G.R. No. L-68858 May 30, 1986
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CRISPINO OCHAVIDO and ROMAN DE OCAMPO, accused-appellants.

FACTS

The case involves the automatic review of a death penalty sentence imposed by the Circuit Criminal Court of Pasig. Accused-appellants Crispino Ochavido and Roman de Ocampo, both inmates serving sentences at the New Bilibid Prison, were convicted of murder for the killing of fellow inmate Gavino Caponpon on January 1, 1978, inside Brigade 13 of the penitentiary. The information alleged the crime was committed with treachery and evident premeditation, with the aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism, as the accused were serving final sentences at the time.
During the trial, both appellants admitted in open court to stabbing the victim. Ochavido testified he stabbed Caponpon once, while de Ocampo stabbed him three times, using an improvised weapon. The prosecution presented the necropsy report, which detailed multiple fatal stab wounds to the chest and abdomen, causing severe hemorrhage as the cause of death. The appellants also submitted a letter to the Minister of Justice, claiming they killed Caponpon upon the orders of other inmates, the Gallardo brothers, for a promised reward.

ISSUE

The primary issue for review is the correctness of the penalty imposed by the trial court—specifically, whether the death penalty was proper given the presence of the aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism and the absence of any mitigating circumstance.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision, reducing the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua. The Court affirmed the conviction for murder, qualified by treachery, as the appellants attacked the victim while he was sitting and unable to defend himself. However, the Court ruled that the aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism could not be validly considered in this case.
The legal logic is anchored on Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code, which prescribes the penalty for a new felony committed by a person serving sentence. The Court clarified that quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance that alters the penalty calculation. For crimes punishable by two indivisible penalties, like murder (reclusion temporal maximum to death), Article 160 mandates the imposition of the maximum period of the prescribed penalty. Crucially, the Court held that quasi-recidivism itself is not an ordinary aggravating circumstance to be offset against mitigating circumstances under the rules of Article 63. Since no other aggravating or mitigating circumstances were present, the prescribed rule under Article 63(2) applies: when only the qualifying circumstance of treachery is present, the penalty shall be imposed in its medium period. Therefore, the correct penalty is reclusion perpetua, not death. The indemnity to the heirs was also awarded.