GR No 176102

Rosal Hubilla vs People of the Philippines

GR No 176102        November 26, 2014

Facts:

         Hubilla was charged of homicide for stabbing Jayson Espinola with a knife, inflicting upon him mortal wounds in his body directly causing his death. The RTC rendered a judgment finding Hubilla guilty of homicide and sentenced him to suffer indeterminate penalty of imprisonment for 4 years and one day of prision correccional as minimum, to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor as maximum.

         On appeal, the CA affirmed the said conviction but modified the penalty. The sentence was reduced to 6 months and 1 day to 6 years of prision correccional as minimum to 6 years and 1 day to 12 years of prision mayor as maximum. But CA amended its judgment on motion for reconsideration, modifying sentence to an indeterminate penalty of 6 months and 1 day of prision correccional as minimum to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor.

Issue:

       WON Hubilla was entitled to suspension of sentence as a juvenile in conflict with the law pursuant to the mandate of RA No 9344

Held:

       SC held that Article 249 of the RPC prescribes a penalty of reclusion temporal for homicide. Considering that Hubilla was then a minor at the time of the commission of the crime, being 17 years of age when he committed the homicide, such minority was a privileged mitigating circumstance that lowered the penalty to prision mayor.

       Hubilla’s insistence to further reduce the sentence imposed is bereft of legal basis. In fact, neither the RPC, nor RA No 9344, nor any other relevant law or rules support or justify the further reduction of the maximum of the indeterminate sentence. To yield to his insistence would be to impose an illegal penalty, and would cause the Court to deliberately violate the law.

        Although Section 38 of RA No 9344 allows the suspension of the sentence of the child in conflict with the law adjudged as guilty of a crime, the suspension is available only until the child offender turns 21 years of age. However, if said child reached 18 years of age while under suspended sentence, the court shall determine whether to discharge the child, to order execution of sentence, or extend the suspended sentence for a specified period or until the child reaches the maximum age of 21 years.

      We note that Hubilla was well over the age of 23 years at the time of his conviction for homicide. Hence, the suspension of his sentence was no longer legally feasible or permissible. Lastly, the imprisonment of children in conflict with the law is by no means prohibited.