G.R. No. L-38624 July 25, 1975
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff and appellee, vs. CONRADO BAUTISTA and GERARDO ABUHIN, defendants and appellants.

FACTS

The case involves a mandatory review of the death penalty imposed on appellants Conrado Bautista and Gerardo Abuhin, convicted prisoners at the New Bilibid Prison, for the murder of fellow inmate Basilio Beltran. The prosecution evidence established that on December 13, 1970, while prison guard Armando Miranda was opening the cell door of the Sigue-Sigue Sputnik Gang, the appellants, along with two other already-sentenced prisoners, rushed out. They attacked and stabbed Beltran, who was then carrying the gang’s breakfast ration. The victim sustained twelve stab wounds from improvised weapons and died instantly. The information alleged the qualifying circumstance of treachery and the generic aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and obvious ungratefulness.
At trial, the prosecution presented evidence of the concerted attack. The appellants initially pleaded not guilty. During the proceedings, Bautista attempted to change his plea to guilty but later recanted during cross-examination, reverting to a defense of alibi and claiming his extrajudicial confession was coerced. Abuhin similarly denied participation. The trial court rejected these defenses, finding the prosecution’s evidence, including their admissions to investigators, credible. It convicted them of murder and imposed the supreme penalty.

ISSUE

The core issue for review is whether the death penalty was correctly imposed upon the appellants for the crime of murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and the imposition of the death penalty. The legal logic rests on two pivotal grounds: the proper classification of the crime and the mandatory application of Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code. First, the Court upheld the trial court’s finding that the killing was attended by treachery. The attack was sudden and concerted, executed while the victim was holding food items in both hands, utterly unable to defend himself. This manner of execution squarely qualifies the crime as murder.
Second, and decisively, the Court applied Article 160, which mandates that a person who commits a felony while serving sentence for a previous final conviction shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed for the new felony. The appellants were serving final sentences at the time of the murder. The prescribed penalty for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. Applying Article 160, the Court was compelled to impose the maximum of this range—death—irrespective of the presence or absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances. While the trial court correctly found the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and obvious ungratefulness, these were not necessary for reaching the death penalty under the mandatory command of Article 160. The judgment was affirmed in toto.