Friday, November 25, 2016

G.R. No. L-19069 Case Digest

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.

3 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  2. no problem, just paying it forward. Got saved by online digests too.

    ReplyDelete