GR No 92020

People of the Philippines vs Eliseo Martinado, Hermogenes Martinado, John Doe, alias “Rolly”

GR No 92020         October 19, 1992

Facts:

          Eliseo and Hermogenes were accused of the crime of robbery with homicide and was found by the RTC to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. As there was no appreciable mitigating nor aggravating circumstance, both are sentenced to suffer imprisonment under the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Hermogenes was credited in the service of his sentence with the full time that he has undergone one preventive imprisonment pursuant to Article 29 of the RPC provided conditions prescribed thereon have been complied with.

The promulgation of this decision was made in the absence of Eliseo as he had earlier escaped after the defense has rested its case. He was later re-arrested only almost a year after he escaped and 2 months after the said promulgation. It was then that the counsel of record for Hemogenes and Eliseo filed a notice of appeal for both accused.

Issue:

          WON an escapee may avail of ISLAW

Held:

          No, an escapee may not avail of ISLAW.

      

      Under Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, if the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused to appear was without justifiable cause, the court shall further order the arrest of the accused, who may appeal within 15 days from notice of the decision to him or his counsel.

Also, according to a recent case, an accused who had escaped from confinement during the trial on the merits and who remains at large at the time of the promulgation of the judgment of conviction loses his right to appeal therefrom, unless he voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the court or is otherwise arrested within 15 days from notice of judgment. The reason therefor is that an accused who escapes from detention, humps bail or flees to a foreign country loses his standing in court, unless he surrenders or submits to the jurisdiction of the court, he is deemed to have waived any right to seek relief therefrom. The same cannot be given a retroactive effect.

In this case, both Hemogenes and Eliseo were found guilty of homicide under Article 249 of the RPC. As there was an aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength, and in the absence of mitigating circumstance to offset, and applying the provisions of ISLAW, Hemogenes’ sentence was modified to an indeterminate penalty of 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor maximum as minimum to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal maximum as maximum. Eliseo, on the other hand, was not entitled to the benefits of ISLAW as he had escaped from confinement. Accordingly, he is sentenced to suffer penalty of imprisonment of 17 years 4 months, and 1 day of reclusion temporal maximum.

AM No RTJ-96-1349

Spouses Jose ad Trinidad Bacar vs Judge De Guzman, Jr

AM No RTJ-96-1349         April 18, 1997

Facts:

          A Joint Judgment was rendered by Judge De Guzman, JR; one of those was a charge of homicide and another was a charge of attempted homicide, both against Gerardo Marcial. The accused was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. Marcial was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as to the first case and imprisonment of 30 days of arresto mayor as regards the second case.

However, when Marcial submitted a motion for reconsideration to take into account at least two mitigating circumstances: 1) sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party which immediately preceded the act; and 2) that the accused had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. RTC granted the motion for reconsideration with a reduced penalty of 6 years of prision mayor as to the first case and retaining the sentence for the second case.

Spouses Bacar filed a motion for reconsideration and addendum to which Marcial opposed. The RTC Judge denied the said motion for reconsideration. Aggrieved, the Sps Bacar filed an administrative complaint against RTC Judge De Guzman, Jr for gross ignorance of law and for rendering unjust judgment.

Issue:

          WON RTC Judge was guilty of the charges against him.

Held:

     RTC Judge cannot be held liable for rendering an unjust judgment by considering in favor of the accused the two mitigating circumstances. Since it is a judicial matter, then the remedy of the complainants should likewise be judicial.

       

        However, RTC Judge is liable for gross ignorance of law for imposing a straight penalty of 6 years of imprisonment on the accused in the case for homicide. The application of ISLAW is mandatory where imprisonment would exceed 1 year. And in applying the same for offenses under RPC, the indeterminate sentence should have a fixed minimum and maximum.

          

       Although, there are exceptions as regards the application of ISLAW: a) offenses punished by death or life imprisonment; b) those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason; c) those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition, or espionage; d) those convicted of piracy; e) habitual delinquents; f) those who escaped from confinement or those who evaded sentence; g) those granted conditional pardon and who violated the terms of the same; h) those whose maximum period of imprisonment does not exceed 1 year; and i) those who are already serving final judgment upon the approval of the ISLAW.

    

     The need for specifying the minimum and maximum periods of the indeterminate sentence is to prevent unnecessary and excessive deprivation of liberty and to enhance the economic usefulness of the accused, since he may be exempted from serving the entire sentence, depending upon his behavior and his physical, mental, and moral record. The requirement of imposing and indeterminate sentence in all criminal offenses whether punishable by RPC or by special laws, which definite minimum and maximum terms, as the Court deems proper within the legal range of penalty specified by the law must, therefore, be deemed mandatory.

GR No 93028

People of the Philippines vs Martin Simon

GR No 93028                   July 29, 1994

Facts:

Simon was charged with a violation of Section 4, Article 2 of RA No 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. He was arrested during a buy-bust operation led by the police unit at Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga. Apparently, he was caught red-handed of selling two marijuana teabags in exchange for money amounting to P40, without knowing that the same was marked money.

As the police unit narrated the buy-bust operation that ensued which led to the arrest of Simon, the latter devised a narrative to show that he was manhandled by the police. However, this was of no moment by the court absent an evidence to prove the abuse. Simon was found guilty of the offense charged.

However, RA No 6425, as amended, was further amended by RA No 7659, which supervenience necessarily affects the original disposition of this case

Issue:

          WON Simon would be punished under the Special Penal Law or RPC.

Held:

Originally, special laws, just as was the conventional practice in the US but differently from the penalties provided for in our RPC and its Spanish origins, provided for one specific penalty or a range of penalties with definitive durations. This is the special law contemplated in and referred to at the time laws like the Indeterminate Sentence Law were passed during the American regime.

Subsequently, a different pattern emerged whereby a special law would direct that an offense thereunder shall be punished under RPC and in the same manner as provided therein. As provided in Article 10 of the RPC, provisions of the RPC shall be “supplementary” to special laws; where the special law expressly grants to the court discretion in applying the penalty prescribed for the offense, there is no room for the application of the provisions of the Code.

Apparently, Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable to the case at bar. This is so because the drug offenses are not included in, nor has Simon committed any act which would put him within the exceptions to said law and penalty to be imposed does not involve reclusion perpetua or death, provided that the penalty as ultimately resolved will exceed one year of imprisonment. The most important however, is how the ISLAW shall be ascertained.

It is true that Section 1 of said law, after providing for indeterminate sentence for an offense under RPC, states that ‘if offense is punishable by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law, and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same.