GR 44187; (November, 1981) (Digest)

G.R. No. L-44187 November 12, 1981
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GEORGE DAENG and ROLANDO CASTILLO, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

This case involves the mandatory review of a death penalty imposed by the Circuit Criminal Court at Pasig on appellants George Daeng and Rolando Castillo for the murder of fellow inmate Basilio Beltran inside the New Bilibid Prisons on December 13, 1970. The appellants, along with two others, were initially charged. In 1971, the trial court, based on their plea of guilty, sentenced all four to death. On automatic review, the Supreme Court set aside the decision, finding the accused did not fully comprehend the consequences of their plea, and remanded the case for a new arraignment. In 1973, after initially pleading not guilty, Daeng and Castillo changed their pleas to guilty and were again sentenced to death. The Supreme Court again remanded the case, this time mandating the presentation of evidence despite the guilty plea, following the doctrine in People vs. Flores.
During the third arraignment in 1976, Daeng and Castillo once more pleaded guilty. The prosecution thereafter presented evidence, including the testimony of an eyewitness prison guard and a medico-legal officer. The trial court found the crime attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery and the generic aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, obvious ungratefulness, and that the crime was committed while the appellants were serving final sentence. It imposed the death penalty but, considering the plea of guilty, recommended executive commutation to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the trial court correctly appreciated the aggravating circumstances and properly imposed the death penalty upon the appellants.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the judgment. It affirmed the conviction for murder but reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The Court held that the trial court correctly appreciated treachery. The attack was sudden and unexpected, as the victim, an inmate cadet delivering breakfast, was unarmed and unable to defend himself against the concerted assault by multiple armed inmates. This method ensured the execution of the crime without risk to the appellants.
However, the Court found that the other aggravating circumstances were not sufficiently proven. Evident premeditation requires proof of the time when the offender determined to commit the crime, an act manifestly indicating this determination, and a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution. The evidence, primarily extrajudicial confessions, did not establish these elements with clarity. Obvious ungratefulness was not applicable, as there was no evidence of a special favor received by the appellants from the victim that would create a moral duty of gratitude. The circumstance of committing a felony while serving sentence was correctly appreciated but is classified as a special aggravating circumstance under Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code, which prescribes a specific penalty and does not operate as a generic aggravating circumstance for the purpose of increasing the penalty for murder to death. With treachery qualifying the killing as murder and no other generic aggravating circumstance remaining, and with the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty, the imposable penalty under the law is reclusion perpetua.