CRIMINAL LAW I CASE DIGEST/ BON V. COURT OF APPEALS, OCTOBER 30, 2006
BON V. COURT OF APPEALS,
OCTOBER 30, 2006
TOPIC/DOCTRINE
Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code establishes that the
penalty to be imposed upon the principals of an attempted felony must be a
penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated
felony shall be imposed upon the principals in an attempt to commit a
felony.
FACTS
Eight (8) Informations were filed within the
period from 21 August 2000 to 23 February 2001 against appellant Alfredo Bon,
charging him with the rape of AAA and BBB, the daughters of his older brother.
Both AAA and BBB testified against appellant, their uncle, and both identified
him as the man who had raped them. AAA testified that she was only six (6)
years old when she was first molested in 1994 in the house appellant had shared
with her grandmother. BBB, on the other hand, testified that she was first
raped by appellant in 1997 when she was ten (10) years old, also at the house
appellant shared with her grandmother.
The appellant offered a general denial of the
other charges against him by BBB and AAA. He claimed that he seldom saw the two
minors. He further asserted that prior to the institution of the criminal case
against him he had a smooth relationship with his nieces and the only reason
the case was filed against him was that CCC, his sister-in-law and the mother
of his nieces, harbored ill-feelings towards his deceased father, who would
call CCC "lazy" within earshot of other family members.
The RTC convicted appellant on all eight (8) counts of rape.
It further considered the qualifying circumstances of minority of the victims
and the relationship of the victims and appellant, the latter being the
former's relative by consanguinity within the third degree.
The Court of Appeals downgraded the convictions in Criminal
Case Nos. 6906 and 6908 to attempted rape. The sentence was prescribed by the
appellate court prior to the enactment of R.A. No. 9346 which ended the
imposition of death penalty. The proximate concern as to the appellant is
whether his penalty for attempted qualified rape which under the penal law
should be two degrees lower than that of consummated rape, should be computed
from death or reclusion perpetua.
ISSUE
What is the properly penalty for the crimes convicted?
Ruling
The court held that the sentence of death imposed by the RTC
and affirmed by the Court of Appeals can no longer be affirmed in view of Rep.
Act No. 9346, Section 2 of which mandates that in lieu of the death penalty,
the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed. Correspondingly, the Court
can no longer uphold the death sentences imposed by lower courts, but must, if
the guilt of the accused is affirmed, impose instead the penalty of reclusion
perpetua, or life imprisonment when appropriate. Upon the other hand, Article
51 of the Revised Penal Code establishes that the penalty to be imposed upon
the principals of an attempted felony must be a penalty lower by two degrees
than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon
the principals in an attempt to commit a felony.
In the case of appellant, the court held that the determination
of his penalty for attempted rape shall be reckoned not from two degrees lower
than death, but two degrees lower than reclusion perpetua. Hence, the maximum
term of his penalty shall no longer be reclusion temporal, as ruled by the
Court of Appeals, but instead, prision mayor.