G.R. No. L-19069, October 29,
1968
People of the Philippines
vs Amadeo Peralta
Facts:
February 1958, Peralta among
other inmates of New Bilibid Prisons, conspired and mutually helped one
another, with evident premeditation and treachery, armed with deadly weapons,
feloniously killed Jose Carriego, Eugene Barnosa and Santos Cruz, also convicts
of New Bilibid. Aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism is present because
the crime was committed while the offenders were convicted by final judgments.
Upon motion of the fiscal
before trial, the lower court dismissed the charge against one of the accused
for lack of evidence. After prosecution of the case, the charge against 6
accused were dismissed for failure to establish a prima facie case against
them. After trial, 5 of the accused were also acquitted, then 1 died.
Issues:
(1) it fails to consider the
legality of imposing multiple capital penalties; (2) it fails to distinguish
between imposition of penalty and service of sentence; (3) it ignores the fact
that multiple death sentences could be served simultaneously; and (4) it
overlooks the practical merits of imposing multiple death penalties.
Ruling:
The evidence on record proves
beyond peradventure that the accused acted in concert from the moment they
bolted their common brigade, up until the time they killed their last victim,
Santos Cruz. While it is true that Parumog, Larita and Luna did not participate
in the actual killing of Carriego, nonetheless, as co-conspirators they are
equally guilty and collectively liable for in conspiracy the act of one is the
act of all. It is not indispensable that a co-conspirator should take a direct
part in every act and should know the part which the others have to perform.
Conspiracy is the common design to commit a felony; it is not participation in
all the details of the execution of the crime. All those who in one way or
another help and cooperate in the consummation of a felony previously planned
are co-principals. Hence, all of the six accused are guilty of the slaughter of
Carriego, Barbosa and Santos Cruz — each is guilty of three separate and
distinct crimes of murder.
Multiple death penalties are
not impossible to serve because they will have to be executed simultaneously. A
cursory reading of article 70 will show that there are only two modes of
serving two or more (multiple) penalties: simultaneously or successively. The
first rule is that two or more penalties shall be served simultaneously if the
nature of the penalties will so permit. In the case of multiple capital
penalties, the nature of said penal sanctions does not only permit but actually
necessitates simultaneous service.
In view of the attendance of
the special aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism, as all of the six
accused at the time of the commission of the offenses were serving sentences in
the New Bilibid Prison at Muntinlupa by virtue of convictions by final
judgments the penalty for each offense must be imposed in its maximum period,
which is the mandate of the first paragraph of article 160 of the Revised Penal
Code. Viada observes, in a position, that the severe penalty imposed on a
quasi-recidivist is justified because of his perversity and incorrigibility.
ACCORDINGLY, the judgment a
quo is hereby modified as follows: Amadeo Peralta, Andres Factora, Leonardo
Dosal, Angel Parumog, Gervasio Larita and Florencio Luna are each pronounced
guilty of three separate and distinct crimes of murder, and are each sentenced
to three death penalties; all of them shall, jointly and severally, indemnify
the heirs of each of the three deceased victims in the sum of P12,000; each
will pay one-sixth of the costs.
maam thank po sa digest mo
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Deleteno problem, just paying it forward. Got saved by online digests too.
ReplyDelete