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.

GR No 226679

Salvador Estipona, Jr vs Hon. Frank Lobrigo, People of the Philippines

GR No 226679         August 15, 2017

Facts:

            Estipona was accused of violation of Section 11, Article 2 of RA No 9165. He was found to have possessed a dangerous drug while no authority was imposed upon him to do so. Apparently, Estipona questioned the constitutionality of Section 23 of RA No 9165 which prohibits plea bargaining, as it encroaches on the exclusive constitutional power of the Supreme court to promulgate rules of procedure because plea bargaining is a rule of procedure. Without saying so, Estipona implies that said provision suspends the operation of Rule 118 o the Rules of Court insofar as it allows plea bargaining as part of the mandatory pre-trial conference in criminal cases.

            While basic is the precept that lower courts are not precluded from resolving, whenever warranted, constitutional questions, the Court is not unaware of the admonition of the Supreme Court that lower courts must observe a becoming modesty in examining constitutional questions. Upon which admonition, it is thus not for the lower court to declare Section 23 of RA No 9165 unconstitutional given the potential ramifications that such a declaration might have on the prosecution of illegal drug cases pending before such a judicial station.

Issue:

            WON Section 23 of RA No 9165 unconstitutional; WON Estipona was guilty of the crime charged against him.

Held:

            SC ruled that Section 23 of RA No 9165 is unconstitutional for being contrary to the rule-making authority of the Supreme Court under Section 5 (5) of Article 8 of the 1987 Constitution.

             Accordingly, it was said that plea bargaining has been defined in this jurisdiction as the process whereby the accused and the prosecution work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to the court approval. There is a give-and-take negotiation common in plea bargaining. The essence of the agreement is that both the prosecution and the defense make concessions to avoid potential losses. Properly administered, plea bargaining is to be encouraged because the chief virtues of the system can benefit the accused, the offended party, the prosecution and the court.

            Considering the presence of mutuality of advantage, the rules on plea bargaining neither create a right nor take away a vested right. Instead, it operates as a means to implement an existing right by regulating the judicial process for enforcing rights and duties recognized by substantive law and for justly administering remedy and redress for disregard or infraction of them.

            The decision to plead guilty is often heavily influenced by the defendant’s appraisal of the prosecution’s case against him and by the apparent likelihood of securing leniency should a guilty plea be offered and accepted.

            Apparently, pending deliberation on whether or not to adopt the statutory provision or a qualified version thereof, SC deemed it proper to declare as invalid the prohibition against plea bargaining on drug cases until and unless it is made part of the rules of procedure through an administrative circular duly issued for the purpose.