Case Summary (G.R. No. L-38346-47)
Offense, Manner of Execution, and Motive
The Court found that the accused acted on a perceived need to avenge the death of their gangmate Balerio, suspecting that Reyno and Gomez had authored the slaying. The accused took the opportunity when Reyno and Gomez were sick and confined in the prison hospital.
At 6:15 in the morning of September 12, 1972, Abarca, feigning illness, went to the hospital to seek admission as a patient. Dioso accompanied him. They entered Ward 6 and immediately saw their victims: Reyno was taking breakfast, while Gomez was lying on a “tarima” under a mosquito net. Dioso approached Reyno and spoke briefly to him, while Abarca headed toward Gomez. Thereafter, both accused suddenly drew improvised knives and attacked.
Abarca raised the mosquito net over the tarima and stabbed Gomez. Almost simultaneously, Dioso attacked Reyno with his knife. After Reyno had fallen, Dioso moved to the tarima to help finish off Gomez. When the accused rushed out of Ward 6, they met Prison Guard Enriquito Aguilar at the corridor. The accused surrendered and handed their weapons to the guard.
Medical Findings and Custodial Statements
The medico-legal officer of the NBI, Dr. Ricardo E. Baryola, who performed the autopsy, concluded that both accused died of massive bleeding due to multiple stab wounds on the chest and abdomen. The Court also noted that, after the incident, the accused were promptly interrogated by prison investigator Buenaventura dela Cuesta and readily executed sworn statements in which they admitted responsibility for the killings.
Dioso narrated that, after reaching Ward 6, he sought the location of “Insik” (Gomez) and was told by Reyno; he then informed Abarca, who proceeded to the designated location. Dioso stated that, upon realizing that Reyno was not yet dead, he stabbed Reyno with his matalas after Abarca’s actions, and after Reyno fell, he left Reyno and then helped Abarca in stabbing Gomez. Dioso further stated that when Gomez later seemed to revive, he and Abarca agreed to leave, escaped, and finally surrendered upon encountering the prison guard in the hospital corridor.
Abarca, for his part, described their agreed plan to stab in Ward 6. He stated that after they ate, he waited and then went to Ward 4 to meet Dioso before going to Ward 6. Upon arrival, Dioso approached Reyno first. Abarca related that he took a position on a tarima beside Insik (Gomez), and when Dioso attacked and apparently signaled action, Abarca raised the mosquito net and stabbed Gomez after Gomez lay down and then ran. Abarca stated that Gomez ran, he chased, the victim fell and hid under the tarima, and Abarca stabbed Gomez where he had been found under the tarima. Abarca added that Dioso arrived and helped, and that after Dioso said “tama na,” the two ran out and surrendered after meeting the guard.
Arraignment, Plea, and Proceedings in the Trial Court
Upon arraignment for murder, both accused voluntarily entered a plea of guilty. The trial court required the presentation of evidence to determine the degree of culpability. During the hearing, the accused acknowledged the voluntary execution of their confessions.
The trial court found that the offense was perpetrated with alevosia. The Court sustained this finding based on the circumstances stated by the accused themselves: the attack was carried out while Gomez was lying down under a mosquito net and while Reyno was taking breakfast. The Court reasoned that neither victim was in a position to defend himself from the sudden and unexpected assault.
Issues on Appeal and the Accused’s Position
In their appeal briefs, no argument was advanced to dispute the finding of guilt or the existence of alevosia. Instead, the accused sought to mitigate the death sentence imposed by the trial court by invoking voluntary surrender and plea of guilty.
The Court addressed the matter of mitigation but did not treat it as determinative of the ultimate penalty. It held that the accused were quasi-recidivists, since they committed the charged crime while serving sentence for prior offenses. Under the governing rule applied by the Court, the maximum penalty prescribed by law for murder is death, irrespective of the presence or absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances, or even where there is a complete absence of such circumstances.
However, because the Court was constrained by the results of the required vote, it could not sustain the death penalty.
The Court’s Disposition
The Court commuted the death sentence imposed on each accused. It sentenced both Teofilo Dioso and Jacinto Abarca to reclusion perpetua. The Court also ordered that they indemnify the heirs of the deceased jointly and severally in the amount of P30,000.00, with costs against appellants.
Legal Basis and Reasoning
The Court anchored its penalty analysis on the characterization of the accused as quasi-recidivists and on the applicable rule that, for murder, the maximum penalty is death. It relied on Article 160, Revised Penal Code, and cited People v. Bautista, 65 SCRA 460 for the proposition that, given the quasi-recidivist status, the penalty remains the maximum even in the face of mitigating considerations. The Court li
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-38346-47)
- The case involved the Court’s mandatory review of death sentences imposed by the Circuit Criminal Court of Rizal upon the accused Teofilo Dioso and Jacinto Abarca for murder.
- The Court reviewed the convictions because both accused received the penalty of death, and the record came within the category of cases requiring automatic appellate review.
Parties and Procedural Posture
- The People of the Philippines served as plaintiff-appellee, while Teofilo Dioso and Jacinto Abarca served as defendants-appellants.
- The Circuit Criminal Court of Rizal convicted both accused of murder and imposed the death penalty on each.
- After conviction, the accused appealed and the case proceeded to the Supreme Court for mandatory review.
- The Court noted that, in their briefs, the accused did not contest the finding of guilt, and instead limited their arguments to possible mitigation of the penalty.
Key Factual Allegations
- The crime occurred inside the New Bilibid Prison in Muntinglupa, Rizal, where both accused were serving sentence.
- Jacinto Abarca had been previously convicted with finality for homicide, while Teofilo Dioso had been previously convicted for robbery.
- At the time of the incident, both accused belonged to the “Batang Mindanao” gang, while the victims, Angelito Reyno and Fernando Gomez, belonged to the “Happy Go Lucky” gang.
- The Court found that the rival factions had a history of intermittent and sometimes bloody clashes, including the earlier death of Balerio of the “Batang Mindanao” gang.
- The accused acted on a motive of revenge, suspecting that Reyno and Gomez authored the slaying of Balerio.
- The accused carried out the plan when they learned that Reyno and Gomez were sick and confined in the prison hospital.
- At 6:15 in the morning of September 12, 1972, Abarca feigned illness to seek hospital admission, accompanied by Dioso.
- In Ward 6, the accused saw Reyno taking breakfast and Gomez lying on a “tarima” under a mosquito net.
- The Court narrated that Dioso approached Reyno and spoke briefly, while Abarca moved toward Gomez’s position.
- The accused then suddenly drew improvised knives (“matalas”) and attacked almost simultaneously.
- Abarca raised the mosquito net and stabbed Gomez, while Dioso attacked Reyno with his knife.
- After Reyno fell, Dioso proceeded to help finish off Gomez, and both accused later fled Ward 6.
- Prison Guard Enriquito Aguilar met the accused in the corridor, and the accused surrendered their weapons and handed them over to him.
- The autopsy performed by Dr. Ricardo E. Baryola found that both victims died of massive bleeding due to multiple stab wounds on the chest and abdomen.
Confessions and Admission of Responsibility
- The accused were immediately interrogated by prison investigator Buenaventura dela Cuesta.
- Each accused voluntarily executed a sworn statement admitting responsibility for the killings.
- Teofilo Dioso narrated that he approached Reyno, was directed to the location of Insik [Gomez], and, upon coordination with Abarca, he stabbed Reyno after Abarca’s cue, then helped Abarca stab Gomez.
- Dioso further narrated that after Gomez showed signs of life, he instructed Abarca to leave, and the two surrendered to the guard after escaping the hospital corridor.
- Jacinto Abarca narrated a version consistent with a coordinated attack in Ward 6, including raising the mosquito net over Gomez, chasing and stabbing Gomez after Gomez ran and hid under the tarima, and then fleeing with Dioso after Dioso joined in the killing.
- The Court treated the c