Afflictive Penalties Cases PDF

2.
Afflictive Penalties (art 27, 41-42)
a. Reclusion Perpetua
i. RA 7659 – done
ii. As indivisible penalty
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NIGEL RICHARD

GATWARD, and U AUNG WIN
That on or about the 31st (sic) day of August 1994, in the vicinity of the Ninoy Aquino
International Airport, Pasay City, x x x , the above-named accused not being
authorized by law, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously transport
heroin (2605.70 grams and 2632.0 grams) contained in separate carton envelopes
with a total weight of 5237.70 grams which is legally considered as a prohibited
drug. (Information dated Sept. 14, 1994)
HELD:
In a subsequent re-examination of and a resolution in said case (people vs

Lucas) on January 9, 1995, the Court en banc realized the misconception,
reversed its earlier pronouncement, and has since reiterated its amended
ruling in three succeeding appellate litigations. The Court, this time, held that
[18]
in spite of the amendment putting the duration of reclusion perpetua at 20

years and 1 day to 40 years, it should remain as an indivisible penalty since
there was never any intent on the part of Congress to reclassify it into a
divisible penalty. This is evident from the undisputed fact that neither Article
63 nor Article 76 of the Code had been correspondingly altered, to wit:
Verily, if reclusion perpetua was reclassified as a divisible penalty, then
Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code would lose its reason and basis for
existence. To illustrate, the first paragraph of Section 20 of the amended R.A.
No. 6425 provides for the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death whenever the
dangerous drugs involved are of any of the quantities stated therein. If Article
63 of the Code were no longer applicable because reclusion perpetua is
supposed to be a divisible penalty, then there would be no statutory rules for
determining when either reclusion perpetua or death should be the imposable
penalty. In fine, there would be no occasion for imposing reclusion
perpetua as the penalty in drug cases, regardless of the attendant modifying
circumstances.
People vs Alvarado
At around 6:30 in the evening of May 26, 1991, Zosimo Estao was stabbed
dead by one of five (5) men who arrived at his house located at Andromeda,
municipality of Angono, Rizal. An information for murder qualified by
treachery and evident premeditation was thereafter filed against herein
appellant Rollie Alvarado and four (4) others whose true names and
whereabouts were unknown. As his co-accused all remained at large, only
appellant underwent trial.
HELD:
We cannot accede to this recommendation in view of this Courts En Banc
Resolution in People v. Lucas dated January 9, 1995 where it was clarified
[30]
that Although Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659 has fixed the duration of reclusion
perpetua from twenty (20) years and one (1) day to forty (40) years, there was
no clear legislative intent to alter its original classification as an indivisible
penalty. It shall then remain as an indivisible penalty. Reclusion perpetua,
therefore, retains its nature as having no minimum, medium and maximum
periods. It is imposed in its entirety regardless of any mitigating or aggravating
circumstances that may have attended the commission of the crime. [31]
WHEREFORE, the modification of a particular disquisition made by the

trial court notwithstanding (re: treachery as the qualifying circumstance and
not abuse of superior strength), appellants conviction for murder and the
penalty of imprisonment and pecuniary liabilities imposed on him are hereby
AFFIRMED.
People vs Latupan
The case is an appeal from the decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court, Tuao,
Cagayan, Branch 11 convicting Gerardo Latupan y Sibal, alias Jerry of the complex
crime of double murder and sentencing him to life imprisonment and to indemnify the
heirs of the two victims in the amount of fifty thousand (P50,000.00) pesos each. The
court also convicted accused Gerardo Latupan of inflicting physical injuries to Jaime
Asuncion, and sentenced him to ten days imprisonment and to pay two hundred
(P200.00) pesos as indemnity.
On April 13, 1992, Provincial Prosecutor Alejandro A. Pulido of Cagayan filed
with the Regional Trial Court, Tuao, Cagayan four separate informations charging
Gerardo Latupan y Sibalalias Jerry with two counts of frustrated murder and two
counts of murder
Held:
Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for murder at the time
of the commission of the crime in April 1991 was reclusion temporal maximum to
death. The trial court convicted accused-appellant of murder and sentenced him to life
imprisonment. The proper imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua, not life
imprisonment. Obviously, the trial court intended to impose reclusion perpetua.
However, the penalty of life imprisonment is not the same as reclusion
perpetua. They are distinct in nature, in duration and in accessory penalties.[18] First,
life imprisonment is imposed for serious offenses penalized by special laws,
while reclusion perpetua is prescribed under the Revised Penal Code. Second, life
imprisonment does not carry with it any accessory penalty.Reclusion perpetua has
accessory penalties. Third, life imprisonment does not appear to have any definite
extent or duration, while reclusion perpetua entails imprisonment for at least thirty
(30) years after which the convict becomes eligible for pardon, although the
maximum period thereof shall in no case exceed forty (40) years.
PEOPLE VS BATES
That on or about the 28th day of November 1995, at around 5:30 oclock in the
afternoon, in Brgy. Esperanza, Ormoc City, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused MARCELO BATES and MARCELO
BATES, JR., conspiring together and confederating with and mutually helping and
aiding one another, with treachery, evident premeditation and intent to kill, being then
armed with long bolos, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously stab
and hack to death the person of the victim herein, JOSE BOHOLST without giving
the latter sufficient time to defend himself, thereby inflicting upon him multiple
wounds which caused his instantaneous death. Death Certificate and Autopsy Report
are hereto attached. In violation of Article 248, Revised Penal Code. [1]
Held:
Under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, homicide is punishable
by reclusion temporal. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and
appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender which is not
offset by any aggravating circumstance, the maximum period of the penalty to
be imposed shall be taken from the minimum ofreclusion temporal which is 12
years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months; while the minimum period shall be
taken from the penalty next lower in degree which is prision mayoror 6 years
and 1 day to 12 years.
For the guidance of both the bench and bar, it must be mentioned that the
trial court committed an error in imposing the penalty of forty (40) years
of reclusion perpetua. We reiterate our earlier pronouncements in a number of
cases that while Section 21 of RA No. 7659 amended Article 27 of the
Revised Penal Code by fixing the duration ofreclusion perpetua from 20 years
and 1 day to 40 years, reclusion perpetua remains to be an indivisible penalty
in the absence of a clear legislative intent to alter its original classification as
an indivisible penalty. Hence, in applicable cases such as the present
[25]
case, reclusion perpetua should simply be imposed without specifying its

duration.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Ormoc City,
Branch 35, is MODIFIED. Appellant Marcelo Bates is hereby found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide and is sentenced to suffer
the indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as
the minimum to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as the
maximum
People Vs Gamayao
That on or about the 28th day of December, 1996, in the evening at Purok 2, barangay
Kalasungay, municipality of Malaybalay, province of Bukidnon, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent
to kill by means of treachery, with the use of a sharp bladed instrument, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and criminally attack, assault and stab CONCORDIO
SULOGAN, inflicting upon the latter mortal wounds which caused the instantaneous
death of CONCORDIO SULOGAN; to the damage and prejudice of the legal heirs of
CONCORDIO SULOGAN in such amount as may be allowed by law.
HELD:
Reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty.[61] As such, the circumstance of voluntary
surrender will not affect the penalty to be meted on the appellant, since under Article 63
of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty of reclusion perpetua must be applied
regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the
commission of the crime.
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
8, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, in Criminal Case No. 8437-97 is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION. Appellant Jerryvie Gumayao y Dahao is found GUILTY of murder,
qualified by treachery, penalized under Republic Act No. 7659, and is sentenced
to reclusion perpetua. The appellant is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim Concordio
Sulogan P50,000 as civil indemnity; P50,000 as moral damages; and P25,000 as
temperate damages.

Afflictive Penalties Cases PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Afflictive Penalties Cases PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Afflictive Penalties Cases PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2.

Afflictive Penalties (art 27, 41-42)

ii. As indivisible penalty

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NIGEL RICHARD

In a subsequent re-examination of and a resolution in said case (people vs

in spite of the amendment putting the duration of reclusion perpetua at 20

WHEREFORE, the modification of a particular disquisition made by the

case, reclusion perpetua should simply be imposed without specifying its

You might also like