0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
363 Ansichten3 Seiten
The appellant was convicted in two cases by the lower court. In the first case, he was sentenced to 12-20 years imprisonment for killing a plane purser. In the second case, he was sentenced to life imprisonment for killing the pilot after forcing him to change the plane's route. The prosecution appealed, arguing the lower court erred by not imposing life imprisonment for the first case and the death penalty for the second case. The Supreme Court must determine if the prosecution can appeal to impose harsher penalties without putting the accused in double jeopardy.
The appellant was convicted in two cases by the lower court. In the first case, he was sentenced to 12-20 years imprisonment for killing a plane purser. In the second case, he was sentenced to life imprisonment for killing the pilot after forcing him to change the plane's route. The prosecution appealed, arguing the lower court erred by not imposing life imprisonment for the first case and the death penalty for the second case. The Supreme Court must determine if the prosecution can appeal to impose harsher penalties without putting the accused in double jeopardy.
The appellant was convicted in two cases by the lower court. In the first case, he was sentenced to 12-20 years imprisonment for killing a plane purser. In the second case, he was sentenced to life imprisonment for killing the pilot after forcing him to change the plane's route. The prosecution appealed, arguing the lower court erred by not imposing life imprisonment for the first case and the death penalty for the second case. The Supreme Court must determine if the prosecution can appeal to impose harsher penalties without putting the accused in double jeopardy.
The Attorney General Mr. John R. Liwag Law Office and the Attorney Mr.
Jose Bautista on behalf of the appellant.
Mr Francisco Reyes F. Lardi!abal and ". #aonil on behalf of the appellee. #A$L J. % The co&plaint in the first cause is the following lines% That on or about the '(th day of )ece&ber *+,- in Mountain #ro.ince #hilippines and within the /urisdiction of this 0onorable 1ourt the abo.e2na&ed accused then passenger of #hilippine Air Line plane #3212'4 entroute fro& Laoag to Aparri and while said plane was flying o.er Mountain #ro.ince did then and there willfully unlawfully and feloniously and ar&ed with .5, and .'4 caliber pistols with &utiny and 6nown pre&editation shot 7duardo )iago the purser of the aforesaid plane thus inflicting gunshot wound on his 87duardo )iago9 body and as a result thereof said 7duardo )iago died instantly. Baguio City, March 9, 1953 (p. 1, REC., Criminal Case No. 419. !he complaint in the secon" cause is the #ollo$ing%. !hat on or a&out the 3'th "ay o# (ecem&er, 195), in Mountain *ro+ince, *hilippines an" $ithin the ,uris"iction o# this -onora&le Court, the a&o+e.name" accuse", then passenger o# *hilippine /ir 0ine *lane *1.C.32 enroute #rom 0aoag to /parri sai" $hile the plane $as #lying o+er Mountain *ro+ince, "i" then an" there $ill#ully, unla$#ully an" #eloniously, an" $ithout authority o# la$, compel *e"ro *earls, pilot o# the a#oresai" plane, against the latter3s $ill an" consent, to change the route o# the plane an" ta4e him (accuse" to /moy, an" $hen *eter *earls #aile" to comply imme"iately $ith sai" or"er, sai" accuse" $ho $as then arme" $ith . 45 an" .32 cali&er pistols, $ith mutiny an" 4no$n preme"itation, "i" then an" there 5ill#ully, unla$#ully an" #eloniously, shot sai" *eter *earls, thus in#licting gunshot $oun"s on the "i##erent parts o# his (*eter *earls &o"y an" as a result thereo# sai" *eter *earls "ie" instantly. Baguio 1ity March + *+,' 8p * rec. 1ri&inal 1ase :o. 5-(. 9. 3nfor&ed the accused of the two co&plaints with the assistance of his lawyers he pleaded guilty. The 1ourt sentenced hi& in the first cause to twel.e 8*-9 AOA i&prison&ent as a &ini&u& to twenty 8-(9 years of te&porary confine&ent as &a;i&u& with co&pensation to the heirs of 7duardo )iago in the su& of #<.((( and coasts. 3n the second cause the 1ourt sentenced hi& to life i&prison&ent with co&pensation to the heirs of #eter pearls in the su& of #<.((( and coasts. The &otions for reconsideration filed in these cases arguing that the lower court erred in not i&posing on the first cause the penalty of life i&prison&ent and the second of death ha.e been denied by the court below that is why the pro.incial prosecutor presented appeal. The Attorney General &aintains in its allegation that the lower court co&&itted error in the first case to not declare offset the aggra.ating cirunstancia of pre&editation with the e;tenuating circu&stance of spontaneous declaration of guilt and in failing to i&pose the accused the penalty of life i&prison&ent and in the second case the failure to declare that the accused co&&itted the offense co&ple; of se.ere coercion with &urder and not i&pose 1apital punish&ent. is well2founded the contain&ent of the #ublic #rosecutor in the first case. As it is co&pensated the aggra.ating cirucnstancia of pre&editation with the e;tenuating circu&stance of declaration of guilt should be i&posed on the accused the penalty pro.ided for by article -54 of the Re.ised #enal 1ode in your a.erage grade or is life i&prison&ent . in regard to the second case the accused forced the pilot #eter pearls to steer the airplane of Laoag to A&oy instead of lle.erlo to Aparri and co&ply with such re=uire&ent nor illegal the defendant fired se.eral shots fro& a re.ol.er. A:) cri&e co&&itted 2 contends the Attorney General 2 is the co&ple; cri&e of se.ere coercion with &urder and the death penalty. Lac6s base this clai&. that article pro.ides that >3n the e.ent that a single fact constitutes two go &ore cri&es or cu This article pro.ides that >3n the e.ent that a single fact constitutes two go &ore offenses or when one of the& is necessary &eans for co&&itting the other the penalty shall be red stop 6ey light co&e to the &ore serious offense applying it in its &a;i&u& degree. > The accused co&pelled the a.iator #edro. #earls to change the direction of the airplane and how does not co&ply with its order 6illed hi&? the accused ran two different facts and not /ust one? therefore they cannot these two successi.e acts constitute the co&ple; cri&e of coercion with &urder. 3f the a.iator had followed the order of the accused this would not ha.e felt the need to 6ill hi&? the pilot was put in the hard choice to co&ply with the order or die. 7la.iador did not want to be disloyal to its obligation and was dead. The accused could be depri.ed of his life #eter #earls without forcing you to change the direction of the airplane? it was not necessary coercion to co&&it the &urder. :or was it essential the ase natio to co&&it the coercion but =uite the contrary? for ha.ing 6illed the pilot the accused did not succeed in its desire to reach out to A&oy% co&&itted two acts that consitutyen the cri&es of coercion trustrada and &urder. >The dwelling that pa.es the others &a6ing yield to force the door 6noc6s and cerradra of the sa&e and in it 6ills wo&en residing there and by who& he had before relations ilicitass> does not co&&it an offense of allna&iento co&ple; of dwelling with ho&icide. Must be i&posed on the accused the penalty for each of the offenses. 8Judg&ent of January -5 *44*. 9 8- 1o&&onalty ,.ed. <*'. 9 >#resentanse at night two sub/ects in the dwelling place of a third party? 6noc6 at the door and as6ing the& =uestions that they wanted the )uea answered that en/oy it and his daughter? not open staged penetrate to the force &istreat and beat the inhabitants were serious in/ury and &ild ta6ing with the& the lea.e so&e &pact rated in less than *( pesetas%> The accused did not co&&it the offenses of burglary with .iolence and inti&idation serious in/ury &inor in/ury and theft. "hould apply article 44 and article +( which deals with the co&ple; cri&e. 8Judg&ent of *( February *44,.9 8- 1o&&onalty ,.ed.? <*52<*,.9 there is no need to i&pose the defendant therefore the penalty of death. can the prosecutor appeal@ Article - of the Rule **4 reads as follows% Mand can appeal. 2 The people of the #hilippines howe.er or you can appeal when the accused would be e;posed to a double /eopardy. 3n all other cases either party &ay appeal a final /udg&ent or order issued after the /udg&ent which affects the essential rights of appellant. This article is reproduction of articles 5' and 55 of the General Order :o. ,4 As a&ended by article 5 of Law :o. -44<. General Order :o. ,4 3t is of A&erican origin and therefore the unprecedented anglo2A&ericans should be ta6en into account. in a long list o# "ecisions a#ter "etermine" in cassation the cause o# 6epner against 7nite" 8tates, 195 7. 8. , 1''9 11 :7R. *hil., ;29, has &een esta&lishe" &y this Court in+aria&ly the "octrine that the prosecution cannot appeal against a ,u"gment in $hich the accuse" is ac<uitte", #or the reason that #or the secon" time she is in "anger o# &eing punishe" #or the same o##ense. =!he /merican common la$ also prohi&ite" a secon" trial #or the same o##ense the accuse" ha" su##ere" any punishment or not, o3&een ac<uitte" or con+icte" in a pre+ious reason. = in the cause o# the 7nite" 8tates against 8anges, <uote" in the 6epner, sai"% =>rom the time o# 0or" -ale to "ate o# the case o# Cha"$ic4 ,ust <uote", the te?t&oo4s, $ith rare e?ceptions, or "an o# course or claime" that the accuse", (or your representati+e, is the only one $ho can get a ne$ trial to appeal in cassation in criminal case, an" a ,u"gment in your #a+or is lasting peace an" conclusi+e. (8ee ) -a$4., +. 4@, 8ec. 1)9 C. 5', 8ections 1' et se<.9 Bac. /&. !rial, 0. 99 Error, B9 1 Chit, Crim. 0a$, ;5@, @4@9 8tar4, Crim. *1. (8econ" E"ition, 35@, 3;@, 3@1, /rch&. Crim. *l. , = ... 3!here has &een no case o# resource o# cascion against a ,u"gment in #a+or o# the accuse", a#ter ac<uitte".3 (/rc&ol" Cr. *1 A *R., *omery3s E"., 199 . >:o error howe.er flagrant co&&itted by the court against the state can be reser.ed by it for decision by the supre&e court when the defendant you ha.e ele.en been placed in /eopardy and discharged e.en though the discharge was the result of the error co&&itted. "tate .s. Roo6 5+ A. L. R. *4< <* Aan. '4- ,+ 1ap. <,'. 8* L. R. A. -5-. 9 This 1ourt has ne.er sol.ed a si&ilar =uestion to the instant case in which the defendant was con.icted of a lesser sentence than the sealada by law and the public prosecutorBs office on appeal re=uests that in accordance with the Re.ised #enal 1ode the accused is i&posed a greater penalty. 3f the public prosecutor 2 as the accused 2 you can appeal to correct an error of law then it will be i&posed upon the defendant forced a penalty of life i&prison&ent. After you ha.e been and 2 by error2sentenced by the lower court to the sentence of *- years of i&prison&ent for -( years of te&porary confine&ent is not to put again the accused in danger of being conde&ned to greater penalty for the sa&e offense@ 3f the accused was the appellant it would ha.e no right to co&plain if you i&pose a greater penalty in the case told the that appeals is the public prosecutor and the appeal is endangering the accused to recei.e another greater conde&nation. Ce belie.e that in the present case is the accused in double /eopardy this is in the danger of recei.ing a sentence of life i&prison&ent after ha.ing been already conde&ned by the court less than a lesser penalty. By this danger the public prosecutor &ay appeal in accordance with article - of the Rule **4 and following the constitutional guarantee that >will not to a person in danger of being punished twice for the sa&e offense> on in /eopardy. is dis&issing the appeal.