Scribd
Upload
306 views2 pages

PEOPLE VS. RIBADAJO 142 SCRA 637 (1986) Facts

The appellants were inmates convicted of murdering a fellow inmate. They claimed on appeal that their extrajudicial confessions were obtained through force. The court ruled that the constitutional prohibition against involuntary confessions did not apply retroactively to confessions obtained before 1973. It also found the aggravating circumstance of recidivism applied since all appellants had prior convictions. While the trial court did not err in imposing the death penalty, the Supreme Court reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua due to lack of votes for death. The court affirmed the convictions but raised the indemnity for the victim's heirs.

Uploaded by

Syed Almendras II
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
306 views2 pages

PEOPLE VS. RIBADAJO 142 SCRA 637 (1986) Facts

The appellants were inmates convicted of murdering a fellow inmate. They claimed on appeal that their extrajudicial confessions were obtained through force. The court ruled that the constitutional prohibition against involuntary confessions did not apply retroactively to confessions obtained before 1973. It also found the aggravating circumstance of recidivism applied since all appellants had prior convictions. While the trial court did not err in imposing the death penalty, the Supreme Court reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua due to lack of votes for death. The court affirmed the convictions but raised the indemnity for the victim's heirs.

Uploaded by

Syed Almendras II
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

PEOPLE VS.

RIBADAJO 142 SCRA 637 (1986)


FACTS:

There were originally six (6) accused: Tobias Ribadajo, Romeo Corpuz, Federico Basas, Rosendo
Anor, Rodolfo Torres and Loreto Rivera, all inmates of the New Bilibid Prison at Muntinlupa,
Rizal One of the however, Loreto Rivera, died during the pendency of the case.

On Nov. 20, 1971, the appellants confessed participation in the slaying of a fellow inmate,
Bernardo Cutamora, at the New Bilibid Prison. On the basis of their confession, they were found
guilty of murder. On appeal, they claimed that their extrajudicial confessions had been obtained
by force.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Trial Court erred in admitting as evidence, and in giving weight to the
supposed extrajudicial confession of the accused.

RULING:

The proscription against the admissibility of confessions obtained from an accused during the
period of custodial investigation, in violation of procedural safeguards, applies to confessions
obtained after the effectivity of the 1973 Const. No law gives the accused the right to be so
informed before the enactment of the 1973 Const., even of presented after Jan. 17, 1973. That
Constitutional guaranty relative to confessions obtained during custodial investigation does not
have any retroactive effect.

The aggravating circumstance of recidivism has to be considered because all the accused at the
time of the commission of the offense, were serving their respective sentences by virtue of a
final judgment for other crimes embraced in the same Title of the Revised Penal Code (Corpuz
for Homicide; Ribadajo for Murder; Basas for Murder; Anor for Murder; and Torres for
Homicide).

No error either was committed by the Trial Court in imposing the death penalty. The penalty for
murder is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. Considering that appellants
committed the present felony after having been convicted by final judgment and while serving
their respective sentences, they should be punished by the maximum period of the penalty
prescribed by law for the new felony. 25 Given this circumstance, Anor's change of plea from
Guilty to Not Guilty will not change his liability besides the fact that it was made after the
prosecution had rested its case.

The defense contention that appellants should be held guilty only for "Death Caused in a
Tumultuous Affray" and sentenced to prision mayor under Article 251 of the Revised Penal
Code, upon the allegation that the commotion was spontaneous, lacks merit. There was no
confusion and tumultuous quarrel or affray, nor was there a reciprocal aggression between both
parties. Appellants rushed out of their cell with the common purpose of attacking the victim of a
rival group, which unity of purpose indicates appellants' common responsibility for the
consequences of their aggression.

WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction is hereby AFFIRMED. However, for lack of the
necessary votes, the penalty to be imposed on all the accused-appellants is reduced to reclusion
perpetua. The indemnity to be paid to the heirs of the deceased is hereby raised to P30,000.00.
Proportionate costs against the accused.

You might also like