People of the Philippines vs. Ramon Lao y Ricardo, et al.

A group attack on a lone, unsuspecting, unarmed victim inside a barricaded prison cell is murder qualified by treachery; when conspiracy is established, the act of one is the act of all, and abuse of superior strength is absorbed by treachery. Factual findings of the trial judge on witness credibility are entitled to the highest degree of respect on appeal.

The seven accused-appellants—Ramon Lao, Edilberto Rajel, Alfredo Delizo, Alejandro Jovillano, Rumolito Palermo, Gerry Merelo, and Roberto Divino—and the victim, Norberto Reynoso, were prisoners confined in Cell No. 3 of the Lucena City Jail at the time of the incident. The case was decided under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, with the Court also considering Article 160 on quasi-recidivism and the constitutional limitation on penalties.

The trial court found that 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. Reynoso led the singing while another inmate played guitar. Trouble erupted when, at a signal from appellant Lao, appellant Divino attacked first and the others followed; Divino, Rajel, Delizo, Jovillano, and Merelo took turns boxing and kicking Reynoso. Reynoso fell groggy onto a tarima, after which Merelo pulled him up and dragged him toward the cell door, propping him up for further blows. Reynoso shouted for help; a prison guard responded, warned the inmates to stop, and left.

After the guard left, Merelo again pulled Reynoso to a corner of the cell while the other appellants pushed a tarima against the cell door to block entry. Lao then ordered, “Patayin na si Reynoso.” Jovellano picked up a piece of wood about a foot long and seven centimeters in diameter and hurled it at Reynoso, hitting the left arm; Merelo hurled the same piece, hitting the head near the left ear; Lao boxed and kicked him; Palermo hurled the wood, hitting the left arm; Merelo again hit him with it on the left side of the head; and Palermo took a crudely fashioned knife with one end bound in cloth and stabbed Reynoso in the back near the spinal column.

Police officers rushed to Cell No. 3 but could not enter because the door was blocked. They cut the iron bars with hacksaws and removed some inmates. The rest, including all appellants, refused to come out despite repeated pleas from the police and the Mayor of Lucena City until tear gas was thrown into the cell. A post-mortem examination disclosed hematomas and contusions of both eyes, lacerated wounds over the right eyebrow and both parietal regions of the skull, a 10-cm laceration of the left ear with depressed fracture of the mastoid region, and stab wounds near the vertebral column and lumbar area.

Except for Divino, who admitted direct participation in the killing, the appellants denied guilt. Jovellano claimed he would not have assaulted Reynoso because Reynoso was his kumpadre; Delizo claimed that as a relatively new inmate he was unlikely to get involved; Rajel, Palermo, and Merelo stated they were asleep; and Lao claimed he tried to pacify the troublemakers. Appellants also testified that their cellmates Elson Tan, Rico Labagis, Bernardo Amarillas, and Rolando Perez—prosecution witnesses—were the actual killers.

The trial court rejected those versions as contradictory, vague, and general. It credited the prosecution witnesses’ positive identification, noted the accused-appellants’ refusal to leave the cell despite persuasion, and observed after an ocular inspection that Cell No. 3 measured only about three by eight meters and that the tarima occupied about two-thirds of the floor area; any occupant would have been awakened by, and able to see, the commotion.

• Trial Court Error in Credibility: Appellants insisted that the trial court erred in finding them guilty, the appeal being addressed to the credibility of the witnesses.
• Individual Denials and Alibi: Jovellano argued he could not have assaulted his kumpadre; Delizo argued that as a new occupant of Cell No. 3 he was unlikely to get involved; Rajel, Palermo, and Merelo argued they were asleep; and Lao argued he tried to pacify the troublemakers.
• Third-Party Culpability: Appellants argued that prosecution witnesses Elson Tan, Rico Labagis, Bernardo Amarillas, and Rolando Perez were the actual killers.

• Credibility of Witnesses: Whether the trial court erred in crediting the positive identification of the prosecution witnesses over the denials, alibi, and third-party culpability claims of the accused-appellants.
• Conspiracy: Whether conspiracy was established despite lack of certainty as to who dealt the fatal blow.
• Treachery: Whether the killing was qualified by treachery.
• Abuse of Superior Strength: Whether abuse of superior strength should be appreciated as an independent qualifying circumstance.
• Quasi-Recidivism and Penalty: Whether the special aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism should have been considered, and whether any penalty higher than reclusion perpetua could be imposed.

• Credibility of Witnesses: No. The trial court’s credibility assessment was entitled to the highest degree of respect; positive identification prevailed over the accused-appellants’ denial and alibi.
• Conspiracy: Yes. Conspiracy was established by a common purpose to kill Reynoso and united execution; the act of one is the act of all, and the fatal blow was immaterial.
• Treachery: Yes. The attack on a lone, unsuspecting, unarmed victim, with the cell door barricaded, qualified the killing as murder.
• Abuse of Superior Strength: No. Abuse of superior strength was absorbed by treachery.
• Quasi-Recidivism and Penalty: Yes as to consideration. Quasi-recidivism under Article 160 should have been appreciated, but it would not affect the penalty; the 1987 Constitution barred death.

• Credibility of Witnesses: The trial judge had the opportunity to observe witness demeanor and assess credibility, so the factual findings were given the highest degree of respect. The accused-appellants’ versions were contradictory, vague, and general; their refusal to leave the cell despite persuasion undercut their defenses. The ocular inspection showed that the cell was only about three by eight meters and that the tarima occupied two-thirds of the floor area, making it improbable that sleeping inmates would not have been awakened by the commotion. Positive identification thus prevailed over simple denial.
• Conspiracy: The appellants acted with a single purpose—to kill Reynoso—and were united in execution, following Lao’s order to kill. Because conspiracy existed, it mattered not who inflicted the fatal blow; the act of one conspirator is the act of all.
• Treachery: The seven appellants attacked a lone victim while he was singing, without any inkling of the assault. He was unarmed, while the appellants were armed with a wooden club and a knife and took turns beating and stabbing him. The victim made no attempt to defend himself because resistance was futile, and the attackers incurred no risk. Barricading the cell door ensured that Reynoso could neither escape nor be rescued.
• Abuse of Superior Strength: Although the trial court treated abuse of superior strength as a separate qualifying circumstance, it was absorbed by treachery, following People vs. Dela Cruz, 147 SCRA 359.
• Quasi-Recidivism and Penalty: The appellants committed the crime while serving sentence for another offense, so the special aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism under Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code should have been considered. It would not have changed the penalty, however, because reclusion perpetua was already the maximum imposable penalty under the Constitution. Death could not be imposed under the 1987 Constitution regardless of the crime’s heinousness or the number of aggravating circumstances.

• Trial Court Credibility Assessment — Findings of the trial judge, who observed the witnesses’ demeanor and assessed their credibility, are entitled to the highest degree of respect on appeal and will not be disturbed absent circumstances warranting reversal.
• Positive Identification vs. Denial and Alibi — Positive identification by prosecution witnesses prevails over an accused’s simple denial, especially where the denial is contradicted by circumstances such as a small crime scene and refusal to surrender.
• Treachery — A killing is qualified by treachery where offenders attack a lone, unsuspecting, unarmed victim in a manner that ensures execution without risk to themselves, including by barricading the scene to prevent escape or rescue.
• Absorption of Abuse of Superior Strength — Abuse of superior strength is absorbed by treachery when both arise from the same coordinated attack and should not be separately appreciated as a qualifying circumstance.
• Conspiracy — Conspiracy exists when the offenders are animated by the same purpose and united in its execution. Once shown, the exact identity of the person who inflicted the fatal blow is immaterial; the act of one is the act of all.
• Quasi-Recidivism — Under Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code, commission of a crime while serving sentence for another offense is a special aggravating circumstance. In this case, it should have been appreciated but did not affect the penalty because reclusion perpetua was already the maximum imposable penalty.
• Penalty Limitation under the 1987 Constitution — Death may not be imposed under the 1987 Constitution no matter how heinous the crime or how many aggravating circumstances attended its commission; reclusion perpetua was the maximum imposable penalty.

• "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." — This passage states the ratio decidendi on treachery: the coordinated group attack on an unsuspecting and unarmed victim, with the cell barred, made the killing murder.
• "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)." — This excerpt sets out the conspiracy doctrine applied to hold all seven appellants liable regardless of which one inflicted the fatal wound.
• "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)." — This passage corrects the trial court’s treatment of abuse of superior strength and states the absorption rule.
• "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." — This excerpt states the constitutional limitation on penalty and explains why the trial court’s reclusion perpetua sentence was not increased.

• People vs. Patag, 144 SCRA 542 — Applied as authority for giving the highest degree of respect to trial court findings on witness credibility.
• People vs. Guardo, 156 SCRA 152 — Applied with People vs. Patag for deference to the trial judge’s credibility assessment.
• People vs. Sabado, 168 SCRA 681 — Applied for the rule that simple denial cannot prevail over positive identification.
• People vs. Rojas, 147 SCRA 169 — Cited in the treachery analysis, where the appellants barricaded the prison cell to ensure the victim could neither escape nor be rescued.
• People vs. Manlolo, 169 SCRA 394 — Cited for the rule that conspiracy exists where the accused are animated by one and the same purpose.
• People vs. Pagaduan, 29 SCRA 54 — Cited for the requirement that conspirators be united in execution.
• People vs. Muñoz, 170 SCRA 107 — Applied for the principle that when conspiracy exists, the act of one is the act of all.
• People vs. Dela Cruz, 147 SCRA 359 — Applied for the rule that abuse of superior strength is absorbed by treachery.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Defined and penalized the crime of murder. The killing of Reynoso fell under this provision because it was qualified by treachery, and the trial court’s imposition of reclusion perpetua was affirmed.
• Article 160, Revised Penal Code — Governed quasi-recidivism, or commission of a crime while serving sentence for another offense. The Court held that this special aggravating circumstance should have been appreciated but would not affect the penalty.
• 1987 Constitution — Applied as the source of the penalty limitation preventing the imposition of death. The Court ruled that reclusion perpetua was the maximum imposable penalty regardless of aggravating circumstances.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano and Medialdea, JJ., concurred.