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.