G.R. Nos. L-38346-47, October 23, 1964
People of the Philippines vs. Teofilo Dioso and Jacinto Abarca

FACTS

The case involves appellants Teofilo Dioso and Jacinto Abarca, who were already serving sentences at the New Bilibid Prison. Dioso was serving time for robbery and Abarca for homicide. They were members of the “Batang Mindanao” gang. The victims, Angelito Reyno and Fernando Gomez, were members of the rival “Happy Go Lucky” gang. The appellants suspected the victims of killing a fellow gang member, Balerio, and plotted revenge.
On September 12, 1972, the appellants entered the prison hospital where the victims were confined. Abarca feigned illness to gain entry, accompanied by Dioso. Inside Ward 6, they located their victims: Reyno was eating breakfast, and Gomez was lying on a bed under a mosquito net. After a brief exchange, both appellants suddenly drew improvised knives. Abarca stabbed Gomez, while Dioso simultaneously attacked Reyno. After Reyno fell, Dioso joined Abarca to further attack Gomez. They then surrendered to a prison guard in the corridor and handed over their weapons.

ISSUE

Whether the penalty of death imposed by the trial court was proper, considering the appellants’ plea of guilty and voluntary surrender, and their status as quasi-recidivists.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The trial court correctly found the crime was committed with treachery (alevosia), as the victims were attacked suddenly and were in no position to defend themselves—Reyno while eating and Gomez while lying down. The appellants’ extrajudicial confessions, which they acknowledged as voluntary, detailed the execution and motive (revenge for a gangmate’s death).
The Court rejected the argument that the mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty and voluntary surrender should attenuate the penalty. The appellants were quasi-recidivists under Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code, having committed a new felony (murder) while serving final sentences for previous crimes. For quasi-recidivists, the law imposes the maximum period of the penalty prescribed for the new offense, irrespective of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances. For murder, the maximum penalty is death.
However, due to the lack of the requisite votes for the imposition of the death penalty at the time, the Court, en banc, commuted the sentence. The death sentences were reduced to reclusion perpetua. The appellants were also ordered to jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of the deceased.