Arnel Colinares vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No.

182748 December 13, 2011 FACTS: At around 7:00 in the evening on June 25, 2000, Rufino and Jesus went out to buy cigarettes at a nearby store. On their way, Jesus took a leak by the roadside with Rufino waiting nearby. From nowhere, Arnel Colinares sneaked behind and struck Rufino twice on the head with a huge stone, about 15 inches in diameter. Rufino fell unconscious as Jesus fled. Dr. Albert Belleza issued a Medico-Legal Certificate showing that Rufino suffered two lacerated wounds on the forehead, along the hairline area. The doctor testified that these injuries were serious and potentially fatal but Rufino chose to go home after initial treatment. Arnel claimed self-defense. He claimed that it was Rufino and Jesus were the aggressors and only fought back with the use of a stone which hit Rufino in the head. RTC: Convicted Arnel Colinares of the FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE, with an imprisonment from two years and four months of prision correccional, as minimum, to six years and one day of prision mayor, as maximum. Since the maximum probational imprisonment under the law was only up to six years, arnel DID NOT QUALIFY FOR PROBATION CA: Case was appealed to CA invoking self-defense and alternately seeking conviction for a lesser crime of Attempted Homicide. CA affirmed the RTC decision. ISSUE: Given a finding that Arnel is entitled to conviction for a lower offense and a reduced probationable penalty, whether or not he may still apply for probation on remand of the case to the trial court. SC: Taken in its entirety, there is a dearth of medical evidence on record to support the prosecutions claim that Rufino would have died without timely medical intervention. Thus, the Court finds Arnel liable only for attempted homicide and entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Ordinarily, Arnel would no longer be entitled to apply for probation, he having appealed from the judgment of the RTC convicting him for frustrated homicide. But, the Court finds Arnel guilty only of the lesser crime of attempted homicide and holds that the maximum of the penalty imposed on him should be lowered to imprisonment of four months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two years and four months of prision correccional, as maximum. With this new penalty, it would be but fair to allow him the right to apply for probation upon remand of the case to the RTC. In a real sense, the Courts finding that Arnel was guilty, not of frustrated homicide, but only of attempted homicide, is an original conviction that for the first time imposes on him a probationable penalty. Had the RTC done him right from the start, it would have found him guilty of the correct offense and imposed on him the right penalty of two years and four months maximum. This would have afforded Arnel the right to apply for probation.

People vs. Nicanor SALOME G.R. No. 169077 August 31, 2006 FACTS: Sometime in July 1997, Sally Idanan, then 13 years old, was sleeping with her 3-year old brother inside their house when Salome entered the same. She was then awakened by the presence of the latter who allegedly was poling a knife at the base of her neck. While holding the knife with one hand, Salome undressed her with his other hand. He threatened that he would kill her and her family if she would tell anyone about the incident. After undressing her, Salome forced her to lie down, spread her legs, and inserted his penis into her vagina. Fearful for her life and her familys safety, she did not inform anyone of the incident. However, when she found out that she was pregnant, Sally reported the incident to the Police. An information was filed against Salome for the crime of RAPE with the use of a deadly weapon. Salome interposed in his alibi that he was fishing during the alleged time of the incident which was corroborated by two witnesses who accompanied him with the fishing activity. RTC: Convicted Salome of Rape with the use of deadly weapon aggravated by the circumstance of dwelling. Death Peanalty was imposed. CA: Automatic Review by SC but was referred to CA for intermediate review pursuant to the SC ruling on Pp. Vs. Mateo. Affirmed the ruling of the RTC. SC: Affirmed the conviction. In light, however, of the passage of RA 9346, the imposition of death penalty was prohibited. Section 2 thereof states that in lieu of death penalty, the following shall be imposed: a) The penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the RPC b) The penalty of Life Imprisonment, when the law violated do not make use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the RPC. Furthermore, Section 3 of the same law states that persons convicted of the offense punished by Reclusion Perpetua of whose sentence shall be reduced to Reclusion Perpetua shall NOT be eligible for PAROLE under the Indeterminate Sentence Law. It should be noted that while the new law prohibits the imposition of death penalty, the penalty provided for a heinous crime is still death and the offense is still heinous. On the other hand, Automatic appeal in cases where the trial court imposes the death penalty will henceforth not apply, since its imposition is now prohibited, so that there is a need to PERFECT an appeal, if appeal is desired from a judgment of conviction for an offense where the penalty imposed is Reclusion Perpetua in lieu of death penalty pursuant to the new law prohibiting it.

PEOPLE V. NELSON BAYOT y SATINA G.R. No. 200030, April 18, 2012Perez, J: FACTS: The accused Nelson Bayot was convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for a crime of rape committed against AAA, thus sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The appellate court increased the award of indemnity from 40,000 to 50,000Php. It also ordered accused to pay AAA moral damages in the amount of P 50,000. The decision was promulgated on May 9, 2006. However, in a letter dated May 29, 2006, Superintendent Leopando of New Bilibid Prison informed the Court of Appels that the appellant died at the Prisons hospital on December 4, 2004. ISSUE: Is the death of the accused before the final promulgation of the decision which convicts him for rape extinguished both his criminal and civil liability? HELD: YES. This is for the reason that the source of civil liability of the accused is based solely on his criminal liability. As opined by Justice Regalado, the death of the accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability directly arising and based solely on the offense committed. The claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of the accused if the same may also predicate on a source of obligation other than delict. However in this case, the claim for civil liability is attached to the criminal liability. In addition, par 1 of Art. 89 provides that the death of the convict extinguished the criminal liabilities and as to pecuniary penalties liability, when the death occurs before the final judgment. Based from the records, the judgment was promulgated only on 2006, two (2) years after the death of the accused in2004, therefore, both his criminal and civil liability is extinguished.