CRIMINAL LAW CASE DIGEST | PEOPLE V. CESAR, 22 SCRA 1024

PEOPLE V. CESAR,

22 SCRA 1024

TOPIC/DOCTRINE

In a complex crime, the penalty for the more serious crime should be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period. The proper method is to start from the penalty imposed by the Revised Penal Code then apply the privileged mitigating circumstance and determine the penalty immediately inferior in degree, and finally apply the same in its maximum degree but within the minimum range thereof if there is an ordinary mitigating circumstance. If for instance prision mayor is the maximum of the indeterminate sentence, the minimum of the indeterminate penalty is the penalty next lower to it as prescribed by the Revised Penal Code, i.e., prision correccional.

FACTS

Charged of direct assault with murder in the Municipal Court of Carmen, Bohol, accused waived his right to preliminary investigation and moved that his case be remanded to the Court of First Instance of Bohol at Tagbilaran. This was granted and the accused was charged with the same complex crime in the latter court.

Upon arraignment on April 12, 1966, the accused pleaded not guilty. However, on the date set for trial on the merits, he manifested thru counsel his intention to plead guilty to the lesser offense of direct assault with homicide and to pay damages. With the Fiscal's conformity and upon petition of accused, the latter was allowed to withdraw his former plea of not guilty, the information was amended accordingly, and the accused pleaded guilty to the charge of direct assault with homicide. With leave of court, and in order to mitigate his liability, accused proved that he was born in the Municipal ity of Carmen, province of Bohol, on May 27, 1948 (Exhibits 1 and 1-A), and therefore on the date of the commission of the crime, he was only 17 years, 9 months, and 12 days old. The trial court convicted the accused of direct assault upon a person in authority with homicide in its decision dated April 30, 1966.

ISSUE

In this appeal, the accused raises as sole issue the correct penalty under the circumstances.

RULING

The court held that Accused-appellant pleaded guilty to and was convicted of the crime of direct assault upon a person in authority with homicide. This being a complex crime, the penalty for the more serious crime should be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.4 The more serious crime is homicide punishable by reclusión temporal. Accused has to his credit two mitigating circumstances: the special or privileged mitigating circumstance of minority5 and the ordinary mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty.6 Therefore, under Art. 64, par. 5 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty imposable is the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law. Under Art. 71, Revised Penal Code, the penalty next lower to reclusión temporal is prisión mayor. Because of the complex nature of the crime committed by accused-appellant, the penalty of prisión mayor is to be applied in its maximum period. However, having in his favor the ordinary mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty without any offsetting aggravating circumstance, applying Art. 64, par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty of prisión mayor maximum should be imposed in its minimum range.

All told, and applying now the Indeterminate Sentence Law, accused-appellant should be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of not less than six (6) years of prisión correccional, to not more than ten (10) years and eight (8) months of prisión mayor.

Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BACLAYON V. MUTIA, 129 SCRA 148

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST | THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ BPI FAMILY BANK VS. FRANCO/ G. R. NO. 123498/ 23 NOVEMBER 2007

REMEDIAL LAW | Riviera Golf Club v. CCA G.R. No. 173783, June 17 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MINA VS. PASCUAL/ 25 PHIL. 540 (1923)

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ QUINTOS VS. BECK/ 69 PHIL. 108 (1939)

LAW ON PROPERTY | ACOSTA V. OCHOA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 211559; G.R. NO. 215634, OCTOBER 15, 2019

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION VS. NUTRI-ASIA, INC ., G.R. NO. 201302, JANUARY 23, 2019

LEGAL ETHICS | MAURICIO C. ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ DELOS SANTOS VS. JARRA/ G. R. NO. L-4150/ 10 FEBRUARY 1910/ 15 PHIL. 147