Case Summary (G.R. No. L-25177)
Facts of the Offense
In the early morning of January 17, 1964, the four accused, armed with bladed weapons, entered the cell of co-inmate Regino Gasang. Layson locked the cell door. Acting in concert, they took turns stabbing Gasang. The assailants barricaded themselves thereafter, refusing to surrender to trustees and agreeing to surrender only to the supervising guard Vicente Afurong; upon his assurance of safety they surrendered and handed their weapons through a hole in the barricaded door. Gasang was brought to the prison hospital and died shortly after; the necropsy attributed death to severe internal and external hemorrhage and shock due to multiple stab wounds.
Motive, Planning and Admissions
Three of the accused admitted they killed Gasang because he had urinated on their coffee cups on several occasions (incidents occurring at least ten days before the killing); Garces stated he killed Gasang because Gasang had spat on him a week earlier. The four plotted the killing a few days prior to the actual slaying and obtained weapons from fellow inmates, which demonstrates planning and solicitation of assistance.
Procedural Posture and Plea
All four were indicted for murder on March 25, 1964. Upon arraignment, each, with counsel de oficio, freely and spontaneously pleaded guilty. Despite the pleas, the trial court received testimony because of the gravity of the offense and rendered judgment convicting all four of murder and sentencing them to death, while recognizing the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty and several aggravating circumstances (recidivism/quasi-recidivism and previous punishments).
Forensic Evidence and Treachery
Medical and diagrammatic evidence (necropsy report and diagram) and expert testimony established that the victim was killed in a manner ensuring suddenness and complete surprise, rendering the victim incapable of offering resistance. The Court concluded that treachery was present: the manner of attack insured the victim’s defenselessness and executed the killing with suddenness and complete surprise. The Court treated any abuse of superior strength as absorbed by the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
Evident Premeditation and Passion or Obfuscation
The Court rejected the Solicitor General’s suggestion to treat passion and obfuscation as mitigating. It reasoned that the acts giving rise to purported obfuscation (urinating on cups, spitting) occurred sufficiently prior to the murder (up to ten days before) and the assailants had time to regain equanimity. The planning of the killing and the securing of instruments further negated passion and obfuscation. Accordingly, the Court found evident premeditation to be present; however, it characterized evident premeditation as a generic aggravating circumstance, which the Court ultimately offset by the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty.
Quasi-Recidivism (Special Aggravating Circumstance)
Because all four accused were serving sentences for prior convictions at the time of the murder, the Court correctly applied the special aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism under Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court emphasized that quasi-recidivism elevates penal consequences by requiring punishment with the maximum period prescribed for the new felony and that it cannot be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance. The presence of this special aggravating circumstance left the Court no alternative but to affirm a penalty at the maximum degree for murder.
On Other Aggravating Circumstances and Trial Court Error
The appellate court held that it was erroneous for the trial judge to apply the aggravating circumstance of reiteration ("having been previously punished for two or more crimes to which the law attaches lighter penalties") because that aggravating circumstance requires that the offender shall have served out prior sentences; in this case the accused were still serving their sentences at the time of the murder. Thus, that specific aggravating circumstance could not be properly considered.
Effect of Plea of Guilty and Balancing of Circumstances
The plea of guilty was acknowledged by the Court as a mitigating circumstance and was given weight. It operated to offset the generic aggravation of evident premeditation. However, because the special aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism was
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-25177)
Case Citation, Nature of Proceeding and Disposition
- Reporter citation: 140 Phil. 491.
- G.R. No.: L-25177.
- Date of Supreme Court decision: October 31, 1969.
- Nature of proceeding: Automatic review by the Supreme Court of a decision of the Court of First Instance of Davao (criminal case No. 8495) imposing the death penalty.
- Parties: The People of the Philippines (plaintiff-appellee) v. Nicolas Layson, Cezar Ragub, Cezar Fugoso and Joventino Garces (defendants-appellants).
- Final disposition: The Supreme Court, per curiam, affirmed the trial court judgment imposing the death penalty on Nicolas Layson, Cezar Ragub, Cezar Fugoso and Joventino Garces; indemnity to heirs of the deceased increased to P12,000, to be paid jointly and severally; costs de oficio imposed.
Judges and Participation
- Decision authored per curiam.
- Justices Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Fernando, and Teehankee, JJ., concurred.
- Justice Barredo did not take part.
- Counsel de oficio for the accused: Attorney Potenciano Villegas, Jr., who recommended affirmance.
Facts — Who, When, Where, How
- Date and time of the incident: January 17, 1964, at about 4:45 a.m.
- Place: Davao Penal Colony, Municipality of Panabo, Province of Davao, Philippines.
- Victim: Regino Gasang, co-inmate at the Davao Penal Colony.
- Perpetrators: Nicolas Layson, Cezar Ragub, Cezar Fugoso and Joventino Garces — all inmates at the Davao Penal Colony serving sentences for prior convictions at the time of the homicide.
- Prior convictions of each accused (as pleaded in the source):
- Nicolas Layson: kidnapping with robbery, homicide, homicide and theft.
- Cezar Ragub: frustrated murder and homicide.
- Cezar Fugoso: robbery in an inhabited house and theft.
- Joventino Garces: robbery hold-up and robbery in an uninhabited house.
- Events in the cell: The four accused, armed with bladed weapons, entered the cell where the unsuspecting victim was; Layson locked the door of the room; acting in concert they took turns in stabbing Gasang.
- Surrender sequence: They barricaded themselves and initially refused to surrender to the trustees; they agreed to surrender only to Vicente Afurong, the supervising prison guard; Afurong identified himself and assured them of their safety, after which they handed their weapons through the hole of the barricaded door and surrendered.
- Medical outcome: Gasang died shortly after being brought to the prison hospital; cause of death was severe internal and external hemorrhage and shock, all secondary to multiple stab wounds (necropsy report, exhibit I, and diagram, exhibit J, referenced).
- Motive and preparations: Layson, Ragub and Fugoso admitted the killing was because Gasang had urinated on their coffee cups a number of times; Garces stated he killed Gasang because Gasang spat on him a week before; the four plotted to kill Gasang a few days prior to January 17, 1964; the accused obtained weapons from fellow inmates whose aid they had solicited.
Indictment / Information and Legal Basis
- Date of indictment: March 25, 1964.
- Charge: Murder, under Article 248, in relation to Article 160 (quasi-recidivism), of the Revised Penal Code.
- Substance of the information (as recited in the source): Accused, while convicts serving sentences at the Davao Penal Colony, conspiring and confederating together and helping one another, armed with sharp-pointed instruments, with treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength, and with intent to kill, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attacked, assaulted and stabbed Regino Gasang, inflicting serious injuries which caused his death; aggravating circumstances alleged included (1) recidivism as to Nicolas Layson and Cezar Ragub, and (2) all of them with two or more prior convictions.
Arraignment, Plea and Proceedings in the Trial Court
- Arraignment: Upon arraignment, all four accused, assisted by counsel de oficio, freely and spontaneously pleaded guilty.
- Trial court action despite plea: The court a quo proceeded to receive testimony because of the gravity of the offense.
- Trial court decision (dated September 30, 1965): Found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals of murder under Article 248; recognized mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty in favor of all accused; found aggravating circumstances of recidivism and prior punishments and that any two of the qualifying circumstances alleged in the information (treachery, evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength) were present; imposed sentence of death on all four, ordered indemnification to heirs of the deceased in the amount of Six Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00) jointly and severally, and ordered payment of costs proportionately; indicated no subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency by reason of the penalty imposed.
Issues Presented and Framed by the Supreme Court for Review
- Primary issues considered by the Supreme Court in the automatic review:
- Whether aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery, and the special aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism (Article 160, Revised Penal Code), were present and properly considered.
- Whether the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty should mitigate the penalty.
- Whether the circumstance of passion and obfuscation (recommended by the Solicitor General) should be recognized as mitigating.
- Whether the trial court erred in considering the aggravating circumstance of having been previously punished for two or more crimes to which the law attaches ligh