Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
SYNOPSIS
Appellant Alberto Abrea, an escapee from the Davao Prison and Penal Farm and
under temporary detention at Zamboanga del Norte Provincial Jail, was charged of
murder by in icting a stab wound upon the victim, Anatalio Coca, another inmate of
said provincial jail, who, according to an eyewitness, was stabbed from behind while in
the act of receiving his food ration from another detention prisoner, as a result of which
he died. During the arraignment, accused-appellant entered a plea of guilty, but before
the trial court received the evidence for the prosecution, he was informed of the
probability of a verdict of death and was allowed to withdraw such plea if that be his
desire. Appellant Abrea, however, held on to his original plea of guilty, but hastened to
ask the court that he be accorded leniency in the imposition of the penalty. The trial
court found appellant guilty as charged and sentenced him to death, the felony having
been committed while appellant was serving sentence by virtue of a nal judgment and
attended by the aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation. On
automatic review, his counsel de o cio assailed the imposition of the death penalty,
claiming that there was no evident premeditation.
The Supreme Court held that notwithstanding the mitigating circumstance of the
plea of guilty in the appellant's favor and the absence of evident premeditation, the
correct penalty is still death, for the appellant is a quasi- recidivist and being such,
Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code mandates the imposition of "the maximum
period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony" and according to Article 248
of the same code; murder is punishable by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to
death.
Judgment a rmed, but for lack of the required number of votes, the death
penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua.
SYLLABUS
DECISION
ABAD SANTOS , J : p
In the brief led by Atty. Ramon A. Gonzales, counsel de o cio of the accused, it
is admitted that the facts are correctly stated in the decision of the trial court. Copied
below are the quoted portions of the decision in the brief of the appellant, namely: prcd
"The amended information, signed and led by Third Assistant City Fiscal
Dalmacio M. Tubungbanua on September 2, 1980, alleged:
"On September 4, 1980, the Court before receiving the evidence of the
prosecution, invited the accused to the rostrum, asking him if he understands the
meaning of his plea of guilt; whether he knows that, by such plea to the amended
information, he may suffer the maximum penalty of DEATH. The Court informed
accused Abrea that he can still be allowed to withdraw his previous plea of
GUILTY to one of NOT GUILTY if that be his desire. Accused respondent in saying
that he is not changing his said plea of guilty, but hastened to ask the Court that
he be accorded leniency in the imposition of the penalty.
"Defense witness Quintero's version was that, the victim (Anatalio Coca),
and the assailant (Alberto Abrea) had two confrontations during that afternoon of
the stabbing incident. The rst, according to him, occurred at the jail's mess hall
when victim Coca berated assailant Abrea why the latter, even if already given
cooked corn grits, also asks raw corn grits ration, to which Abrea retorted, 'Who
are you to question and felt aggrieved?' Quintero noticed Abrea moving out from
the mess hall and went to his special cell. The next thing he (Quintero) noticed
was victim Coca, then an inmate in prison cell No. 1, proceeding to the special cell
where accused Abrea was, and from the outside of the wooden bars of the door,
brandished a kitchen knife against herein accused Abrea. Unable to enter the
special cell, victim Coca left Abrea in his cell and went to the direction of the jail's
administrative o ce. Same defense witness (Quintero) testi ed he saw accused
Abrea following the path of victim Coca towards the administrative o ce
moments later. The next thing he noticed was the unusual movements of the jail
guards. It was the stabbing of Coca by Abrea.
"Accused Abrea declared that about two (2) weeks before he stabbed his
victim Coca, the latter accosted him for having indulged in conversation with his
(Coca's) woman, a jail inmate, by the name of Regina Penaso. Abrea explained he
was never intending to disaffect the attention of Regina Penaso on Anatalio
Coca. He asked forgiveness from the latter, promising not to converse anymore
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
with the woman.
"Abrea corroborated the testimony of defense witness Quintero, in that he
(Abrea) and victim Coca were having an oral confrontation at the jail's mess hall
in the afternoon of August 20, 1980 concerning Coca's disapproval of Abrea's
practice in asking cooked corn grits, as well as raw corn grits for a single meal
ration. Abrea also con rmed that Coca went to his special cell brandishing a
kitchen knife. When the latter went to the direction of the warden's o ce, he
followed him there and stabbed Coca." (Appellant's brief, pp. 1-4.).
The trial judge faithfully followed the prescribed procedure in capital cases
where the accused pleaded guilty - which is to require the prosecution to present
evidence so as to substantiate the allegations in the information and thus guard against
improvident admissions of guilt.
We have gone over the record of the case and the facts are indeed as stated by
the court a quo and admitted by the counsel for the appellant.
In the session of September 4, 1980, the following took place in respect of the
plea of guilty made by the accused:
"COURT:
A I confirm that.
Q The Court will still allow you to withdraw your plea of guilty if you
have changed your mind. Your plea of guilty made on September 2,
1980 might not have been understood by you as to its significance.
Q It is not the Judge that will impose your penalty. It is the law. And
because of your plea, to give you the last chance, you should
understand that your said plea of guilty may mean imposition upon
you of a death penalty.
A I would just like to request that, if possible, the penalty to be imposed
upon me would be lighter. That is my wish.
Q But the Court tells you now that it is very possible that you will be
given death penalty. You will still not enter the plea of not guilty?
A I still enter the plea of guilty.
COURT:
Alright. You take him to his seat. Evidence for the prosecution in this
case." (tsn, Hamoy, pp. 2-3.).
Warlito Caipang, 19 years old and a detention prisoner at the Provincial Jail of
Zamboanga del Norte, was an eye-witness to the killing. His testimony reads in part:
"Q You remember where you were on Wednesday, August 20, 1980, at
about 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon?
A Yes, sir.
A He is already dead.
Q And because he was stabbed by Alberto Abrea?
A Yes, sir.
Q Have you seen when Abrea, Alberto Abrea, stabbed Anatalio Coca?
A Yes, sir.
Q What was Anatalio Coca then doing at the time he was stabbed by
Alberto Abrea?
A I was near.
Q At the left side, right side, back or front of him, of Coca?
A I was on the right side of Coca.
Q When Abrea stabbed Coca, was there an altercation before the
stabbing or there was none?
A None.
Q Before Abrea hit Coca, did you see Abrea proceeding to the place
where Coca was?
A Yes, sir.
A He was bending.
Q Was he facing Abrea at the time when he was stabbed at the left side
of his back?
A His back was facing Alberto Abrea.
Q In other words, Coca, when stabbed by Abrea, was not aware that
Abrea was at his back?
ATTY. BARRERA:
We object, Your Honor. The witness would be incompetent to answer
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
that.
COURT:
Reform it.
FISCAL TUBUNGBANUA:
(to the witness).
Q Did Coca notice that Abrea was proceeding towards him?
A No, sir.
A No, sir.
Q After he stood up, what did Coca do then?
A He sat down.
Q After sitting down, what happened?
A A guard of the jail approached him.
Q And he remained sitting all the time when the guard was approaching
him?
A Yes, sir.
Q How long had he been sitting?
A For quite a period of time.
Q After sitting down, what did he do or what happened?
A After that, he died."
The appellant testi ed that he was at the Provincial Jail of Zamboanga del Norte
because he escaped from the Davao Penal Colony on July 4, 1980; that he had known
Anatalio Coca in the provincial jail and with whom he had arguments because Coca
accused him of grabbing Coca's common-law wife who was also an inmate at the
provincial jail and also because of their food rations; that Coca was well-built and a
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
bully; and that because of their differences he decided to stab Coca with a hunting knife
which he had buried near the jail's kitchen.
The evidence on record is su ciently convincing to show that the appellant is
indeed guilty of murder quali ed by treachery. He stabbed his victim from behind and
the attack was sudden and unexpected.
Counsel de o cio asserts, however, in the lone assignment of error that "the
lower court erred in imposing the death penalty on the accused." He claims that there
was no evident premeditation and he is right for there is nothing in the record which We
have examined to show when the plan to kill the victim was hatched. The following
testimony of the appellant is revealing:
"Q While you were in the special cell what happened?
A I closed the door of the special cell and Anatalio Coca arrived.
Q How did you close the door of the special cell?
A There is a wire inside attached to the door which I have to tie with a
nail.
Q Have you finished closing the door when Anatalio Coca arrived?
A Yes, sir.
A Corn grits.
ATTY. BARRERA:
Q You want to tell this Honorable Court there was very little interval of
time from the time Coca left your special cell and you followed him?
A Yes, sir.
Q You did not have any time to think before you followed Coca when he
left?
A No more.
Q Why did you follow Coca?
The Solicitor General argues that when the appellant pleaded guilty he admitted
the material allegations in the information including the circumstances qualifying
and/or aggravating the crime and consequently he can not now disclaim that he
committed the crime without evident premeditation. We do not agree. The precise
purpose of the automatic review in capital cases is to open the entire record for
scrutiny so that a human life will not be lost thru a miscarriage of justice by
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
misappreciation of the evidence.
But the absence of evident premeditation cannot alter the imposition of the
death penalty. For the appellant is a quasi-recidivist and Article 160 of the Revised
Penal Code mandates the imposition of "the maximum period of the penalty prescribed
by law for the new felony." According to Article 248 of the same code, murder is
punishable by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. Hence,
notwithstanding the mitigating circumstance of the plea of guilty in the appellant's
favor, the correct penalty is still death. (People vs. Alicia, G.R. No. L-38176, January 22,
1980, 95 SCRA 227; People vs. Majuri, G.R. No. 38833, March 12, 1980, 96 SCRA 472.)
Judge Simplicio M. Apalisok who imposed the death sentence on the appellant
added the following:
"From the facts and circumstances gathered during the trial and, from the
documentary evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defense, the
following were brought to the attention of the Court:
"The penalty of DEATH now being willed by the Court against assailant
Abrea comes to the fore, coincidentally when modern penologists have different
schools of thought regarding death penalties. The present-day discussion of
penologists and other learned men, pro and con on the imposition of death
penalty, taken together to the factual circumstance that inmate-victim Anatalio
Coca was himself brutal, notoriously perverse and a clear danger to society, this
Court with bated breath, has to recommend, as it hereby RECOMMENDS to the
Chief Executive of the land, the granting of an executive clemency to herein
accused ALBERTO ABREA y Arancon, by the commutation of the herein death
conviction to LIFE IMPRISONMENT.
WHEREFORE, the judgment of the court a quo nding the appellant guilty of
murder is hereby a rmed but for lack of the required number of votes the penalty
imposed is reduced to reclusion perpetua; the judgment in respect of the civil
indemnity and cost is likewise affirmed. No costs.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
SO ORDERED.
Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Fernandez,
Guerrero, De Castro, Melencio-Herrera, Ericta, Plana and Escolin, JJ., concur.