People v. Lao y Ricardo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: At about 10:00 PM on May 21, 1986, during a drinking spree among inmates in Cell No. 3 of the Lucena City Jail, a singing session led by Norberto Reynoso turned violent. At a signal from appellant Lao, appellant Divino and others assaulted Reynoso, boxing and kicking him. When Reynoso fell, Merelo pulled him up and dragged him towards the cell door. After a prison guard warned the inmates, Merelo again pulled Reynoso to a corner while others blocked the cell door. Lao ordered, "Patayin na si Reynoso." Jovellano hit Reynoso with a piece of wood, followed by Merelo, Lao, and Palermo who also stabbed Reynoso with a crudely-fashioned knife. The police, after cutting through the cell bars, eventually flushed out the inmates with tear gas. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court, Branch 54, Lucena City, found the seven defendants guilty of murder, sentencing each to reclusion perpetua and ordering them to pay civil indemnity and funeral expenses. The Petition: The defendants appealed the decision, insisting the trial court erred in finding them guilty.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in finding the defendants guilty of murder. Whether the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength was correctly considered as a qualifying circumstance. Whether the aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism should have been considered.
Ruling
The appealed judgment is affirmed, except that the indemnity for the death of the victim is increased to P50,000.00. Costs are against the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi
On the guilt of the defendants: The Court affirmed the trial court's findings, giving high respect to the factual findings of the judge who observed the witnesses' demeanor. The defendants' testimonies were contradictory, vague, and general. Their participation was clear as they were identified by prosecution witnesses and refused to come out of the cell voluntarily. Their claims of being asleep were not credible given the small size of the cell and the commotion. The positive identification by prosecution witnesses prevailed over the defendants' simple denial. The crime was murder, qualified by treachery, as the seven appellants attacked the unarmed victim while he was unaware, and they incurred no risk. They also barricaded the cell door to prevent escape or rescue. The presence of conspiracy was established, with all appellants animated by the same purpose to kill Reynoso, making the act of one the act of all. On the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength: The Court ruled that abuse of superior strength was not a qualifying circumstance because it was absorbed by treachery. Treachery was present because the attack was sudden and unexpected, with the victim having no means to defend himself. The appellants' numerical superiority and use of weapons were part of the treacherous manner of the attack, ensuring no risk to themselves. On the aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism: The Court noted that the special aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism under Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code should have been considered, as the crime was committed while the accused were serving sentence. However, this would not have affected the penalty imposable, as the maximum penalty of reclusion perpetua had already been imposed by the trial court.
Main Doctrine
The crime committed was murder, qualified by treachery, for the appellants, numbering seven, attacked their lone victim while he was gaily singing, with no inkling whatsoever that he would be attacked. He was unarmed. The appellants were armed with a wooden club and a knife as they took turns in savagely beating and stabbing him in different parts of his body. And, knowing the futility of fighting back, Reynoso made no attempt to defend himself, hence, his attackers incurred no risk at all to themselves in the execution of the crime. Furthermore, to assure that Reynoso would neither escape nor be rescued, the appellants barricaded the door of the prison cell where they killed him in obedience to Lao's command: 'Patayin na si Reynoso'. Abuse of superior strength was absorbed by treachery. The presence of quasi-recidivism should have been considered but would not affect the penalty imposable.