People vs.

Peralta
3 SCRA 213
“Art. 160 – Commission of Another Crime during Service of Penalty
Imposed for Another Previous Offense.”
Nature of the case: APPEAL from the Decision of the Court of First Instance
of Rizal.

SC Decision: WHEREFORE, the aforementioned decision of the lower court

is hereby affirmed, with costs against defendants Alfredo Peralta and Roman
Fernando.
Facts: Defendants Alfredo Peralta and Roman Fernando together with other
accused were inmates of the New Bilibid Prison, municipality of Muntinlupa,
in the province of Rizal.
Conspiring with one another and armed with wooden club, they killed
one Guillermo Lutero.
That the accused are quasi-recidivists having committed the
abovementioned felony while serving their respective sentence after having
been convicted of final judgment. Upon arraignment, the six defendants
entered a plea of not guilty. When the case was called for trial, Alfredo
Peralta and Roman Fernando withdrew their aforementioned plea then
entered a plea of guilty.
The CFI of Rizal rendered its decision finding Alfredo Peralta and
Roman Fernando guilty of the crime of murder with the special circumstance
of quasi-recidivism, and, accordingly, imposing, pursuant to Article 160 of
the Revised Penal Code, the maximum penalty prescribed by law for the
aforementioned crime, namely the death penalty.
The counsel de oficio of the two defendants also contends that the
allegation of quasi-recidivism is ambiguous because it fails to state whether
the offenses were penalized by the Revised Penal Code or by a special law.
Issue: Whether or not Alfredo Peralta and Roman Fernando are quasi-
recidivists?
Ruling: Yes. The Court ruled that it makes no difference, for the 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.