Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 283 views

    Special Criminal Laws - Case Digests

    Uploaded by

    Angel Urbano
    The court ruled on two issues in this case: 1. The privileged mitigating circumstance of minority was applicable to one of the accused who was 17 years old at the time of the offense. Therefore, the proper penalty was reclusion temporal instead of reclusion perpetua to death. 2. The aggravating circumstance that the offense was committed by an organized crime group could not be appreciated since there was no proof that the accused were part of a group organized for general criminal purposes. Conspiracy alone was not enough to prove this aggravating circumstance.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Special Criminal Laws - Case Digests

    Uploaded by

    Angel Urbano
    283 views2 pages
    The court ruled on two issues in this case: 1. The privileged mitigating circumstance of minority was applicable to one of the accused who was 17 years old at the time of the offense. Therefore, the proper penalty was reclusion temporal instead of reclusion perpetua to death. 2. The aggravating circumstance that the offense was committed by an organized crime group could not be appreciated since there was no proof that the accused were part of a group organized for general criminal purposes. Conspiracy alone was not enough to prove this aggravating circumstance.

    Original Description:

    Special Criminal Laws - Case digests

    Original Title

    Special Criminal Laws - Case digests

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The court ruled on two issues in this case: 1. The privileged mitigating circumstance of minority was applicable to one of the accused who was 17 years old at the time of the offense. Therefore, the proper penalty was reclusion temporal instead of reclusion perpetua to death. 2. The aggravating circumstance that the offense was committed by an organized crime group could not be appreciated since there was no proof that the accused were part of a group organized for general criminal purposes. Conspiracy alone was not enough to prove this aggravating circumstance.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as rtf, pdf, or txt
    283 views2 pages

    Special Criminal Laws - Case Digests

    Uploaded by

    Angel Urbano
    The court ruled on two issues in this case: 1. The privileged mitigating circumstance of minority was applicable to one of the accused who was 17 years old at the time of the offense. Therefore, the proper penalty was reclusion temporal instead of reclusion perpetua to death. 2. The aggravating circumstance that the offense was committed by an organized crime group could not be appreciated since there was no proof that the accused were part of a group organized for general criminal purposes. Conspiracy alone was not enough to prove this aggravating circumstance.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as rtf, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    199735 October 24, 2012


    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ASIA MUSA y PINASALO,
    ARA MONONGAN y PAPAO, FAISAH ABAS y MAMA, and MIKE SOLALO y
    MILOK, Accused-Appellants.

    Facts: On June 1, 2004, at or about 9:00 p.m., the


    Station Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operating Task
    Force of the Taguig City Police received a report from
    an informant about the selling of prohibited drugs by
    Musa and her cohorts at Maharlika Village, Taguig
    City. The police immediately organized a buy-bust
    operation which included PO1 Danilo Arago (PO1
    Arago) and PO1 Memoracion as team members. The
    buy-bust team then proceeded to a nearby shopping
    mall (Sunshine Mall) where the police had arranged
    PO1 Memoracion and the informant to meet with the
    alleged drug dealers. The informant and Memoracion
    alighted from the vehicle while the rest of the buybust team waited at the parking lot. PO1 Memoracion
    then told Abas and Solano that he wanted to score
    shabu worth five-thousand pesos (PhP 5,000) but the
    two replied that they do not have available stocks on
    hand. Thus, they agreed to go to a nearby
    condominium unit at Building II, Maharlika Village.
    The four met Musa at the hallway outside Unit 403.
    Abas introduced Memoracion to Musa as the buyer.
    Afterwards, Musa took from her pocket one (1) heat
    sealed plastic sachet of shabu and gave it to PO1
    Memoracion. The latter immediately made the call to
    PO1 Arago who, together with two (2) other police
    officers, proceeded right away to PO1 Memoracions
    location, which was about 15 meters away from the
    ground floor.
    In defense, each of accused-appellants denied the
    accusations against them and just submitted
    their respective alibis.

    Issues
    1. Whether or not the privileged mitigating
    circumstance of minority is applicable.
    2. Whether or not the accused are members of an
    organized crime group or a drug syndicate.

    Ruling
    1. The court ruled in the affirmative.

    In the recent People v. Mantalaba, where the


    accused was likewise 17 years old at the time of
    the commission of the offense, the Court held,
    inter alia, that: (a) pursuant to Sec. 98 of RA
    9165, the penalty for acts punishable by life
    imprisonment to death provided in the same
    law shall be reclusion perpetua to death when
    the offender is a minor; and (b) that the penalty
    should be graduated since the said provision
    adopted the technical nomenclature of
    penalties provided for in the Revised Penal
    Code.

    Thus, applying the rules stated above, the


    proper penalty should be one degree lower than
    reclusion perpetua, which is reclusion temporal,
    the privileged mitigating circumstance of
    minority having been appreciated.

    Necessarily, also applying the Indeterminate


    Sentence Law (ISLAW), the minimum penalty
    should be taken from the penalty next lower in
    degree which is prision mayor and the
    maximum penalty shall be taken from the
    medium period of reclusion temporal, there
    being no other mitigating circumstance nor
    aggravating circumstance.

    The ISLAW is applicable in the present case


    because the penalty which has been originally
    an indivisible penalty (reclusion perpetua to
    death), where ISLAW is inapplicable, became a
    divisible penalty (reclusion temporal) by virtue
    of the presence of the privileged mitigating
    circumstance of minority. Therefore, a penalty
    of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision
    mayor, as minimum, and fourteen (14) years,
    eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion
    temporal, as maximum, would be the proper
    imposable penalty.

    2. The Court ruled that the aggravating circumstance


    that "the offense was committed by an
    organized/syndicated group" cannot be
    appreciated.
    Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code,
    as amended by Section 23 of Republic Act No.
    7659, mandates that the maximum penalty
    shall be imposed if the offense was committed
    by any person who belongs to an
    organized/syndicated crime group. The same
    article defines an organized/syndicated crime
    group as a group of two or more persons
    collaborating, confederating, or mutually
    helping one another for the purposes of gain in
    the commission of any crime.

    While the existence of conspiracy among


    appellants in selling shabu was duly
    established, there was no proof that appellants
    were a group organized for the general purpose
    of committing crimes for gain, which is the
    essence of the aggravating circumstance of
    organized/syndicated group under Article 62 of
    the Revised Penal Code.

    The existence of aggravating circumstances


    must be based on positive and conclusive proof,
    and not merely on hypothetical facts no matter
    how truthful the presumptions may
    seem. Aggravating circumstances which are
    taken into consideration for the purpose of
    increasing the degree of the penalty imposed
    must be proved with equal certainty as the
    commission of the act charged as criminal
    offense.

    You might also like