MEMORANDUM ON APPEAL 1 of 6

x----------------------------------------x

Republic of the Philippines

Court of Appeals
Ma. Orosa St.,
Ermita, Manila,
Philippines

A and B Criminal Case No: _____

Accused-Appellants FOR: HOMICIDE

-versus-

The People of the Philippines

Plaintiff-Appellee
x---------------------------------------------x

APPELLANTS MEMORANDUM ON APPEAL

Comes now the Accused-Appellants thru the undersigned

counsel and to this Honorable Court hereby files their appeal
memorandum and avers thru:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court,

Branch 8, Tacloban City dated January 1, 2014, a copy of which was
received by undersigned counsel on January 15, 2014, and the
dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, on the ground of lack of merit, the Motion for

Reconsideration is hereby DENIED.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

1. Whether or not the penalty imposed is proper?

2. Whether or not the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable
to the case?

CASE FACTS

1. The personal circumstances and the legal capacities of

the parties remain undisputed;
 MEMORANDUM ON APPEAL 2 of 6
x----------------------------------------x

2. The accused-appellant pleaded guilty before the

presentation of evidence by the prosecution;

3. The trial court declared both accused guilty beyond

reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide;

4. The accused-appellants were both sentenced to a prison

term of 14 years, 8 months, and 1 day to 17 years, 4 months, and 1
day of Reclusion Temporal;

5. The accused-appellants are to severally pay the civil

liability;

6. A Motion for Reconsideration was filed both the accused-

appellant before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, Tacloban City;

7. The accused-appellants questioned the penalty imposed

on them in the light of the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence
Law;

8. On January 1, 2014, the trial court resolved to deny the

Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit;

9. Accused-Appellant perfected an appeal on January 30,

2014 and the same was given due course by the trial court; and

10. Undersigned counsel for the accused-appellants received

the order to submit an appeal memorandum on February 15, 2014.

ARGUMENTS & DISCUSSIONS

1. Whether or not the penalty imposed is proper?

The penalty is not proper.

It is a well-settled rule that the court must instead of a single fixed

penalty; determine two penalties, referred to in the Indeterminate
Sentence Act as the MAXIMUM & MINIMUM terms.

The trial court declared both accused guilty beyond reasonable

doubt of the crime of Homicide and sentenced them both to a prison
term of 14 years, 8 months, and 1 day to 17 years, 4 months and 1
day of Reclusion Temporal.
 MEMORANDUM ON APPEAL 3 of 6
x----------------------------------------x

Pursuant to Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, it provides

that Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246
shall kill another, without the attendance of any of the circumstances
enumerated in the next preceding article (Murder), shall be deemed
guilty of homicide and be punished by Reclusion Temporal.

According to the Appendix A, Scale of Penalties,

Reclusion Temporal - 12 years & 1 day to 20 years

Minimum: 12 years & 1 day to 14 years & months
Medium: 14 years, 8 months & 1 day to 17 years & 4 months
Maximum: 17 years, 4 months & 1 day to 20 years

And as provided by Section 1, Act No, 4103 as amended by

Act No. 4225 that if the offense is punished by the Revised Penal
Code, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate
penalty, the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of
the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the
Revised Penal Code and the minimum term of which shall be within
the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code
for the offense.

Both the accused were convicted of homicide penalized by

Reclusion Temporal in its medium period. There is one mitigating
circumstance of plea of guilty.

To determine the penalty next lower, the mitigating circumstance

of plea of guilty is disregarded first. Hence, Reclusion Temporal in its
full extent, the penalty prescribed by the Code for the offense, should
be the basis.

Reclusion Temporal minimum becomes the proper penalty only

because of the presence of the mitigating circumstance of plea of
guilty. The penalty next lower is Prision Mayor.

Therefore, the Indeterminate Sentence will be:

MAXIMUM Reclusion Temporal minimum, in its proper period

after considering the mitigating circumstance.

MINIMUM Prision Mayor, in any of its periods or anywhere

within the range of Prision Mayor without reference to any of
its period.
 MEMORANDUM ON APPEAL 4 of 6
x----------------------------------------x

The plea of guilty is considered mitigating circumstance. In the

case of People vs. De Joya, 98 Phil. 238, 240, the mitigating or
aggravating circumstance is required to be considered only in the
imposition of the maximum term of the Indeterminate Sentence.

All told and applying now the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
accused should be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of not less
than 6 years and 1 day of Prision Mayor to not more than 12 years
and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months of Reclusion Temporal in its
minimum period.

Thus, the prison term of 14 years, 8 months and 1 day to 17

years, 4 months and 1 day of Reclusion Temporal is not proper.

2. Whether or not the Indeterminate Sentence Law is

applicable to the case?

As provided in the case of People vs. Ducosin, 59 Phil 109,

117, the purpose of the Indeterminate Sentence Law is to uplift and
redeem valuable human material, and prevent unnecessary and
excessive deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness.

Thus the law on Indeterminate Sentence is intended to favor the

defendant in a criminal case particularly to shorten his term of
imprisonment.
In People vs. Lee, Jr., 132 SCRA 66 it provides that the
application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law is mandatory where
imprisonment would exceed one year.

Thus the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable to the case at

hand because of the fact that the penalty imposed for the crime of
homicide exceeds one year and it is a well-settled rule that it is
mandatory.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, accused-appellant respectfully prays that the

Honorable Court to reconsider the Appeal and to SET ASIDE the
decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, Tacloban
City.

All other just and equitable reliefs are also prayed for.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
 MEMORANDUM ON APPEAL 5 of 6
x----------------------------------------x

Tacloban City; April 1, 2014.

Atty. _________________________
Counsel for the Accused Appellant
LAW OFFICE
Filipinas St. corner J. Pacheco St. Brgy. Naga-Naga Palo, Leyte
Attys. Roll No. 55555/May 10, 2007
PTR No. 1111111 issued on January 4, 2012 at Tacloban City
IBP OR No. 777777 issued on January 26, 2013 at Tacloban City
MCLE COMPLIANCE NUMBER III-0006695/ November 10, 2012
Contact No. ________________
Email Add: __________@yahoo.com

VERIFICATION

I, ATTY._______________________, of legal age, and a

resident of _________________, after having been duly sworn to in
accordance with law hereby state that:

1. By way of a Special Power of Attorney, I have been duly

authorized by the accused-appellants to, among other acts,
prepare, sign and submit this Memorandum;
2. I caused the preparation of this same pleading in coordination,
consultation, and conformity with the accused-appellants, the
real party in interest; and
3. I and the accused-appellants have read the contents thereof
and the facts stated therein are true and correct, of our
personal knowledge and/or on the basis of copies of authentic
documents and records in my possession.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature,

this _______ day of ________, 2014 in Tacloban City, Philippines.

_____________________
Affiant
Competent Proof of Identity: IBP ID NO: ___________

SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this ______

day of _______ 2014, in Tacloban City, Republic of the Philippines.
 MEMORANDUM ON APPEAL 6 of 6
x----------------------------------------x

Doc No.
Page No.
Book No. III
Series of 2012

Copy Furnished

Office of the Solicitor General

134 Amorsolo Street, Legazpi Village
Makati City, Philippines
Mail Registry Receipt No.: ______________ Dated:
_______________

EXPLANATION ON THE MODE OF SERVICE

Service of a copy of this pleading upon adverse counsel was done by

registered mail was made for reason of lack of personnel to effect
personal service and the distance between law offices of both
counsels.

ATTY. _________________________

People vs. De Joya G.R. No. L-6587 January 27, 1956

People vs. Ducosin G.R. L-38332 December 14, 1933
People vs. Lee G.R. No. 157781 April 11, 2005