PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RAMON LAO Y RICARDO, EDILBERTO RAJEL Y LAGUERTA, ALFREDO DELIZO Y SALCEDO, ALEJANDRO JOVILLANO Y PASUPIL, RUMOLITO PALERMO Y U…

The seven (7) defendants have appealed the decision of the
Regional Trial Court, Fourth Judicial Region, Branch 54, Lucena City, finding
them guilty of the murder of their fellow prisoner, Norberto Reynoso, and
sentencing each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
as follows:

“WHEREFORE, premises consider­ed, the Court finds the seven (7)
accused, namely: ROBERTO DIVINO,
ALFREDO DELIZO, EDILBERTO RAJEL, GERRY MERELO, RAMON LAO, ALEJANDRO JOVILLANO
AND RUMOLITO PALERMO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER,
punishable under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, with the qualifying
aggravating circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength present,
and herein sentences each of them to imprisonment of RECLUSION PERPETUA (LIFE
IMPRISONMENT), with all the accessory penalties provided by law. Furthermore, said accused are ordered to pay
the heirs of the victim Norberto Reynoso, jointly and severally, the sum of
P30,000.00 for the death of said victim, and to reimburse the said heirs the
amount of P3,450.00 for the expenses incurred during the funeral/burial
services of the deceased Norberto Reynoso.” (p. 17, Decision, Annex A, Appellants’
Brief.)

The facts as found by the trial court are the following:

“At about 10:00
o’clock in the evening of May 21, 1986, a drinking spree was taking place among
the inmates of Cell No. 3 in the
Lucena City Jail (p. 4, tsn, November 11, 1986). Amidst the merry-making there was also singing led by Norberto
Reynoso, who was accompanied on the guitar by another inmate (p. 3, tsn, Aug.
7, 1986). As often happens in many a
drinking session where alcoholic spirits go wild, trouble erupted. Thus, at a given signal from appellant Lao,
appellant Divino first and then followed by the others assaulted the victim,
Norberto Reynoso. Thus, appellants
Divino, Rajel, Delizo, Jovellano and Merelo took turns in boxing and kicking
Reynoso (p. 4, tsn, August 7, 1986). As
Reynoso reeled groggy from the punches and kicks, he fell down on a ‘tarima’
(prison bunk), from where appellant Gerry Merelo pulled him up and dragged him
towards the cell door. Merelo tried to prop him up preparatory to
succeeding blows. Reynoso shouted for
help and a prison guard responded and tried to pacify the group. After warning the inmates of Cell 3 to stop
the commotion, the guard left. At this
point, appellant Gerry Merelo again pulled
Reynoso to a corner of the cell while the other appellants pushed a ‘tarima’
against the cell door to block entry into the cell. Then, appellant Ramon Lao clearly ordered, ‘Patayin na si
Reynoso.’ (p. 3, tsn, July 31, 1986). With this signal, appellants closed in
for the kill. Co-appellant Jovellano picked up a piece of wood, about a foot long
and seven centimeters in
diameter, (Exhibit A) and hurdled it at Reynoso who was hit at the left
arm. Gerry Merelo picked up the piece of wood and also hurled
it at Reynoso who was hit at the head near the left ear. Ramon Lao boxed and kicked Reynoso. Then co-appellant Rumolito Palermo got hold
of the piece of wood and hurled it at Reynoso who was lying on the floor on his
side hitting him on the left
arm. After that, Gerry Merelo again got the piece of wood and
with it hit Reynoso on the left side of the head. Meantime, Rumolito
Palermo took a stainless ‘patalim’ or crudely-fashioned knife, bound one end of
it with a piece of cloth and thereafter stabbed Reynoso at the back, hitting
the latter near the spinal column. (pp.
4-5, tsn, July 31, 1986.)

“Alarmed by the commotion in Cell 3, several police officers
rushed thereat. They sensed trouble
inside and tried to enter the cell but could not, as the entrance was blocked
by the ‘tarima.’ In their attempts to subdue and quell the rioting inmates of
Cell 3, the police resorted to
the use of hacksaws with which they cut the iron bars. After this, they were able to bring out some
of the inmates. The rest of the
inmates, including all the appellants, still refused to come out despite
repeated pleas to do so coming from the police and even the Mayor of Lucena
City. Finally, the police threw tear
gas bombs inside the cell and with this tactic they were able to eventually flush
out all the inmates of Cell 3 (p. 3, tsn, December 16, 1985).

“A post-mortem examination of Reynoso revealed the following
injuries, some of them fatal, which he sustained at the hands of appellants:

“1.    presence
of hematoma 3
contusion of the right eye closed;

“2.    presence of hematoma 3 contusion of the left
eye;

“3.    lacerated wd. 5 cm. x 1 cm x 1.5 cm over the
right eyebrow;

“4.    lacerated wd. 3 cm. x 1 cm x 1.5 cm. over
the right parietal region of the skull;

“5.    lacerated wd. 5.5 cm. x 1 cm x 1.5 over the
left parietal region of the skull laceration of the left ear 10 cm with
depressed fracture of the mustoid region of the left ear;

“6.    stabbed wd. 1 cm. x 1 cm x 3 cm over the
left side of the vertebral column 22 cm. distance for the nape of the neck;

“7.    stabbed
wd. 1 cm x 1 cm x 1.5 cm over the spinal column lumber area 32 cm. for
the nape of the neck.

“xxx                           xxx                               xxx

“With the exception of appellant Divino, who admitted his
direct participation in the killing of Reynoso,
the other appellants, although admitting their presence at the scene of the
crime when it happened, denied their guilt with the following claims or
excuses:

“a)   Appellant Jovellano claimed that he could not
have assaulted Reynoso because the latter was his ‘Kumpadre’;

“b)   Appellant Delizo claimed that as a relatively
new tenant in Cell 3, it was unlikely
for him to get involved in any trouble;

“c)   Appellants Rajel, Palermo and Merelo stated
that they were all asleep when the killing occurred; and

“d)   Appellant Lao claimed that he did not
participate in the killing but tried to pacify the troublemakers.

“Appellants testified further that their cellmates Elson Tan,
Rico Labagis, Bernardo Amarillas and Rolando Perez, all prosecution witnesses,
were actually the killers of Reynoso.” (pp. 89-95; Rollo.)

The accused have appealed insisting that the trial court erred in
finding them guilty of the crime charged.

As the appeal merely raises in issue  the credibility of the various witnesses, the rule in this regard
is that the factual findings of the trial judge who had the opportunity to
observe the demeanor of the witnesses and to assess their credibility, is
entitled to the highest degree of respect. (People vs. Patag, 144 SCRA 542; People vs. Guardo, 156 SCRA 152.)

We find no reason to disturb the trial court’s finding that:

“Their version of the incident could not be given any
credence, firstly because their testimonies are contradictory in many material
points, aside from being vague and general. Furthermore, their participation in assaulting the deceased becomes
clear considering the fact that they were all identified by the prosecution
witnesses and after all sorts of persuasion had been exerted by the authorities
for them to come out voluntarily, they refused to do so and had to be extracted
out of Cell No. 3.

“On the other hand, Edilberto Rajel, Roberto Divino, Ramon
Lao, and Gerry Merelo testified that they did not see anything because having
been in a drinking spree, they were fast asleep. Gerry Merelo even testified that he did not know anything, but
only awoke to find out that he was already transferred to Cell No. 6. Again, their versions of the incident could
not be given credence, because in the first place, upon ocular inspection of
Cell No. 3, the Court found out that it is a very small cell which is only
about three meters by eight meters in size, more or less, and the ‘tarima’
where the inmates sleep occupied practically about two-thirds of the floor
area. Any occupant of Cell No. 3,
therefore, would have been readily awakened by any unusual noise or commotion;
and any such occupant could see what was happening anywhere he may have been at
the time the incident occurred.” (p. 57, Rollo.)

Against the prosecution witnesses’ positive identification of the
accused-appellants, the latter’s simple denial of their participation in the
commission of the crime or their pretense that they were not aware that it
happened may not prevail (People vs. Sabado, 168 SCRA 681).

The crime committed was murder, qualified by treachery, for the
appellants, numbering seven, attacked their lone victim while he was gaily
singing, with no inkling whatsoever that he would be attacked. He was unarmed. The appellants were armed with a wooden club and a knife as they
took turns in savagely beating and stabbing him in different parts of his
body. And, knowing the futility of fighting back, Reynoso made no
attempt to defend himself, hence, his attackers incurred no risk at all to
themselves in the execution of the crime. Furthermore, to assure that Reynoso would neither escape nor be rescued,
the appellants barricaded the door of the prison cell where they killed him in
obedience to Lao’s command: ‘Patayin na
si Reynoso (People vs. Rojas, 147 SCRA 169)’. (p. 100, Rollo.)

The presence of a conspiracy was clearly established. The appellants were animated by one and the
same purpose: to kill Reynoso (People
vs. Manlolo, 169 SCRA 394) and they were united in its execution (People vs.
Pagaduan, 29 SCRA 54). The question as
to who dealt the fatal blow on their victim is of no consequence for it is
settled that when a conspiracy
exists, the act of one is the act of all (People vs. Muñoz, 170 SCRA 107).

Contrary to the trial court’s ruling, abuse of superior strength
was not a qualifying circumstance in the commission of the murder for it was absorbed
by treachery (People vs. Dela Cruz, 147 SCRA 359).

The presence of the special aggravating circumstance of
quasi-recidivism under Art. 160, Revised Penal Code (committing a crime while still
serving sentence for another) should have been considered, but it would not
have affected the penalty imposable on the accused in this case for the maximum
imposable penalty under the Constitution (reclusion perpetua) had
already been imposed on each of them by the trial court.

A heavier penalty, such as death, may not be imposed under the
1987 Constitution no matter how heinous the crime might be, or how many
aggravating circumstances may have attended its commission.

We are unable to conclude
this decision without a word concerning the criminally lax, negligent and inept
administration of the Lucena City Jail at the time of this bloody incident in
May 1986, and perhaps up to this time. The cold-blooded murder of the inmate, Norberto Reynoso, would not have
happened if the warden and jail guards had been strict in prohibiting the entry
of liquor into the prison cells. By
allowing the inmates to have access to alcohol, the prison administration
encouraged rowdy, drunken and violent behavior among the inmates, which, in
this case, culminated in the murder of one of the prisoners. The prison guard who went to investigate
Reynoso’s cries for help was either afraid or stupid, or himself too drunk to
do his duty. Seeing that the appellants
were battering Reynoso, the guard should have known that Reynoso’s life was in
danger. He should have called the
warden and other guards to help him (if he could not do it alone) to quell the
commotion and remove Reynoso from the cell. Instead of simply warning Reynoso’s attackers to stop beating him, the
guard should have remained at the scene to see to it that his order was
obeyed. By failing to do that, he
indirectly contributed to the death of the inmate, Reynoso.

In view of the foregoing, the Court resolved to refer this matter
to the Honorable Secretary of Justice for appropriate administrative action
against the jail warden and the recreant prison guards on duty to improve the
administration the Lucena City Jail and to avoid a repetition of this
unfortunate occurrence not only in that jail but in all prisons and detention
centers throughout the country.

WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is affirmed except that
the indemnity for the death of the victim, following recent decisions of this
Court, is hereby increased to P50,000. Costs against the appellants.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Feliciano, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.