People v. Tampus
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On January 14, 1976, Celso Saminado, a prisoner and patient in the emergency ward of the national penitentiary, went to the toilet. Accused Jose Tampus and Rodolfo Avila, also prisoners and tubercular patients, followed Saminado into the toilet and assaulted him with bladed weapons. Tampus inflicted eight incised wounds, and Avila stabbed him nine times. Saminado died upon arrival at the prison hospital. After the assault, Tampus and Avila surrendered to a prison guard, stating, "Surrender po kami, sir. Gumanti lang po kami." The motive for the killing was revenge for the stabbing of Eduardo Rosales, a member of the Oxo gang (to which Tampus and Avila belonged), by a member of the Batang Mindanao gang (to which Saminado belonged). Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Rizal, Makati Branch 36, convicted Jose Tampus of murder, sentencing him to death and ordering him to pay indemnity. Rodolfo Avila, his co-accused, was convicted of the same offense and sentenced to imprisonment. Avila did not appeal. The Petition: This case is an automatic review of the death sentence imposed on Jose Tampus.
Issue(s)
Whether the holding of the arraignment and hearing at the national penitentiary violated the accused's right to a public trial. Whether the extrajudicial confession of the accused was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights under Article IV, Section 20 of the Constitution. Whether the crime committed was murder, and if so, whether the aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation, and quasi-recidivism were correctly appreciated. Whether the mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty and voluntary surrender could offset the aggravating circumstances, particularly quasi-recidivism. Whether the death penalty imposed by the trial court should be affirmed.
Ruling
The judgment of the lower court as to Jose Tampus is modified. He is sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The lower court's judgment as to his civil liability is affirmed. Costs de officio.
Ratio Decidendi
On the right to a public trial: The Court ruled that the accused's right to a public trial was not violated. The venue was the New Bilibid Prison for security reasons, as directed by the Supreme Court in a related case. The record did not show that the public was actually excluded or that the accused was prejudiced. Furthermore, the accused may waive this right, and the fact that the trial was held in Bilibid Prison without objection was not a ground for reversal. On the admissibility of the extrajudicial confession: The Court found that the confession was voluntarily made and that the investigator endeavored to comply with Section 20 of the Constitution. Even if the initial interrogation by the officer of the day was questionable, the spontaneous statement made by Tampus and Avila to the prison guard immediately after the incident, admitting their act of revenge, constituted part of the res gestae and a voluntary confession. This admission was further confirmed by their extrajudicial confession, plea of guilty, and testimony in court. The Court also noted that the accused, by their actions and subsequent pleas, waived their right to remain silent and to have counsel during custodial interrogation. On the classification of the crime and aggravating circumstances: The Court affirmed that the crime was murder, correctly characterized by the prosecution and the trial court. The killing was qualified by treachery (alevosia) because the accused launched a deliberate and sudden attack upon the unarmed victim inside the toilet, ensuring the consummation of the killing without risk to themselves. Evident premeditation was also found to be an aggravating circumstance, as the accused planned the killing by arming themselves and waiting for an opportunity. Furthermore, Tampus was a quasi-recidivist, as he was serving sentences for homicide and evasion of service of sentence at the time of the assault. This special aggravating circumstance mandated the imposition of the penalty in its maximum period. On the effect of mitigating circumstances: The Court held that the mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty and voluntary surrender could not offset quasi-recidivism nor reduce the penalty. Quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance that requires the imposition of the penalty in its maximum period. When death is prescribed as a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied regardless of any generic mitigating circumstances, as per Article 160 and Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code. On the imposition of the death penalty: Although the crime was murder qualified by treachery and aggravated by evident premeditation and quasi-recidivism, which would ordinarily warrant the death penalty, the Court stated that for lack of the requisite ten votes, the death penalty could not be affirmed. Consequently, it was commuted to reclusion perpetua.
Main Doctrine
Quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance that, when present, calls for the imposition of the maximum penalty for the crime, even if generic mitigating circumstances like a plea of guilty and voluntary surrender are present. However, the death penalty cannot be affirmed for lack of the requisite ten votes and must be commuted to reclusion perpetua.