G.R. No. L-32274. April 2, 1984.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMEO VILLANUEVA, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The case involves a prison killing at the New Bilibid Prison. The defendants-appellants, all convicts serving final sentences, were charged with the murder of fellow inmate Bonifacio Davis y Aldamea. The prosecution established that the killing was an act of gang retaliation. Following the murder of two members of the Sigue-Sigue Gang by the OXO Gang on December 6, 1969, the Sigue-Sigue members planned revenge. On December 8, 1969, appellants, armed with improvised weapons, rushed out of their dormitory under the pretext of a prisoner release. They attacked a group of OXO inmates, specifically catching and stabbing Davis to death. The postmortem examination revealed multiple fatal stab wounds. Several appellants initially pleaded not guilty but later withdrew to plead guilty, receiving the death penalty from the trial court. The others proceeded to trial, where the court, based on evidence including sworn statements, found them guilty of murder qualified by treachery and evident premeditation, and imposed the death penalty due to their status as quasi-recidivists.

ISSUE

The core issue for automatic review is whether the death penalty was correctly imposed on the appellants, who are quasi-recidivists convicted of murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder but modified the penalty. The legal logic proceeds from the application of the Revised Penal Code provisions on quasi-recidivism. Under Article 160, a quasi-recidivist—a person who commits a felony after having been convicted by final judgment and while serving sentence—shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony. For the crime of murder under Article 248, the prescribed penalty is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. Applying Article 160, the maximum of this range, which is death, is therefore imposed. The Court clarified that while judges may have personal opinions on the death penalty, their judicial duty is to apply the law as written by the legislature. However, in the exercise of its review powers and considering the contributory, deplorable conditions within the penitentiary described by the trial judge, the Court en banc did not muster the necessary votes to affirm the death sentence. Consequently, the penalty was commuted to reclusion perpetua. Following precedent, the indemnity to the victim’s heirs was increased from P12,000.00 to P30,000.00. The cases against deceased appellants were dismissed.