PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. PEDRO RAMIREZ G.R. No. 138261; April 17, 2001 Panganiban, J.

FACTS: In the evening of May 23, 1993, in Ormoc City, Montano Banez invited the private offended party, Jonathan Jojo Alkuino to a drinking session at a nearby sari-sari store. While the two were in the middle of their drinking spree, the accused/appellant, Pedro Ramirez calmly approached the two, and suddenly and without any warning, stabbed Alkuino on the right side of his body just below his ribs. Alkuino was immediately brought to the hospital but died eventually died the next day due to massive blood loss. While on the throes of death, Alkuino related to his father the identity of his assailant. This, in turn, was presented as testimonial evidence during trial as a dying declaration of the victim. The trial court found Pedro Ramirez guilty of Murder and sentencing him to "suffer imprisonment of forty (40) years reclusion perpetua. ISSUE: Whether or not the Trial Court correctly sentenced the accused/appellant to "suffer imprisonment of forty (40) years reclusion perpetua. HELD: NO. RATIONALE:: The Supreme Court has held that the Trial Court erred in sentencing appellant "to suffer imprisonment of forty (40) years reclusion perpetua", which is an indivisible penalty under the Revised Penal Code. The Supreme Court has held in People v. Diquit that since reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty, it has no minimum, medium or maximum periods. It is imposed in its entirety regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the crime as provided under Art. 63, RPC. Reclusion perpetua is imprisonment for life but the person sentenced to suffer it may be pardoned after serving thirty (30) years imprisonment, unless by reason of his conduct or some other serious cause, he shall be considered by the Chief Executive as unworthy of pardon Art. 27, RPC.

Digested by Benjamin C. Roque