G.R. No. L-52832 May 14, 1985
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs. HENRY SAMIANO and REYNALDO DUSAL, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Henry Samiano and Reynaldo Dusal, while confined at the New Bilibid Prison, were charged with Murder for stabbing a fellow prisoner. The information alleged the qualifying circumstance of treachery and the generic aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and recidivism, noting prior homicide convictions for both accused. During arraignment, after brief questioning by the trial judge, both accused pleaded guilty. The judge, despite a recommendation from the prosecution for executive clemency, immediately rendered a decision imposing the death penalty. The judge based this penalty on Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code, which prescribes the maximum period of the penalty for a new felony committed by a person serving final sentence.
The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review. Counsel de oficio for the appellants assigned errors, primarily arguing that the trial court disregarded procedural guidelines for accepting pleas of guilty to capital offenses and erred in applying Article 160 to impose the death penalty.

ISSUE

The principal issue is whether the trial court correctly imposed the death penalty based on the appellants’ plea of guilty and its application of Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the decision, reducing the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The Court found the trial court erred in applying Article 160. This article requires that the accused be serving a final judgment at the time of the new felony. While the information alleged prior convictions and the appellants admitted them by their guilty plea, it did not specifically allege they were serving those sentences at the time of the murder. An admission of a prior conviction is not equivalent to an admission of actively serving the sentence for it. Therefore, the legal basis for imposing the maximum penalty (death) under Article 160 was absent.
Consequently, the applicable penalty for murder under Article 248 is reclusion temporal maximum to death. The crime was qualified by treachery and aggravated by evident premeditation. However, the appellants were entitled to the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of guilty. Under Article 64(4) of the Revised Penal Code, when mitigating and aggravating circumstances offset each other, the penalty shall be imposed in its medium period. The medium period of the prescribed penalty is reclusion perpetua. The Court thus imposed reclusion perpetua and increased the civil indemnity to P30,000.00.