of being grateful or refraining from harm, the accused exploited the victim’s helplessness, using the victim’s arms that carried food to prevent defense from the sudden attack.

By adopting these determinations as applicable to Daeng and Castillo, the Supreme Court rejected the appellants’ insistence that the case should be reduced to homicide.

Applicability of Article 100 and the “Serving Sentence” Requirement

The appellants also argued that Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code should not be applied because there was no evidence showing the “exact status” of the accused as prisoners at the New Bilibid Prison. The Supreme Court rejected the contention by pointing to its definitive finding in People v. Baut

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms