THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LAURENZO (LORENZO) ALQUIZAR, DEFENDANT.

People versus Alquizar

The Case

This is People versus Alquizar, a criminal case that reached the Supreme Court on automatic review after the trial court imposed the death penalty. The accused, Laurenzo Alquizar, a prisoner in the national penitentiary, was charged with murder for stabbing a fellow prisoner, Fernando Rivas, who died from his wounds. The case matters for two reasons. First, it is a careful study in how the Court weighs a plea of self-defense against the testimony of eyewitnesses. Second, and more importantly for the Bar candidate, it shows how the Court treats an extrajudicial confession that is tainted by doubt, and how the failure to prove treachery reduces the crime from murder to homicide.

Procedural History

The case began in the Circuit Criminal Court at Pasig, Rizal, which convicted Alquizar of murder, sentenced him to death, and ordered him to pay the heirs of Fernando Rivas an indemnity of twenty-two thousand pesos. Alquizar did not appeal from that decision. Because the penalty imposed was death, the case came to the Supreme Court automatically on review, which the Court calls review en consulta. The Supreme Court then reviewed the records and rendered its own judgment.

Facts

In the afternoon of April 10, 1971, Laurenzo Alquizar, then thirty-one or thirty-two years old and a prisoner in the national penitentiary at Muntinlupa since 1963, was among more than eighty prisoners being brought from the prison kitchen back to Building 13. Fernando Rivas, another prisoner, was in the same group. Near the gate of the brigade, Alquizar inflicted two stab wounds on Rivas. One wound, eleven centimeters deep in the iliac region, cut an artery. The other, four centimeters deep, was in the back below the right shoulder blade. Rivas died at the prison hospital at four-fifty-five that same afternoon.

Alquizar claimed self-defense. He testified that Rivas boxed him on the right temple, making him dizzy, and that he boxed Rivas in retaliation. He said Rivas then drew a bladed weapon, which Alquizar grabbed by twisting Rivas's right hand, and with that weapon he stabbed Rivas in the abdomen. Two fellow prisoners, Rogelio Llamas and Antonio Rivera, corroborated parts of his account. The prosecution, however, presented prison guard Ludovico Bautista, who testified that he heard a cry of pain, turned, and saw Alquizar stabbing Rivas. Bautista struck Alquizar with his club, but Alquizar held Rivas's clothes and stabbed him a second time. Rivas ran toward the office of the officer of the day, pursued by Alquizar, who was then blocked and apprehended.

The Court found the prosecution's version credible and rejected the plea of self-defense. It noted that Alquizar did not explain why Rivas would box him without provocation, that it was implausible Rivas would merely box an armed man in front of more than eighty prisoners, and that Alquizar claimed to have grabbed the blade yet suffered no injury to his hands. The Court also found that Alquizar never told the officer of the day that he had acted in self-defense. A confession was taken from Alquizar about four days after the stabbing, but the Court refused to admit it.

Issues

• Whether or not the accused acted in self-defense when he stabbed Fernando Rivas.
• Whether or not the extrajudicial confession of the accused may be admitted as evidence against him.
• Whether or not the killing was qualified by treachery, raising it from homicide to murder.
• Whether or not the accused is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and to an indeterminate sentence.

Applicable Provisions

Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code, on quasi-recidivism, provides:

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 provision bears on the case because Alquizar was already serving final sentences when he stabbed Rivas, so the penalty for homicide must be imposed in its maximum period.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the accused did not act in self-defense. The prosecution's version was credible, and the circumstances of the plea were implausible. The Court found it unlikely that Rivas would box a trained and well-known prison boxer in front of more than eighty prisoners, and it doubted that Alquizar could grab a blade without injuring his hands. His failure to claim self-defense before the officer of the day further weakened his story.

On the second issue, the Court held that the confession could not be admitted. There was doubt whether it was freely and voluntarily made. The investigator did not testify as to how he took it, the witnesses and the swearing officer did not testify, and there was no showing that the swearing officer read the confession to Alquizar. The confession contained no notice of his right to remain silent and to counsel, and although Alquizar said he understood Tagalog but did not speak it well, his answers showed he spoke it well, suggesting the answers were not in his own words. There was also a discrepancy between the confession and the investigator's report.

On the third issue, the Court held that treachery was not proven. The information alleged treachery as the only qualifying circumstance, but the sole eyewitness, Bautista, did not see the inception of the attack. His back was turned when the first stab was inflicted. Since the first wound was in the abdomen, the logical conclusion was that the two men were face to face, which negates treachery. The killing was therefore homicide, not murder.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that Alquizar was a quasi-recidivist because he was confined in the national penitentiary serving sentences when he stabbed Rivas, so the penalty for homicide must be imposed in its maximum period under Article 160. He was not entitled to an indeterminate sentence because he had escaped from confinement and evaded service of his sentences. Voluntary surrender could not be appreciated because he was still pursuing the victim when he supposedly surrendered, and he was in fact apprehended.

Doctrine

A plea of self-defense must be established by clear and convincing evidence, and it fails where the accused's account is implausible and contradicted by eyewitnesses. An extrajudicial confession is inadmissible where there is doubt as to its voluntariness, where the investigator and witnesses do not testify, and where it lacks notice of the right to remain silent. Treachery must be proven by the prosecution, and where the sole eyewitness did not see the inception of the attack, treachery cannot be appreciated. A person who commits a felony while serving final judgment is a quasi-recidivist under Article 160, and the penalty for the new felony is imposed in its maximum period.

Disposition

The Supreme Court set aside the death sentence, convicted Alquizar of homicide, sentenced him to twenty years of reclusion temporal in its maximum period, affirmed the indemnity, and ordered costs de oficio.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that treachery cannot be appreciated where the eyewitness did not see the inception of the attack, and a doubtful confession cannot supply it. Examiners like to use this case to test the requirements for a valid extrajudicial confession and the reduction of murder to homicide when treachery is not proven.