This is an automatic review of the sentences of the Circuit Criminal Court at Pasig, Rizal, in Criminal Case No. CCC-VII-966 imposing the death penalty on all the accused.

Sometime in February 1972, Romeo Corpuz, Hernanie Soto, Danilo Chico, Pablito Abasula, Rogelio Corpuz, Reynaldo Godoy, Ricardo Mabalot, Victor Bangayan, Felipe Alcera and Miguel Coro, all prisoners at the New Bilibid Prisons in Muntinlupa, Rizal, were charged with murder and frustrated murder in the following information:

 

"That on or about December 30, 1970, in the New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa, Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused while then confined at the said institution, being members of the 'Commando Gang', conspiring, confederating, and acting together and armed with improvised deadly weapons, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault and wound RODOLFO LEGASPI, No. 66548-P; ANTONIO SILVA, No. 74855-P; LEODEGARIO FAJARTIN, No. 74193-P; LEONARDO FUENTES, No. 34840-C and MANUEL ARCIAGA, No. 73253-P, all convicted prisoners serving final sentences at the New Bilibid Prison, in the different parts of their bodies, inflicting upon the person of Rodolfo Legaspi and Antonio Silva, multiple stab wounds, while the latter were then unarmed and unable to defends themselves from the attack launched by the accused, as a result of which the said Rodolfo Legaspi and Antonio Silva died instantly; and upon the person of Leodegario Fajartin, Leonardo Fuentes and Manuel Arciaga, who then were also unarmed and unable to defend themselves, stab wounds in various parts of their bodies, which injuries would have caused their death, the said accused performing all the acts of execution which would have given rise to the offense of Murder as a consequence, but which neverthe-less was not produced by reason of the timely medical attention extended the injured by the New Bilibid Prison Hospital.

 

That the offense was committed by the above accused attended by the qualifying circumstances of treachery and the generic aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and recidivism, the accused Romeo Corpuz and Pablito Abasula, serving final sentences for Homicide, and sentenced by the Courts of First Instance of Quezon City and Batangas on April 21, 1969 and April 10, 1969, respectively, the accused Ricardo Mabalot, serving final sentences for Robbery with Homicide, sentenced by the Criminal Circuit Court of Manila on May 15, 1970; the accused Danilo Chico serving final sentences for Attempted Homicide, and sentenced by the Court of First Instance of Caloocan City on December 23, 1969, at the time the above offense was committed.

 

CONTRARY TO LAW.

 

Muntinlupa, Rizal, for Pasig, Rizal, February 7, 1972.

 

(Sgd.) FRANCISCO Ma. GUERRERO
  Special Prosecutor"^[1] 

Upon being arraigned, all the accused pleaded not guilty. However, on July 29, 1972, after the prosecution had rested its case, the accused, Romeo Corpuz, Victor Bangayan and Hernanie Soto, were permitted to withdraw their plea of not guilty and to substitute the same with a plea of guilty after the trial court had apprised them of the consequences of their plea of guilty. They were each sentenced to suffer the death penalty for the crime of murder, to indemnify the heirs of the victims Rodolfo Legaspi and Antonio Silva in the amount of P12,000.00 each, and to pay P12,000.00 as exemplary damages, and the further sum of P12,000.00 as moral damages, and to suffer triple the penalty of, from ten years and one day of prision mayor as minimum, to seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal  as maximum, for the offense of frustrated murder, to pay Leodegario Fajartin, Leonardo Fuentes and Manuel Arciaga the amount of P10,000.00 each as moral damages and, another P10,000.00 each as exemplary damages, and to pay their proportionate share of the costs. The Court recommended to the Chief Executive, through the Board of Pardons and Parole, that the death penalty imposed on them be commuted to life imprisonment.^[2]

On August 12, 1972, after the prosecution had also rested its case, the accused, Felipe Alcera, after he was apprised by the trial court of the consequences of his plea of guilty, was permitted to change his plea of not guilty to that of guilty. The trial court sentenced Felipe Alcera to suffer the death penalty for the crime of murder, to indemnify, jointly and severally, with his co-accused Romeo Corpuz, Victor Bangayan and Hernanie Soto, the heirs of the victims Rodolfo Legaspi and Antonio Silva, the amount of P12,000.00 each, and to pay P12,000.00 as moral damages, and another P12,000.00 as exemplary damages, and to suffer triple the penalty of, from ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal  as maximum, for the offense of frustrated murder, to pay Leodegario Fajartin, Leonardo Fuentes and Manuel Arciaga the amount of P10,000.00 each as moral damages and another P10,000.00 each as exemplary damages, and to pay his proportionate share of the costs. The court also recommended to the President of the Philippines, through the Department of Justice, the commutation to reclusion perpetua of the death penalty imposed upon said accused.^[3]

The other accused, Danilo Chico, Pablito Abasula, Rogelio Corpuz, Reynaldo Godoy, Ricardo Mabalot and Miguel Coro who had pleaded not guilty did not change their plea. After trial they were found guilty of the crimes charged and each one of them was sentenced to suffer double the penalty of death, to indemnify the heirs of the victims in the amount of P12,000.00 each, to pay the heirs of the deceased the amount of P5,000.00 each as moral damages and another P5,000.00 each as exemplary damages, and for the near fatal slaying of Leodegario Fajartin, Leonardo Fuentes and Manuel Arciaga, each of the accused was sentenced to suffer triple the penalty of, from seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to twenty years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, to pay the victims the amount of P5,000.00 each as moral damages and another P5,000.00 each as exemplary damages, and to pay their proportionate shares of the costs.^[4]

The counsel de officio of the defendants assigned the following errors:

 

"ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

 

I

 

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN SENTENCING TO DEATH THE DEFENDANTS ROMEO CORPUZ, VICTOR BANGAYAN, FELIPE ALCERA AND HERNANIE SOTO WITHOUT THE DEFENDANTS BEING PREVIOUSLY INFORMED OF THE NATURE OF THE CHARGES AGAINST THEM AND THE QUALIFYING AND AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES RECITED IN THE INFORMATION.

 

II

 

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT 'IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORD THAT THE FOLLOWING ACCUSED: DANILO CHICO, PABLITO ABASOLA, ROGELIO CORPUZ, REYNALDO GUDOY, RICARDO MABALOT AND MIGUEL CORO WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STABBING OF THE VICTIMS'.

 

III

 

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT 'ALTHOUGH IT IS PROBABLE THAT NOT ALL (ACCUSED) INFLICTED FATAL WOUNDS ON THE FIVE VICTIMS, ALL ARE LIABLE FOR THE RESULTING CRIMES OF MURDER AND FRUSTRATED MURDER BECAUSE IN CONSPIRACY, THE ACT OF ONE IS THE ACT OF ALL'.

 

IV

 

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT 'CONSPIRACY WAS ATTENDANT IN THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME CHARGED'.

 

V

 

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT THE ADMISSIONS OF ROMEO CORPUZ, HERNANIE SOTO, VICTOR BANGAYAN AND FELIPE ALCERA ARE OF DOUBTFUL PROBATIVE VALUE AND SHOULD BE REJECTED AS EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF THEIR CO-DEFENDANTS.

 

VI

 

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT REJECTING THE SO-CALLED EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSIONS OF THE DEFENDANTS DANILO CHICO, PABLITO ABASOLA, ROGELIO CORPUZ, REYNALDO GODOY, RICARDO MABALOT AND MIGUEL CORO AS INADMISSIBLE FOR HAVING BEEN EXTRACTED BY MEANS OF INTIMIDATION, FORCE AND VIOLENCE.

 

VII

 

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED DANILO CHICO, PABLITO ABASOLA, ROGELIO CORPUZ, REYNALDO GODOY, RICARDO MABALOT AND MIGUEL CORO GUILTY OF THE CRIMES OF MURDER AND FRUSTRATED MURDER.

 

VIII

 

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY OF THE CRIMES OF DEATH IN A TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY.

 

IX

 

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN APPLYING ARTICLE 160 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE IN THE IMPOSITION OF THE PENALTY ON THE SIX ACCUSED.

 

X

 

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THE ACCUSED INNOCENT OF THE CRIMES OF MURDER AND FRUSTRATED MURDER."^[5] 

The submission of the defendants Romeo Corpuz, Victor Bangayan, Felipe Alcera and Hernanie Soto that they were sentenced to death without having been previously informed of the nature of the charges against them and of the qualifying and aggravating circumstances recited in the information is without merit. These defendants originally pleaded not guilty. They changed their plea to guilty only after the prosecution had rested its case. They were, therefore, fully apprised not only of the allegations in the information but of the entire evidence of the prosecution.

Moreover, it appears of record that the trial court called the attention of the defendants to the gravity of the charges against them. The defendants changed their plea of not guilty to guilty assisted by counsel and fully aware of the consequences.

The second and seventh errors assigned are interrelated and have been discussed jointly by the defendants and by the appellee. A perusal of the evidence of record reveals that the trial court erred when it held that the six (6) defendants, together with the four (4) who had previously pleaded guilty, are responsible for the death of Rodolfo Legaspi and Antonio Silva.

Leodegario Fajartin declared that the persons who stabbed Rodolfo Legaspi were the two (2) Corpuzes and that he did not know Antonio Silva because they were many.^[6]  Manuel Arciaga testified that he was stabbed by Hernanie Soto and that he could not point to the persons who stabbed Rodolfo Legaspi because he was quite far from them.^[7]

The National Bureau of Investigation physician, Dr. Ricardo Ibarrola, testified that Rodolfo Legaspi sustained three (3) stab wounds; that said wounds could not have been inflicted by more than three (3) persons; and that Antonio Silva sustained two (2) stab wounds which could not have been inflicted by more than two (2) persons. Said doctor also declared that the stab wounds sustained by Rodolfo Legaspi could have been inflicted by one person and that it was very difficult, if not impossible, that the five (5) wounds sustained by Legaspi and Silva were inflicted by ten (10) persons.^[8]  It is clear, therefore, that only the four (4) defendants who pleaded guilty, namely, Romeo Corpuz, Victor Bangayan, Felipe Alcera and Hernanie Soto can be convicted of the fatal stabbing of Rodolfo Legaspi and Antonio Silva.

Anent the third and fourth errors assigned, the defendants contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the existence of conspiracy in the commission of the crimes charged. This contention is meritorious.

There is no competent evidence of record to show that all the defendants previously agreed to kill Rodolfo Legaspi and Antonio Silva. Conspiracy can only be deduced from the alleged confessions of the six (6) defendants. These alleged confessions, however, are not sufficient to establish conspiracy, it appearing that said confessions have been repudiated. There are several indications that the confessions were given under duress.

All the six (6) defendants repudiated their alleged confessions. They testified that they were inflicted with physical injuries and were brought to the "bartolina". The contention of the appellee that if the defendants were really maltreated or intimidated they should have reported such maltreatment to the Assistant Director of Prisons, Diosdado Aguiluz, before whom they swore and signed their confessions, is puerile, to say the least. The defendants are all prisoners. Had they repudiated their confessions before Assistant Director of Prisons Diosdado Aguiluz, they would surely have been maltreated some more. They were not free to leave the jail after having subscribed and sworn to their respective confessions.

There are indications to show that the confessions are not spontaneous. The following circumstances show that the extrajudicial confessions were obtained through force and intimidation: (a) The confessions are short and bereft of details. The omission of important details of the alleged plan to stab the rival gang members militates against voluntariness and casts doubt in the finding of the trial court that the confessions were made freely. (b) The defendants, Romeo Corpuz, Rogelio Corpuz, Reynaldo Godoy, Ricardo Mabalot, Pablito Abasula and Miguel Coro, all admitted that each one of them stabbed Rodolfo Legaspi. However, Dr. Ricardo Ibarrola of the National Bureau of Investigation testified that Rodolfo Legaspi sustained only three (3) stab wounds. It is clear that the admissions of the six (6) defendants that each of them stabbed Rodolfo Legaspi is not true. (c) The prosecution witness, Abraham de las Alas, a prison guard of the New Bilibid Prisons, failed to investigate the defendants Miguel Coro, Reynaldo Godoy and Hernanie Soto at 9:00 o'clock in the morning when they were brought to the Investigation Section. The prison authorities investigated them only at 10:50 o'clock in the evening of the same date. There is reason to believe that between 9:00 o'clock in the morning to 10:50 o'clock in the evening, said defendants were maltreated and intimidated.

In view of the foregoing, the extrajudicial confessions of the defendants should be disregarded.

Conspiracy cannot be inferred from the manner that the defendants attacked the victims. There is no sufficient showing that all the defendants acted pursuant to a previous common accord.

There being no conspiracy, each of the defendants should be held liable for his individual act.

As regards the fifth error assigned, the defendants contended that the admissions of Romeo Corpuz, Hernanie Soto, Victor Bangayan and Felipe Alcera that they were the only ones who stabbed Rodolfo Legaspi and Antonio Silva and of wounding Fajartin, Fuentes and Arciaga should not have been rejected by the trial court as evidence in favor of their co-defendants.

This contention is meritorious.

The trial court rejected the admissions of said accused because:

 

"The Court considers the testimonies of the four condemned men that of claiming sole responsibility for the killing of Rodolfo Legaspi and Antonio Silva and seriously wounding Leodegario Fajartin, Leonardo Fuentes and Manuel Arciaga, and exculpating the remaining co-accused from any participation therein, of doubtful probative value. This is so, because the Court has strong reason to believe that out of comradeship, gang loyalty or for reasons only known to them, arrangement or plan must have been made for the four condemned men to claim sole responsibility for the killing and seriously wounding of the victims to save the remaining co-accused from the hot chair. Besides, for the defense of denial to prosper, the same must be corroborated by credible and trustworthy witnesses."^[9] 

Mere comradeship and gang loyalty could not have induced Romeo Corpuz, Hernanie Soto, Victor Bangayan and Felipe Alcera to assume responsibility for a crime that may result in their being sentenced to death. The admissions of said defendants of responsibility for the killing of Rodolfo Legaspi and Antonio Silva and seriously wounding Leodegario Fajartin, Leonardo Fuentes and Manuel Arciaga are highly contrary to their interest. Hence, there is no reason to doubt the veracity thereof.

The admissions of the defendants Romeo Corpuz, Hernanie Soto, Victor Bangayan and Felipe Alcera should at least create a serious doubt on the guilt of their co-accused. It has been held that the confession of a co-accused that he alone committed the crime is a circumstance that may be taken to engender great doubt as to the allege guilt of the other accused.^[10]

The trial court imposed the penalty of death on the four (4) defendants who pleaded guilty because they were allegedly serving sentence under final judgment when the crimes for which they were charged took place. The decisions of the court convicting said defendants which have allegedly become final were not presented as evidence. No commitment papers showing that said defendants have been committed to the National Penitentiary by virtue of a court's final decision was presented as evidence. There is a showing that some of the defendants have pending appeals. The trial court applied Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code on the unfounded assumption that all the defendants were serving sentence in the National Penitentiary pursuant to judgments of conviction which had become final and in the absence of competent evidence that these defendants have been sentenced by final judgment. The trial court cannot apply Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code and impose the maximum penalty of death. The defendants who have pleaded guilty can only be sentenced to the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

The submission of the defendants that the crime was committed in a tumultuous affray has no merit. The quarrel was between two (2) well-known groups of prisoners. There was no confusion. There is no crime of death in a tumultuous affray if the quarrel is between two (2) well-known groups.^[11]

The evidence shows that only the defendants Rogelio Corpuz, Ricardo Mabalot and Pablito Abasula inflicted the wounds of Leodegario Fajartin which were healed within a period of nine (9) days. The intent to kill was not proven. Therefore, the defendants Rogelio Corpuz, Ricardo Mabalot and Pablito Abasula who inflicted the injuries on Fajartin can only be liable for slight physical injuries. There is no evidence that the victims would have died if there was no timely medical attendance.

The persons who inflicted the physical injuries on Leonardo Fuentes and Manuel Arciaga were not identified. However, the four (4) defendants, Romeo Corpuz, Victor Bangayan, Felipe Alcera and Hernanie Soto, who pleaded guilty can be declared guilty of physical injuries as to Leodegario Fajartin, Leonardo Fuentes and Manuel Arciaga.

The guilt of the defendants Danilo Chico, Reynaldo Godoy and Miguel Coro was not established beyond reasonable doubt. There is no competent evidence that these three (3) defendants participated in the killing of Rodolfo Legaspi and Antonio Silva and in inflicting injuries on Leodegario Fajartin, Leonardo Fuentes and Manuel Arciaga. Manuel Arciaga declared that he was stabbed by Hernanie Soto who did not have any companion at that time. Indeed, the trial court made no specific finding on the actual participation of Danilo Chico, Reynaldo Godoy and Miguel Coro in the commission of the crimes charged in the information. These defendants were convicted of murder and frustrated murder on the erroneous finding that there was conspiracy. Hence, they are acquitted of the crimes charged in the information.

WHEREFORE, the defendants Romeo Corpuz, Hernanie Soto, Victor Bangayan and Felipe Alcera are hereby declared GUILTY of murder, without applying Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code, hence, they are imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered jointly and severally to indemnify the heirs of each of the victims Rodolfo Legaspi and Antonio Silva in the amount of P12,000.00 and to pay the amount of P12,000.00 as moral damages, and their proportionate share of the costs.

For the less serious physical injuries inflicted on Leonardo Fuentes and Manuel Arciaga and the slight physical injuries inflicted on Leodegario Fajartin, the said defendants are imposed double the penalty of two (2) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor as regards Fuentes and Arciaga and the penalty of imprisonment of twenty (20) days of arresto menor as to Fajartin and to pay their proportionate share of the costs.

The defendants Ricardo Mabalot, Pablito Abasula and Rogelio Corpuz are declared GUILTY of the crime of slight physical injuries as to Leodegario Fajartin and are each sentenced to suffer imprisonment of twenty (20) days of arresto menor and to pay their proportionate share of the costs.

The defendants Danilo Chico, Reynaldo Godoy and Miguel Coro are ACQUITTED of the crimes charged in the information, with costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, C.J., Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos and De Castro, JJ., concur.

Teehankee and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur in the result.

Barredo, J., votes with J. Aquino.

Makasiar and Aquino, JJ., dissent in separate opinions.

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 3-4.

^[2] Sentence, Rollo, pp. 41-52.

^[3] Sentence, Rollo, pp. 36-40.

^[4] Sentence, Rollo, pp. 24-35.

^[5] Brief for Defendants-Appellants, pp. A-B, Rollo, p. 138.

^[6] Ibid., p. 10, Rollo, p. 138.

^[7] Ibid., p. 11, Rollo, p. 138.

^[8] Ibid., pp. 11-12, Rollo, p. 138.

^[9] Brief for the Appellee, p. 15, Rollo, p. 145.

^[10] People vs. Crisologo, 28 SCRA 618.

^[11] U.S. vs. Tandoc, 40 Phil. 954.

tags