THE PEOPLE Of THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ALFREDO PERALTA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. ALFREDO PERALTA AND ROMAN FERNANDO, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

This case is before us en consulta, insofar as defendants
Alfredo Peralta and Roman Fernando are concerned, both having been
sentenced by the Court of First Instance of Rizal to suffer the death
penalty and to jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of Guillermo
Lutero in the sum of P3,000.00, as well as to pay each one-sixth (1/6)
of the costs.

Said defendants were accused, together with Marcial Ama, Conrado
Medina, Alfredo Cariño and Rolando Pangcubit, of the crime of murder,
the information alleging:

“That on or about the 26th day of December, 1958, in
the New Bilibid Prison, municipality of Muntinlupa, province of Rizal,
Philippines’ and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the
above-named accused conspiring and confederating together and mutually
helping one another, with intent to kill, with treachery and evident
premeditation, armed with wooden club, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, hit one Guillermo Lutero on
the different parts of his body and by strangling the neck of said
Guillermo Lutero thereby inflicting several wounds on the latter’s body
which caused the death of said Guillermo Lutero.

“That the
accused are quasi-recidivists having committed the above-mentioned
felony while serving their respective sentence after having been
convicted of final judgment.”

Upon arraignment, the six (6) defendants entered a plea of not
guilty. However, when the case was called for trial, on August 24,
1959, defendants Alfredo Peralta and Roman Fernando, assisted by their
counsel de oficio withdrew their aforementioned plea and
entered, in lieu thereof, that of guilty. Thereupon, the lower court
set the case for promulgation of the decision on September 1, 1959.
Prior thereto; however, the prosecution had filed a motion to dismiss
the case as regards the other defendants, namely, Marcial Ama, Conrado
Medina, Alfredo Carino and Rolando Pangcubit, upon the ground that a
reinvestigation of the case as regards these defendants had revealed
the insufficiency of the evidence to establish their participation in
the commission of the crime charged. Hence, on September 1, 1959, the
lower court issued an order dismissing the case, insofar as Marcial
Ama, Conrado Medina, Alfredo Carifio and Rolando Pangcubit are
concerned, with the proportionate part of the costs de oficio.
On the same date, the court rendered its decision finding Alfredo
Peralta and Roman Fernando guilty of the crime of murder, committed
with evident premeditation, as qualifying circumstance, as well as with
the generic aggravating circumstance of treachery, offset by their
voluntary plea of guilty, and the special circumstance of
quasi-recidivism, and, accordingly, imposing, pursuant of Article 160
of the Revised Penal Code, the maximum penalty prescribed by law for
the aforementioned crime, namely, the death penalty.

Counsel de oficio for these two (2) defendants maintains
that the decision appealed from should be reversed and the case-
demanded to the lower court for a new trial, upon the ground that said
court should have taken such evidence as was available to assure itself
that Alfredo Peralta and Roman Fernando had understood fully and
completely the precise nature of the charge against them and the
consequences of their plea of guilty. Upon the other hand, Attorneys
Orteza and Orteza, as counsel departe for Alfredo Peralta,
contend that the allegation of quasi-recidivism in the above
information is ambiguous, in that it fails to state whether the
offenses for which the defendants were serving sentence at the time of
the commission of the crime charged were penalized by the Revised Penal
Code, or by a special law.

We find no merit in either pretense. With respect to counsel de
oficio’s contention, the transcript of the proceedings in the lower
court on August 24, 1959, shows that defendants Alfredo Peralta and
Roman Fernando insisted on pleading guilty to the charge, although
their counsel de oficio had advised them that the maximum penalty for
the crime of murder would, as a consequence, be imposed upon them. As
regards the contention of Attys. Orteza and Orteza, it makes no
difference, for purposes of the effect of quasi-recidivism, under
Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code, whether the crime for which an
accused is serving sentence at the time of the commission of the
offense charged, falls under said Code or under a special law.

At any rate, we have examined the records of said defendants in the
Bureau of Prisons and found that, at the time of the commission of the
crime of murder charged in the case at bar, they were serving sentences
for violations of the Revised Penal Code. More specifically, Alfredo
Peralta was serving two (2) sentences, namely: (a) one for robbery, by
virtue of a final judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila, in
Criminal Case No. 25676 thereof, rendered on April 1, 1954, which,
furthermore declared him a habitual delinquent, he having been
previously convicted of theft on September 6, 1952, and of attempted
robbery with physical injuries, on December 6, 1953; and (b) another
for frustrated homicide, by virtue of a final judgment of the Court of
First Instance of Rizal, in Criminal Case No. 263-R thereof, dated
November 14, 1957. Similarly, Roman Fernando was serving a sentence for
homicide by virtue of a final judgment of the Court of First Instance
of Sulu, in Criminal Case No. 1168 thereof, dated March 24, 1955.

Wherefore, the aforementioned decision of the lower court is hereby
affirmed, with costs against defendants Alfredo Peralta and Roman
Fernando. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Paredes and De Leon, JJ., concur.