THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROMUALDO CAPILLAS AND AQUILINO PACALA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

People versus Capillas

The Case

This is the automatic review of a judgment of conviction for murder rendered by the defunct Circuit Criminal Court at Pasig, Rizal, against Romualdo Capillas and Aquilino Pacala, two inmates of the New Bilibid Prison who were charged with stabbing to death a fellow prisoner, Patricio Gallardo, on September 9, 1971. Both accused pleaded guilty at arraignment, and the trial court sentenced them to death after treating the killing as quasi-recidivism under Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code. The case matters to a reviewee because it is the cleanest illustration of the rule that quasi-recidivism requires that the offender be serving sentence by virtue of a final judgment at the time he commits the new felony, and that a plea of guilty, while an admission of the allegations of the information, yields to the evidence when the trial court itself received proof on the attendant circumstances.

Procedural History

The two accused were charged with murder before the Circuit Criminal Court at Pasig, Rizal. On July 5, 1973, with the assistance of counsel, both entered a plea of guilty. The trial court apprised them that the only penalty for the offense charged was death, and both manifested that they understood this and still pleaded guilty. Following the doctrine in People versus Daeng, the court nonetheless ordered the presentation of evidence to determine the degree of culpability of the accused. After trial, the court found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, sentenced each to death, ordered them to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of 12,000 pesos, and to pay 5,000 pesos as moral damages, another 5,000 pesos as exemplary damages, and the costs. The case reached the Supreme Court on automatic review, the penalty imposed being death.

Facts

Romualdo Capillas and Aquilino Pacala were both confined on death row at the national penitentiary in Muntinlupa. Capillas had been sentenced to death for robbery in band with homicide by the Court of First Instance of Samar, and Pacala had been sentenced to death for robbery with homicide. As of September 9, 1971, the date of the killing, both decisions of conviction were still under automatic review by the Supreme Court and had not yet become final.

Sometime before that date, the victim Patricio Gallardo, also an inmate, was transferred to the death row dormitory, his leg chained. Capillas was the squad leader of the dormitory to which Gallardo was transferred. Capillas belonged to a gang then fighting the gang of Gallardo, and he had previously told Pacala that he harbored ill feelings against the victim. On September 9, 1971, at about eleven in the morning, while Gallardo was seated near the door of his cell, Capillas stabbed him without warning, first in the stomach and then successively in different parts of the body. Pacala, who was one of the followers of Capillas and knew of the ill feeling, got out of his cell, took his weapon, and also stabbed the victim in the chest.

Throughout the attack the victim pleaded for his life, saying, in substance, have mercy on me, and, do not kill me anymore. The accused disregarded his plea and continued stabbing him. Because of the multiple wounds, death was immediate. An autopsy conducted by a physician of the National Bureau of Investigation found numerous stab wounds of considerable depth on the chest, abdomen, arm, forearm, and thigh of the victim.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court correctly applied Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code, treating the killing as quasi-recidivism and imposing the death penalty.
• Whether or not the plea of guilty of the accused barred them from contesting the allegation of recidivism in the information, in light of the evidence received by the trial court.
• Whether or not Aquilino Pacala is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in awarding moral and exemplary damages.

Applicable Provisions

Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

Article 160. Commission of another crime during service of penalty imposed for another previous offense. Penalty. Besides the provisions of rule 5 of article 62, any person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same, shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony.

This is the provision the trial court used to justify the death penalty, and the Court holds that it does not apply because the accused were not shown to be serving sentence under a final judgment when they killed the victim.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled that Article 160 does not apply to the appellants. Although they committed murder while confined at the New Bilibid Prison, the record is bereft of any evidence introduced by the prosecution showing that they were serving sentence by virtue of final judgments. Capillas had been sentenced to death for robbery in band with homicide, but when he committed the murder his sentence had not yet become final because it was still under review by the Supreme Court. As to Pacala, he admitted a prior sentence of death for a crime committed in Samar and a previous conviction for trespass, but there is no evidence that when he took part in killing Gallardo he was serving a final sentence for the Samar crime. Quasi-recidivism therefore cannot be appreciated as a special aggravating circumstance.

On the second issue, the Court acknowledged that the information alleged recidivism and that a plea of guilty is deemed an admission of all the material allegations in the information, including the attendant circumstances. But because the trial court proceeded to receive evidence despite the plea, and that evidence showed that the appellants are not recidivists, the evidence must prevail over the admission.

On the third issue, the Court agreed with the Solicitor General that Capillas is entitled to two mitigating circumstances, voluntary surrender and plea of guilty, and that Pacala is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty. Pacala cannot invoke voluntary surrender because he himself stated during the hearing that he did not surrender; he merely waited in his cell until prison employees took him out.

On the penalty, the Court reasoned that the penalty for murder is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. Capillas, with two mitigating circumstances in his favor, deserves a penalty reduced by one degree, from prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its medium period. Pacala, with one mitigating circumstance in his favor, deserves the minimum period of the penalty for murder.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the claim of error in the award of moral and exemplary damages is academic in light of the economic condition of the appellants, but it took occasion to state that the relevant provisions of the Civil Code do authorize the award not only of compensatory or actual damages in delicts and quasi-delicts but also of moral and exemplary damages.

Doctrine

Quasi-recidivism under Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code requires that the offender shall have been convicted by final judgment and shall commit the new felony before beginning to serve such sentence or while serving the same. A sentence still under automatic review is not final, so a killing committed by a prisoner whose prior conviction has not yet become final is not quasi-recidivism and cannot be punished by the maximum period of the penalty for the new felony.

A plea of guilty admits all the material allegations of the information, including attendant circumstances, but where the trial court, because of the serious nature of the offense, receives evidence on those circumstances, the evidence prevails over the admission.

Voluntary surrender requires that the offender surrender himself; a prisoner who merely waits in his cell until prison employees take him out does not surrender.

Disposition

The judgment of the trial court was modified: Romualdo Capillas was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of ten years of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen years of reclusion temporal as maximum, and Aquilino Pacala to an indeterminate penalty of fifteen years of reclusion temporal as minimum to twenty years of reclusion temporal as maximum, both to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of the deceased in the amount of 30,000 pesos and to pay the costs.

Remember This

Memorize the line that quasi-recidivism requires that the prior conviction be final and that the offender be serving sentence when he commits the new felony. Examiners use this case to test the elements of quasi-recidivism under Article 160 and the rule that evidence received by the trial court prevails over a plea of guilty on attendant circumstances.