This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2003-09-23 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| "However, where the penalty imposed on the co-accused who did not appeal was a nullity because it was never authorized by law, that penalty imposed on the accused who did not appeal can be corrected to make it conform to the penalty prescribed by law, the reason being that, said penalty can never become final and executory and it is within the duty and inherent power of the Court to have it conformable with law.[13] the error of the trial court in the present case can be corrected to make it conform to the penalty prescribed by law as it is within the Court's duty and inherent power. As held in People vs. Gatward, to wit:"But a judgment which ordains a penalty which does not exist in the catalogue of penalties or which is an impossible version of that in the roster of lawful penalties is necessarily void, since the error goes into the very essence of the penalty and does not merely arise from the misapplication thereof. Corollarily, such a judgment can never become final and executory."[14] Thus, the correction to be made by this Court is meant only for the penalty imposed against petitioner to be in accordance with law and nothing else. It is not tantamount to a reduction in order to be favorable to the petitioner nor an increase so as to be prejudicial to him. | |||||
|
2001-09-21 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Nor is there evidence that Roberto and Federico Gadia were impelled by ill-will toward accused-appellant to falsely testify against him. Although these witnesses referred to the victim as their uncle, it must be made clear that relationship of the witnesses to the victim per se does not necessarily render their testimonies unworthy of belief.[31] In fact, these witnesses may also have been relatives of accused-appellant considering that all of them bear the same surname. | |||||
|
2001-09-13 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The contention has no merit. The mere fact that Rodora and Modesta Agua are the daughter and wife of the victim, respectively, does not necessarily make their testimonies untruthful. The relationship of the witnesses to the victim without further evidence cannot serve as proof of bias.[13] It may not be presumed that these witnesses would testify falsely just to obtain retribution for the death of a loved one by blaming it on persons whom they know to be innocent.[14] To the contrary, the inclination of the victim's relatives is to see that the real culprits are punished.[15] | |||||
|
2001-09-13 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Indeed, other than his bare claim that Modesta and Rodora were not present when the incident happened, accused-appellant presented no evidence to prove that these prosecution witnesses were actuated by improper motives in testifying against him. In the absence of such evidence, their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit.[17] | |||||
|
2000-10-16 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Finally, appellants, except for Rogelio, are not entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority. When appellant Antonio Barreta testified in his defense on January 8, 1991, he admitted that he was 24 years old.[36] Appellant Lito Barreta, in turn, declared that he was 22 years of age, when he took the witness stand on September 17, 1990,[37] while appellant Rogelio Barreta admitted to being 19 years of age when he testified on November 6, 1990.[38] Since the incident in question took place on January 26, 1988, appellant Antonio Barreta must have been 22 years old at that time, appellant Lito Barreta, 20 years old, and appellant Rogelio Barreta 17 years old, if their claims and admissions are to be taken at face value. Thus, only Rogelio can be deemed a minor at the time of the commission of the offense. Mitigating circumstances are personal to an accused in whose favor they are determined to exist and cannot be enjoyed by his co-accused.[39] Rogelio, being below 18 years of age at the time the crime was committed, is entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority pursuant to Article 68 (1) of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty for robo con homicidio at the time of the commission of the offense is reclusion perpetua to death. At that time, the imposition of the death penalty was suspended by virtue of Article III, Section 19 (1) of the Constitution. Hence, the maximum allowable penalty was reclusion perpetua, which the trial court imposed in Criminal Case No. 8460. Under Article 68 (2) of the Revised Penal Code, where the offender is over 15 and under 18 years of age, "the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in the proper period." The penalty next lower is reclusion temporal. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty imposable upon Rogelio is prision mayor maximum to reclusion temporal medium, or from ten (10) years and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months. The penalty imposed in Criminal Case No. 8459 (robbery in band) should be deleted as this will favor all the accused, the proper charge being for a special complex crime of robbery with homicide, instead of two separate offenses of murder and robbery in band. | |||||