THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DANILO RESURRECCION, ROMEO MARANAN, AND AMADOR ATIENZA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

This is an automatic review of the decision dated April 26, 1974, of the Circuit
Criminal Court of Pasig, Rizal,
in Criminal Case No. 1327, imposing the death penalty on Danilo
Resurreccion, Romeo Maranan
and Amador Atienza, for the crime of murder, the dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, finding the accused namely:  Danilo Resurreccion, Romeo Maranan and
Amador Atienza, ALL GUILTY, beyond reasonable doubt,
of the crime of Murder, as defined under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code,
as charged in the information, the Court hereby sentences each one of them to
suffer the penalty of DEATH; to indemnify the heirs of the offended party the
amount of P12,000.00, jointly and severally; to pay moral damages in the amount
of P6,000.00 and another P6,000.00, as exemplary damages, jointly and
severally; and to pay their proportionate shares of the costs.”

On March 25, 1971,
at about 3:00 p.m., prisoner Suliman Santiago, an inmate of the New Bilibid
Prison, Muntinlupa, Rizal,
was stabbed to death infront of the prison boxing
office.  He was first stabbed by his
assailants in the alley between the Education Section and the Commander’s
Office and from there chased and stabbed again infront
of the boxing office.  Charged with the
crime of murder were Danilo Resurreccion,
Romeo Maranan and Amador Atienza,
in an information dated April 17, 1973, alleging:

“That on or about March 20, 1971, in the New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa, Rizal, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above named accused while then confined at the said
institution conspiring, confederating and helping one another with treachery
and evident premeditation, and each armed with improvised deadly weapons did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously,
assault and wound therewith one SULIMAN SANTIAGO, No. 28167-P sentenced
prisoner in the same institution, inflicting upon him multiple stab wounds
while then unarmed and unable to defend himself from the attack launched by the
accused, as a result of which the said Suliman
Santiago died instantly;

That the offense when committed by the above accused was attended
by the aggravating circumstance of recidivism in the case of Amador Atienza, having been convicted of the crime of Attempted
Robbery with Homicide by the Criminal Circuit Court of Manila.”

The principal witness for the prosecution was Rogelio Bulalayao, an inmate serving a sentence for theft of motor
vehicle and homicide.  He testified that
both he and the deceased belonged to Dormitory 2-C and were members of the same
gang, the Sigue-Sigue-Commando.  On March
25, 1971, at about 2:15 p.m.,
he was on his way to the hospital having just come from Camp 3 where he was
“mayor” when he met a certain Mr. Perfecto Mane.  He stopped to talk with his friend facing the
Commander’s Office.  It was then that he
saw the accused prisoners, Amador Atienza, Danilo Resurreccion and Romeo Maranan coversing with each other
in what he considered a suspicious manner, in the alley near the Identification
Section.  This prompted him to go near Suliman Santiago who was at that time talking with a
visitor in the alley between the Education Section and the Commander’s
Office.  He told Santiago
that he and his companion should leave right away as he suspected that Atienza, Resurreccion and Maranan intended to do him harm.  However, Santiago
told him not to mind the three.  While he
was beside the visitor facing Santiago,
the three accused approached and Danilo Resurreccion drew a deadly weapon “yaring
bilibid” with which he stabbed Santiago
at the back.  Fearing for his own life,
he retreated backwards, his eyes, focused at the scene before him.  Although he was backtracking he could see Santiago
parrying with his hands the repeated thrusts of Resurreccion,
Maranan and Atienza who
were all armed with similar improvised weapons. 
While he could not see the exact spots where the stabs were made he
could see that they were all aimed at Santiago’s
back.  After the stabbing the three ran
back to their brigade while he stayed near the Control gate where he remained
until dismissal time which was about 4:30 to
5:00 p.m.  He waited for the
employees to come and walked home with them. 
He was one of those who took the deceased to the hospital.

Suliman Santiago sustained five stab
wounds, three of which were mortal.  The
Necropsy Report established the cause of death as multiple stab wounds of the
chest and abdomen.  Dr. Ricardo G. Ibarrola who made the post mortem examination testified
that the three stab wounds which he considered mortal in his Necropsy Report
were:  stab wound No. 1, located at the
left breast perforating the left side of the diaphragm and also the stomach;
stab wound No. 2, located at the right side of the abdomen and penetrated the region;
and stab wound No. 3 at the right upper back involving the right lung.  He was of the opinion that the wounds were
caused by double-bladed, pointed, sharp instruments.  He did not discount the possibility, however,
that there was only one double bladed instrument used by only one assailant.

Among the witnesses presented by the defense was Gilberto Llamoso, another inmate present at the scene of the
crime.  In his statement given to prison
guard Jesus B. Tomagan on May 5, 1971, marked as Exhibit 1 by the defense,
he stated that at about 2:15 p.m. on
March 25, 1971, he was
sitting at the last door of the control gate when he saw Suliman
Santiago and Rogelio Bulalayao conversing.  Then he saw Romeo Maranan
and some companions approach the two.  He
saw Maranan draw a weapon, stab Santiago
who then ran chased by Maranan and his
companions.  Santiago fell down by the
window of the Office of the Board of Discipline, managed to stand again and
continued running still followed by Maranan and his
companions.  He stated that it was only Maranan he saw who stabbed the deceased at the back with a
weapon which he described as “gawang bilibid” but when Santiago
was fleeing he could see that the others were also armed with bladed
weapons.  After the stabbing they ran to
the direction of the hospital.

The three accused testified. 
Danilo Resurreccion,
27 years old, single, was serving sentence for robbery; Romeo Maranan, 25 years old, married, was convicted in 1967 and
serving sentence for frustrated murder; and, Amador Atienza,
22 years old, married, was there for attempted robbery with homicide and
robbery (snatching).  All three professed
innocence for the death of Suliman Santiago; all
three claimed alibi – that they were together in Dormitory 4-C at 3:00 p.m. on March 25, 1971, the gate of which was padlocked.  Each said that the other two were with him
inside the dormitory, in the afternoon of March 25, 1971.  All
three were members of the Sigue-Sigue-Sputnik
gang.  They said they had never known Suliman Santiago and came to know Rogelio Bulalayao only inside the investigation room during the
inquiry conducted by Jesus B. Tomagan and were
surprised when Bulalayao pointed to them as the
authors of the killing.  All three
testified that they never had any misunderstanding with investigator Tomagan or his co-investigators; did not harbor him any
grudge; were not maltreated nor threatened by him when they refused to give any
statement during the investigation, since they preferred to do it in
court.  They also said that they did not
see Bulalayao maltreated during the investigation nor
see any bruises on his face.  When they
individually asked Bulalayao why he pointed to them
as the killers of Santiago, Bulalayao replied,
according to Resurreccion, that it was what was
called for by the circumstance (hinihingi ng pagkakataon) because if he did
not testify against them he would not be released; but according to Atienza, Bulalayao gave him no
answer while according to Maranan, Bulalayao said that it was but natural to point at him
because he was the one who did it.

Amador Atienza testified that all the
inmates of Dormitory 4-B which included him and his co-accused were transferred
to Dormitory 4-C at around 2:45 p.m. of March 25, 1971, but two witnesses,
Ricardo Rodriguez and Ernesto Garcia, both also inmates, testified that they
were transferred from Dormitory 4-B to 4-C at more or less 9:00 o’clock in the
morning of that day and there padlocked.

Danilo Resurreccion
and Romeo Maranan filed a common brief while Amador Atienza filed a separate brief.  In both briefs, however, the principal claim
is to the effect that their evidence should have been given credence.  Thus the resolution of the case, as is usual
in most criminal cases, hinges on the credibility of witnesses.

Appellants have interposed the defense of denial and alibi.  These defenses, however, cannot prevail over
the positive testimony of Rogelio Bulalayao that it
was the appellants who in concert inflicted the fatal wounds on Suliman Santiago. 
Rogelio’s testimony was corroborated in substance by the appellants’ own
witness, Gilberto Llamoso who said he saw Santiago
stabbed by Maranan who had companions who were also
armed with bladed weapons.

Appellants have attempted to impugn the credibility of Rogelio on
the ground that he was a convict and had to cooperate with the prison
authorities lest he be implicated and his imminent release jeopardized.  It is true that Rogelio was a convict but
that fact alone does not make his testimony unworthy of credence.  For there was no motive for
him to implicate appellants.  All
three accused testified that they did not know Rogelio until the investigation
which was conducted by prison guard Tomagan; they did
not see him maltreated nor manhandled in the investigation room by the
investigator; they did not even notice any bruises on his face.  In other words, there were no indications
that Rogelio was forced to testify against his will.  Neither were they
themselves threatened or maltreated by Tomagan and
his companions when they refused to give any statement during the
investigation, preferring to give their statements in court.  Granting that Rogelio was compelled to
testify in order not to be implicated in the case there was no logic on his
picking on the three accused to be the sacrificial lambs.  He did not know them; he bore them no ill
will.  The only valid reason that comes
to mind as to why Rogelio should point to the three accused as the assailants
is that he really saw them, as he said so upon being questioned by Maranan.  There is
therefore no valid reason why the testimony of Bulalayao
should not be given the credence it deserves.

Appellants contended that they were locked in Dormitory 4-C at 3:00 p.m. on March 25, 1971, when Suliman was
killed.  It is to be noted, however, that
Amador Atienza testified that at about 2:45 o’clock
in the afternoon of the day in question, he and the other appellants were
transferred from dormitory 4-B to dormitory 4-C, and that he did not know
whether dormitory 4-B had been padlocked before they were transferred to the
other dormitory.  This testimony from one
of the appellants strongly indicates that said three appellants could have
killed prisoner Suliman Santiago at or about 3:00
o’clock that same afternoon before they were transferred to dormitory 4-C.  Moreover, as stated by the trial court:  “A perusal of the testimonies of the
three accused reveal that the same are heavily clouded with improbabilities not
consistent with common sense and common experience.  It does not necessarily mean that because the
door was padlocked they could not get out of their brigade, because, also, from
the lips of the other prisoners in Muntinglupa, and
the same has been proven in several riot cases inside the National
Penitentiary, that they could open the lock by means of improvised tin key,
aside from sawing the iron grills, if only to escape and satisfy their evil
designs by killing their co-inmates.” On the whole we are satisfied that
appellants’ denial and alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification
made by Rogelio Bulalayao which was substantially
corroborated by their own witness, Gilberto Llamoso.

The behavior of appellants unmistakably indicated a community of
design to kill the victim.  They belonged
to the same gang and the same dormitory; they were seen talking together before
the actual assault or the victim; they were all armed; they all stabbed the
victim who sustained multiple wounds, three of which proved to be mortal; they
all chased the victim who was already wounded when the latter tried to run away
before finally expiring in front of the administration building; and, they left
the scene of the crime together.  The
tacit and spontaneous coordination of their assaults showed that they
collaborated to bring about the death of the victim.

The information mentions two qualifying circumstances,
namely:  treachery and evident premediation.  The
Solicitor General contends that there was treachery since the attack was so
sudden and unexpected and aimed at the back giving the victim no chance to
defend himself, citing People vs. Torejas, L-29935,
Jan. 31, 1972; 43 SCRA 158, where it was held that alevosia
exists if the victim is caught completely unaware and deprived of any chance to
ward off the assault.  But treachery
cannot be presumed from the suddenness or unexpectedness of the attack where
there is no proof that such mode of attack was consciously adopted to facilitate
the commission of the crime without risk to appellants.  Neither can it be established from the fact
that the injuries of the victim were inflicted from behind where it does not
appear that appellants purposely chose to employ that means of attack so that
there could be no risk to themselves from any defense
which the offended party might have made. 
Nor can it be supposed under the circumstances that appellants knew
before hand that the deceased was unarmed. 
Furthermore, the victim was not completely unaware of the impending
danger to himself as he was adequately warned by his companion, Rogelio Bulalayao, who saw the suspicious behavior of the appellants.  He had time to flee or to make his defense
had he wished to.  Neither was there
evident premeditation, and on this score the Solicitor General agrees, for
there was no evidence to show that the appellants meditated and reflected on
their intention between the time when the crime was conceived and the time it
was actually perpetrated.  Evident
premeditation cannot be appreciated where it cannot be determined whether the
accused had sufficient time within which to reflect on the evil character of
the crime before he committed the same.  (People vs. Villaseñor, L-28574, 4 October 24, 1970, 35 SCRA 460.)

In view of the foregoing, the crime committed by the appellants
is not murder but homicide only which is punishable by reclusion temporal.

No mitigating circumstance can be appreciated in favor of the
appellants.  We now consider the
aggravating circumstances.

We believe, that the generic aggravating
circumstance of abuse of superior strength was present in the commission of the
crime.  For the three
appellants were all armed with bladed weapons while the deceased was unarmed.  His means of defense was thus weakened if not
rendered inutile.

The aggravating circumstance of recidivism cannot be considered
against Resurreccion and Atienza
for their previous convictions were not embraced in the same title of the
Revised Penal Code – Title Eight, Crimes against Persons.  With respect to Maranan
recidivism is an aggravating circumstance for he had been previously convicted
of the crime of frustrated murder.

Art. 160 of the Revised Penal Code has
also to be applied.  It reads:

“Art. 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.

Any convict of the class referred to in this article, who is not a
habitual criminal, shall be pardoned at the age of seventy years if he shall
have already served out his original sentence, or when he shall complete it
after reaching said age, unless by reason of his conduct or other circumstances
he shall not be worthy of such clemency.”

In resume, we find that the aggravating circumstances of abuse of
superior strength and quasi-recidivism (Art. 160, R.P.C.) have to be attributed
to all of the appellants and with respect to Romeo Maranan
only that of recidivism.

WHEREFORE, we find the appellants DANILO RESURRECCION,
ROMEO MARANAN and AMADOR ATIENZA, guilty of the crime of homicide.  Considering the absence of any mitigating
circumstance and the presence of aggravating circumstance mentioned above, the
penalty of reclusion temporal has to be applied in its maximum
period.  Accordingly, each of the
appellants is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate imprisonment of twelve (12)
years of prision mayor as minimum to
twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal as maximum.  As thus modified the sentence of the lower
court is affirmed in all other respects. 
Costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, C.J., Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Santos, Fernandez, Guerrero, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera,
JJ., concur.

Teehankee, J., took no part.