CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | GRANA VS. PEOPLE G.R. No. 202111, 2019

GRANA VS. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 202111, 2019

 

TOPIC/DOCTRINE

Section 11(a), Rule 122 of the Rules of Court provides that “[a]n appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as he judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter.” 

 

FACTS

Complainant filed before the MeTC, an Information5 for malicious mischief against Teddy Grana (Teddy), Gil Valdes6 (Gil), Ricky Dimaganti (Ricky), Olive Grana (Olive), and Teofilo Grana (Teofilo), and another Information for Other Forms of Trespass to Dwelling, docketed only against Teddy, Gil and Ricky.

The MeTC rendered a Joint Decision finding all accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Malicious Mischief, while Teddy and Gil were both convicted of Other Forms of Trespass. The RTC affirmed in toto the findings of the MeTC. The CA affirmed the conviction of Teddy, Gil, Olive and Teofilo for the crime of Malicious Mischief while Teddy and Gil were acquitted of the crime of Other Forms of Trespass. Teddy, Gil, Olive and Teofilo filed a Partial Motion for Reconsideration which was likewise denied for lack of merit. Hence, the present Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioners Teddy and Teofilo. The two other accused, Gil and Olive, did not appeal their case.

 

ISSUE

Whether Gil and Olive, then they should benefit from the reduction of the sentence considering that they did not appeal their case.

 

RULING 

Yes.

The court ruled that Section 11(a), Rule 122 of the Rules of Court provides that “[a]n appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as he judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter.” 

Here, the court ruled that The value of the damage cause to private complainant by petitioners is only P7,500.00. Consequently, pursuant to Article 329 of the RPC, as amended by R.A. 10951, petitioners’ original sentence of a straight penalty of imprisonment of four (4) months should be reduced to arresto menor or imprisonment of one (1) day to thirty (30) days. We note that Gil and Olive did not appeal their case before the Court of Appeals. [However] considering the reduction of the sentence imposed on the crime committed, which is favorable and applicable to Gil and Olive, then they should benefit from the reduction of the sentence imposed on them.







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