G.R. No. L-25177 October 31, 1969
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NICOLAS LAYSON, CEZAR RAGUB, CEZAR FUGOSO and JOVENTINO GARCES, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The four accused, Nicolas Layson, Cezar Ragub, Cezar Fugoso, and Joventino Garces, were inmates serving sentences at the Davao Penal Colony. On January 17, 1964, armed with bladed weapons, they conspired and entered the cell of fellow inmate Regino Gasang. Layson locked the door, and without warning, they took turns stabbing Gasang, who died from multiple stab wounds. Their motives were that Gasang had urinated on their coffee cups several times (for Layson, Ragub, and Fugoso) and had spat on Garces a week prior. They had plotted the killing a few days before. They were indicted for Murder under Article 248 in relation to Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code. Upon arraignment, all four pleaded guilty. The trial court, notwithstanding the plea, received testimony due to the gravity of the offense and sentenced all accused to death, considering mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly imposed the death penalty on the accused, considering the circumstances of the crime and the applicable law.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the death penalty. The crime was qualified as Murder due to the presence of treachery, as the attack was sudden and insured the victim’s inability to resist. Evident premeditation was present but considered only as a generic aggravating circumstance, which was offset by the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty. The Court rejected the Solicitor General’s suggestion to consider passion and obfuscation as a mitigating circumstance, as sufficient time had elapsed between the provocative acts and the killing for the accused to regain equanimity. The special aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism under Article 160 was correctly applied, as all accused were serving sentences at the time of the crime. This circumstance requires imposition of the maximum penalty for the new felony (reclusion temporal maximum to death for murder) and cannot be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance like plea of guilty. Thus, the Court was left with no alternative but to affirm the death penalty. The trial court erred in considering the aggravating circumstance of “reiteracion” (previous punishment for two or more crimes), as this requires the prior sentences to have been served, which was not the case here. The indemnity to the victim’s heirs was increased to P12,000.00.