THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FRANKISIO ARO, PEDRO LASALA, RODOLFO AVILA AND RAFAEL ESCALONA, DEFENDANTS, FRANKISIO ARO AND PEDRO LASALA, DEFENDANTS-APP…

People versus Aro

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Frankisio Aro and Pedro Lasala, two inmates of the National Penitentiary who were charged with murder for the killing of a fellow prisoner, Jose Mesina, inside the prison compound. The case matters for two reasons. First, it is a study in how a conviction may stand on the strength of an eyewitness even where the extrajudicial confessions are constitutionally infirm. Second, it is a clean illustration of quasi-recidivism under Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code, and of what happens when the required votes for the death penalty are not obtained.

Procedural History

The accused were tried by the then Circuit Criminal Court of Rizal, which found Frankisio Aro, Pedro Lasala and Rodolfo Avila guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, sentenced them to death, and ordered them to indemnify the heirs of the victim and to pay moral and exemplary damages. The case went to the Supreme Court on automatic review because the penalty imposed was death. While the review was pending, the Court dismissed the case against Rodolfo Avila upon official information that he had died. The Court then resolved the appeal of Aro and Lasala.

Facts

Jose Mesina, Frankisio Aro and Pedro Lasala were all inmates of the National Penitentiary at Muntinlupa. At about a quarter to eight in the morning of April 10, 1973, Benjamin Gagui, another prisoner, was inside the Iglesia ni Kristo Chapel within the prison compound. He saw the appellants, together with Rafael Escalona, enter the chapel compound and say that they were looking for someone against whom they would take vengeance for the death of Visayan inmates in a prison riot.

Jose Mesina then came and sat down near Gagui. All of a sudden, Frankisio Aro stabbed Mesina. Gagui ran toward the chapel shouting for help, and Mesina fell to the ground covered with blood. The medico-legal officer of the National Bureau of Investigation found seventeen stab wounds and testified that they could have been caused by sharp and blunt instruments, that there was only a very remote possibility they were inflicted by one person with a single weapon, and that the assailant could have been on the victim's right side.

Prison officials investigated, and both Aro and Lasala gave sworn statements admitting that they had inflicted stab wounds on Mesina. At trial, both denied participation. Lasala claimed he never entered the chapel and was merely implicated, while Aro claimed he was pointed to by Gagui under pressure and was beaten into confessing. The trial court found Gagui consistent and sincere, and rejected the defenses of denial and alibi as self-serving.

Issues

• Whether or not the guilt of the appellants for murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt, considering that their extrajudicial confessions were taken without the required constitutional warnings.
• Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism attended the commission of the crime.
• Whether or not the penalty of death was correctly imposed.

Applicable Provisions

Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code defines quasi-recidivism and fixes its penalty:

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 both appellants were already serving final sentences for other crimes when they killed Mesina, so the new felony of murder must be meted the maximum period of its penalty.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the conviction stood. The appellants were clearly identified by Benjamin Gagui, the eyewitness, and their defenses of denial and alibi were palpably and miserably weak. The Court also relied on the sworn statements of the appellants, which pointed to one another and admitted the stabbing, applying the rule that where several accused, without collusion, make extrajudicial confessions identical in essential details and corroborated by other evidence, each confession is admissible against the other. On this point the concurring opinions of Justices Aquino and Teehankee stressed that the confessions, taken without admonition as to the rights to silence and to counsel, were inadmissible as admissions of guilt under the Miranda doctrine, now found in Section 20, Article IV of the Constitution, and that the conviction rested instead on the competent eyewitness testimony of Gagui.

On the second issue, the Court found that Frankisio Aro was serving sentence for robbery with homicide and Pedro Lasala for robbery at the time of the incident. Quasi-recidivism therefore attended, and it cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance. The Court quoted the rule that the offenders "shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony."

On the third issue, although the law called for the maximum period, the Court, for lack of the necessary votes to affirm the death penalty, imposed reclusion perpetua.

Doctrine

First, where several accused, without collusion, make extrajudicial confessions that are identical in essential details and are corroborated by other evidence, each confession is admissible against the other. Second, a conviction may rest on the positive identification of a credible eyewitness even if the confessions are excluded for constitutional defects. Third, quasi-recidivism under Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code requires that the offender have been convicted by final judgment and be serving that sentence when the new felony is committed; the penalty for the new felony is then imposed in its maximum period, and no mitigating circumstance can offset it.

Disposition

The trial court's decision was affirmed with modification: Frankisio Aro and Pedro Lasala were sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to indemnify, jointly and severally, the heirs of Jose Mesina in the amount of 30,000 pesos, plus moral and exemplary damages, with costs.

Remember This

The one line to memorize is that quasi-recidivism compels the maximum period of the penalty for the new felony and brooks no mitigating circumstance. Examiners use this case to test quasi-recidivism and the rule that a conviction survives even when the extrajudicial confessions are inadmissible, so long as competent evidence such as eyewitness testimony sustains it.