G.R. No. L-38730 December 14, 1979
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DANILO RESURRECCION, ROMEO MARANAN, and AMADOR ATIENZA, accused-appellants.

FACTS

On March 25, 1971, inmate Suliman Santiago was stabbed to death inside the New Bilibid Prison. The prosecution’s principal witness, fellow inmate Rogelio Bulalayao, testified that he saw the three accused—Danilo Resurreccion, Romeo Maranan, and Amador Atienza—conversing suspiciously. He warned Santiago, but the latter dismissed his concern. Subsequently, the three accused approached, and Resurreccion stabbed Santiago in the back. Bulalayao witnessed all three accused, armed with improvised weapons, repeatedly stabbing Santiago, who was unarmed, as he tried to flee. The necropsy report confirmed Santiago died from multiple stab wounds, three of which were mortal.
The accused appellants denied the charges and interposed alibi, claiming they were together in their dormitory at the time of the incident. The defense also presented inmate Gilberto Llamoso, whose statement indicated he saw Maranan stab the deceased and noted the others were armed during the chase. The trial court convicted all three of murder qualified by treachery and evident premeditation, imposing the death penalty, prompting this automatic review.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted the appellants of the crime of murder, qualified by treachery and evident premeditation, warranting the imposition of the death penalty.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the conviction from murder to homicide. The Court held that treachery was not sufficiently established. The prosecution evidence did not conclusively prove that the appellants employed means, methods, or forms of execution that deliberately and consciously ensured the attack without risk to themselves from any defense the victim might make. The attack occurred in a prison setting where the victim was alerted to potential danger, and the initial stab, while from behind, was followed by a chase and a frontal struggle where the victim attempted to parry the blows. This sequence indicated that the mode of attack was not so deliberate and unexpected as to constitute treachery.
Furthermore, evident premeditation was not proven. The mere fact that the appellants were seen conversing beforehand did not constitute clear evidence of planning or reflection on the criminal act. The time interval between the alleged conspiracy and the execution was insufficient to establish that the appellants had ample opportunity to reflect on the crime’s consequences. With the qualifying circumstances absent, the crime is homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, punishable by reclusion temporal.
The Court appreciated the generic aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength, as three armed men attacked an unarmed victim. Quasi-recidivism under Article 160 was also applied against all appellants for committing a felony while serving sentence. Only Maranan was found guilty of recidivism due to a prior conviction for frustrated murder. With these aggravating circumstances and no mitigating factors, the penalty was imposed in its maximum period. Each appellant was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of twelve years of prision mayor as minimum to twenty years of reclusion temporal as maximum, with modified civil liabilities.