G.R. No.
182518 January 20, 2009 months and one (1) day of reclusión temporal in its medium period,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
vs.
MUHAMMAD ABDULAH, alias "BONG ABDULAH," alias "BONG
HASAN ZAMAN," Appellant.
Facts:
For final review by the Court is the trial court’s conviction of
appellant Abdulah for murder of 3 females found in the area of the
apartment road in Maharlika Village, Taguig, Metro Manila [now, the
City of Taguig. The bodies had stab wounds, and the necks had
ligature marks. On November 15, 1992, prompted by a news report,
the relatives of the victims went to Taguig, and there identified the
dead bodies as those of Evelyn, Romelyn and Jovy.
The police theorized that appellant Abdulah killed the victims to
avenge the death of his brother Rex, Romelyn’s live-in partner. The
police further believed that appellant must have been convinced of
the family’s involvement in the death of Rex, considering that Rex’s
killer was the former boyfriend of Romelyn and hailed from the
same hometown as the family.
EVIDENCE PRESENTED: The circumstantial evidence presented
and positive identification of appellant as the person who abducted
the victims, Evelyn and Jovy, are sufficient to render the conviction
of the former for the killing of the latter.
DEFENSES: denial and alibi
Held: In this case, nevertheless, we find appellant liable only for the
death of Evelyn and Jovy, there being no evidence to show that he
also abducted Romelyn. While the prosecution witnesses testified
that appellant intended to proceed to the club where Romelyn
worked, no evidence was produced that he, in fact, reached the club
and fetched Romelyn from there.
As in Delim,28 we also find, in this case, appellant guilty only of
homicide defined and penalized by Article 24929 of the Revised Penal
Code (RPC). Treachery and evident premeditation, the
circumstances alleged in the informations, cannot be appreciated to
qualify the killing to murder, considering that these were not proven
during the trial. It is an ancient but revered doctrine that qualifying
and aggravating circumstances before being taken into
consideration, for the purpose of increasing the penalty to be
imposed, must be proved with equal certainty as those which
establish the commission of the criminal offense. It is not only the
central fact of a killing that must be shown beyond reasonable
doubt; every qualifying or aggravating circumstance alleged to have
been present and to have attended such killing must similarly be
shown by the same degree of proof.30
Considering the absence of any modifying circumstance in the
commission of homicide, the indeterminate penalty to be imposed
for each of the two counts should be within the range of prisión
mayor, as minimum, to reclusión temporal in its medium period, as
maximum.
Following current jurisprudence, appellant is ordered to pay the
heirs of the victims, for each of the two counts of homicide, civil
indemnity of ₱50,000.00 and moral damages of ₱50,000.00.31
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is PARTIALLY
GRANTED. The July 17, 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00023, and the August 24, 2000 Decision of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 158 of Pasig City in Criminal Cases Nos.
98124, 98125 and 98126 are AFFIRMED WITH THE FOLLOWING
MODIFICATIONS:
(1) appellant is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2)
counts of homicide defined and penalized under Article 249 of the
Revised Penal Code;
(2) for each count, he is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate
penalty of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prisión mayor in its
maximum period, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8)
as maximum.
(3) for each count, appellant is ordered to pay the heirs of the
victims civil indemnity of ₱50,000.00 and moral damages of
₱50,000.00.
________________________________________________
G.R. No. 200087, October 12, 2016
YOLANDA LUY Y GANUELAS, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
This case involves the criminal attempt by the petitioner to smuggle
dangerous drugs (shabu) inside a detention facility to her detained
husband by submerging the packets of shabu inside a plastic jar
filled with strawberry juice and cracked ice. The attempt failed
because of the alacrity of the lady guard manning the entrance of
the jail compound.
The petitioner expectedly denied that the shabu belonged to her.
Her sole explanation for why she had the shabu at the time was that
a certain Melda had requested her to bring the jar of strawberry
juice inside the jail compound for her husband, Bong, also a
detainee, because Melda had supposedly forgotten to bring her
identification card that day, and because she was then in a hurry to
fetch her child.
RTC/ CA accused Yolanda Luy y Ganuelas guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of violation of Section 11, Article II, R. A. 9165 and is hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12)
years and one (1) day and to pay a fine of P300,000.00 with
subsidiary imprisonment in case of inability to pay the fine. The
illegal drug confiscated from the accused is hereby ordered to be
turned over to the Philippine Drug and (sic) Enforcement Agency
(PDEA) for disposition in accordance with law.
Upon review, the Court has not found any valid reason to disturb
the factual findings of the RTC and the CA.
Secondly, a successful prosecution for the illegal possession of
dangerous drugs in violation of Section 11 of R. A. No. 9165
requires that the following essential elements of the offense be
established, namely: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or
object identified as a prohibited drug; (2) her possession is not
authorized by law; and (3) she freely and consciously possessed the
drug.
The RTC after the trial and the CA on appeal rejected the
petitioner's denial and explanation. We also reject them now.
Denial, aside from being easily fabricated, has been the common
excuse tendered by those arrested and prosecuted for the illegal
possession of dangerous drugs. Under Section 1115 of R.A. Act No.
9165, however, the mere possession of the dangerous drugs was
enough to render the possessor guilty of the offense. Moreover, the
denial by the petitioner, being self-serving and negative, did not
prevail over the positive declarations of JO3 Joaquin. In order for
the denial to be accorded credence, it must be substantiated by
strong and convincing evidence.16 Alas, the petitioner did not
present such evidence here. As to her explanation, she could have
presented Melda herself to corroborate her story. Her word alone
not enough because she had been caught in the actual possession
of the shabu during the routinary search at the gate of the jail
compound. As such, we cannot allow her denial to gain traction at
all.
The penalty for the crime committed by the petitioner is provided
for in Section 11(3) of R.A. No. 9165, as
follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. — The penalty of life
imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred
thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos
(P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless
authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug In the
following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity
thereof:cralawlawlibrary
x x x x
1

(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to
twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred
thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to four hundred thousand
pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are
less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or
cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin
oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu", or other
dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy",
PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly
introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any
therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond
therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams
of marijuana.
chanrobleslaw
Based on the provision, the correct penalty was an indeterminate
sentence whose minimum should not be less than the minimum of
12 years and one day prescribed by Section 11(3), R.A. No. 9165,
supra, and whose maximum should not exceed the maximum of 20
years as also prescribed by Section 11(3), R.A. No. 9165, supra.
The imposition of the indeterminate sentence was required by
Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, viz.:
Section 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence for an offense
punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court
shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the
maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the
attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules
of the said Code, and the minimum which shall be within the range
of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the
offense; and if the offense is punished by any other law, the
court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate
sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the
maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be
less than the minimum term prescribed by the same. (As
amended by Act No. 4225)
chanrobleslaw
Considering that neither the offense committed nor the imposable
penalty was expressly exempt from the coverage of
the Indeterminate Sentence Law pursuant to Section 220 thereof,
the imposition of the indeterminate sentence was mandatory.21 The
minimum and the maximum periods had a worthy objective, for, as
the Court expounded in Bacar v. Judge de Guzman, Jr.:
The need for specifying the minimum and maximum periods of the
indeterminate sentence is to prevent the unnecessary and excessive
deprivation of liberty and to enhance the economic usefulness of the
accused, since he may be exempted from serving the entire
sentence, depending upon his behavior and his physical, mental,
and moral record.
The requirement of imposing an indeterminate sentence in all
criminal offenses whether punishable by the RPC or by special laws,
with definite minimum and maximum terms, as the Court deems
proper within the legal range of the penalty specified by the law
must, therefore, be deemed mandatory.
chanrobleslaw
To conform with the Indeterminate Sentence Law, therefore, the
indeterminate sentence should be 12 years and one day, as
minimum, to 14 years, as maximum.
The other error of the lower courts was in imposing subsidiary
imprisonment should the petitioner be unable to pay the fine. The
imposition of subsidiary imprisonment, which is a subsidiary
personal liability of a person found guilty by final judgment who has
no property with which to meet the fine, is based on and in accord
with Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code, a provision that is
supplementary to special laws (like R.A. No. 9165) unless the latter
should specially provide the contrary.23 But subsidiary imprisonment
cannot be imposed on the petitioner because her principal penalty,
supra, was higher then prision correccional or imprisonment for six
years. In this regard, Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code relevantly
states:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Article 39. Subsidiary penalty. — If the convict has no property with
which to meet the fine mentioned in the paragraph 3 of the next
preceding article, he shall be subject to a subsidiary personal
liability at the rate of one day for each eight pesos, subject to the
following rules:cralawlawlibrary
x x x x
3. When the principal imposed is higher than prision
correctional, no subsidiary imprisonment shall be imposed
upon the culprit.
xxxx
chanrobleslaw
To repeat, the RTC's imposition of subsidiary imprisonment "in case
of inability to pay the fine" of P300,000.00 was invalid and legally
unenforceable.
In view of the foregoing, the petitioner is ordered to suffer the
modified penalty of an indeterminate sentence of 12 years and one
day, as minimum, to 14 years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of
P300,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of her
insolvency.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on
August 31, 2011 in CA-G.R. CR No. 33057 subject to
the MODIFICATION that the penalty of the petitioner is the
indeterminate sentence of 12 years and one day, as minimum, to 14
years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P300,000.00 without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of her insolvency;
and ORDERS the petitioner to pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.C
______________________________________
G.R. No. 180016 April 29, 2014
LITO CORPUZ, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
This is to resolve the Petition for Review on Certiorari, under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court, dated November 5, 2007, of petitioner Lito
Corpuz (petitioner), seeking to reverse and set aside the
Decision1 dated March 22, 2007 and Resolution2 dated September 5,
2007 of the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed with modification
the Decision3 dated July 30, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 46, San Fernando City, finding the petitioner guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa under Article 315,
paragraph (1), sub-paragraph (b) of the Revised Penal Code.
Held:
Now, with regard to the penalty imposed in the present case, the CA
modified the ruling of the RTC. The RTC imposed the indeterminate
penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional
in its medium period, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight
(8) months of reclusion temporal in its minimum period, as
maximum. However, the CA imposed the indeterminate penalty of
four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as
minimum, to eight (8) years of prision mayor, as maximum, plus
one (1) year for each additional ₱10,000.00, or a total of seven (7)
years.
In computing the penalty for this type of estafa, this Court's ruling
in Cosme, Jr. v. People48 is highly instructive, thus:
With respect to the imposable penalty, Article 315 of the Revised
Penal Code provides:
ART. 315 Swindling (estafa). - Any person who shall defraud
another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be
punished by:
2
1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to penalty of imprisonment ranging from THREE (3) YEARS, TWO (2)
prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is MONTHS and ELEVEN DAYS of prision correccional, as minimum, to
over 12,000 but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such amount FIFTEEN (15) YEARS of reclusion temporal as maximum.
exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall
be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each
Pursuant to Article 5 of the Revised Penal Code, let a Copy of this
additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be
Decision be furnished the President of the Republic of the
imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such case, and in
Philippines, through the Department of Justice.
connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and
for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty
shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case
may be.

The penalty prescribed by Article 315 is composed of only two, not

three, periods, in which case, Article 65 of the same Code requires
the division of the time included in the penalty into three equal
portions of time included in the penalty prescribed, forming one
period of each of the three portions. Applying the latter provisions,
the maximum, medium and minimum periods of the penalty
prescribed are:

Maximum - 6 years, 8 months, 21 days to 8 years

Medium - 5 years, 5 months, 11 days to 6 years, 8 months, 20 days

Minimum - 4 years, 2 months, 1 day to 5 years, 5 months, 10

days49

To compute the maximum period of the prescribed penalty, prisión

correccional maximum to prisión mayor minimum should be divided
into three equal portions of time each of which portion shall be
deemed to form one period in accordance with Article 6550 of the
RPC.51 In the present case, the amount involved is ₱98,000.00,
which exceeds ₱22,000.00, thus, the maximum penalty imposable
should be within the maximum period of 6 years, 8 months and 21
days to 8 years of prision mayor. Article 315 also states that a
period of one year shall be added to the penalty for every additional
₱10,000.00 defrauded in excess of ₱22,000.00, but in no case shall
the total penalty which may be imposed exceed 20 years.

Considering that the amount of ₱98,000.00 is ₱76,000.00 more

than the ₱22,000.00 ceiling set by law, then, adding one year for
each additional ₱10,000.00, the maximum period of 6 years, 8
months and 21 days to 8 years of prision mayor minimum would be
increased by 7 years. Taking the maximum of the prescribed
penalty, which is 8 years, plus an additional 7 years, the maximum
of the indeterminate penalty is 15 years.

Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, since the penalty

prescribed by law for the estafa charge against petitioner is prision
correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum, the penalty next
lower would then be prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods.

Thus, the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence should be

anywhere from 6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months.

One final note, the Court should give Congress a chance to perform
its primordial duty of lawmaking. The Court should not pre-empt
Congress and usurp its inherent powers of making and enacting
laws. While it may be the most expeditious approach, a short cut by
judicial fiat is a dangerous proposition, lest the Court dare trespass
on prohibited judicial legislation.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari dated November

5, 2007 of petitioner Lito Corpuz is hereby DENIED. Consequently,
the Decision dated March 22, 2007 and Resolution dated September
5, 2007 of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed with modification
the Decision dated July 30, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
46, San Fernando City, finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph (1), sub-
paragraph (b) of the Revised Penal Code, are hereby AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION that the penalty imposed is the indeterminate
3