IX.

PENALTIES IN GENERAL

Limitation of Punishment
People vs Tongko

Facts:
Roberto Tongko, petitioner, borrowed a sum of P100, 000.00 form a Carmelita Santos which the petitioner
promised to pay in 4 months’ time. On the day Carmelita Santos gave the money, the petitioner issued 10 post-dated
cheques each amounting to P10,000.00. When the time came when Carmelita Santos was to encash the cheques, issuing
bank informed her that the account was closed due to lack of fund. Hence, the filing of the case of estafa which the
lower court found the petitioner guilty. He was sentenced to 27 years of reclusion perpetua and pay the sum P100, 000
and pay the cost of suit.

Issue: WON the 27 years of reclusion perpetua imposed is too harsh of a punishment for the case at bar.

Held:
No. “The legislature was not thoughtless in imposing severe penalties for violation of par. 2(d) of Article 315 of
the Revised Penal Code. The history of the law will show that the severe penalties were intended to stop the upsurge of
swindling by issuance of bouncing checks. It was felt that unless aborted, this kind of estafa ". . . would erode the
people's confidence in the use of negotiable instruments as a medium of commercial transaction and consequently
result in the retardation of trade and commerce and the undermining of the banking system of the country." 16 The
Court cannot impugn the wisdom of Congress in setting this policy.”

Baylosis vs Chavez

Facts:
Known high ranking officers of CPP-NPA were found with unlicensed firearms in connection with the crimes of
rebellion. With the crime mentioned, the constitutionality of Sec 1(3) of PD 1866 is at bar. Non verbatim: Mere
possession of firearms in connection with rebellion is punishable by death (now reclusion perpetua) while RPC only
punishes rebellion with prison mayor.

Issue: WON the punishment of death is too harsh for a case of possession of firearm in connection with rebellion.

Held:
No. “The existence of rebellious groups in our society today, and of numerous bandits, or irresponsible or
deranged individuals, is a reality that cannot be ignored or belittled. Their activities, the killings and acts of destruction
and terrorism that they perpetrate, unfortunately continue unabated despite the best efforts that the Government
authorities are exerting, although it may be true that the insurrectionist groups of the right or the left no longer pose a
genuine threat to the security of the state. The need for more effective measures against these nefarious activities,
including of course more stringent laws and more rigorous law-enforcement, cannot be gainsaid.”

People vs Estoista

Facts:
Alberto Estoista, accused, used his father’s rifle to shoot some wild chickens, unknowingly that a Diragon Dima,
one of their laborers who was setting a trap for wild chickens, was shot by the accused. The petitioner is then acquitted
from reckless imprudence resulting to homicide, but guilty from illegal possession of firearm which the CFI of Lanao gave
a penalty of 1 year imprisonment. A petition was then filed questioning the sentenced is lower than that authorized by
Rep Act 4 of 5-10 years.

Issue: WON the sentence indicated in Rep Act 4 is too harsh or cruel to the case at bar.
IX. PENALTIES IN GENERAL

Held:
No. “The sentence imposed by the lower court is much below the penalty authorized by Republic Act No. 4. The
judgment is therefore modified so as to sentence the accused to imprisonment for five years. However, considering the
degree of malice of the defendant, application of the law to its full extent would be too harsh and, accordingly, it is
ordered that copy of this decision be furnished to the President, thru the Secretary of Justice, with the recommendation
that the imprisonment herein imposed be reduced to six months. The appellant will pay the costs of both instances.”

BAYOT VS SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS:
Reynaldo Bayot was an auditor for the Commission on Audit. He was allegedly involved in certain anomalous
transactions while serving as such hence in 1978, he was charged with 32 cases of Estafa thru Falsification of Public
Documents before the Sandiganbayan. In 1980, he won as the mayor of Amadeo, Cavite.In 1982, while serving as mayor
and while his estafa cases were pending Batas Pambansa Blg. 195 was passed which amended Republic Act No. 3019
(The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The amendment provided that incumbent public officers facing graft cases
shall be suspended from office. Pursuant thereto, the Sandiganbayan ordered the suspension of Bayot as the mayor of
Amadeo.

ISSUE: Whether or not the suspension under RA 3019 is a penalty hence an ex post facto law.

HELD:
No. The preventive suspension provided in RA 3019 as amended shall not be considered as a penalty. It is not a
penalty because it is not imposed as a result of judicial proceedings. In fact, if acquitted, the official concerned shall be
entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and benefits which he failed to receive during suspension

People VS Feloteo
Facts:
Wilfredo Feloteo, with the unauthorize use of SPO2 Roman Adion, killed Sonny Sotto. That on the evening of
May 6, 1993. Deceased together with 2 individuals, who had a few drinks, were walking along the highway when
accused coming from the other side of the road, armed with and armalite shoot the deceased. Accused is then charged
with murder and illegal possession of firearms. Lower court found the accused guilty of two separate cases with
separate sentence.

Issue: WON the case at bar should be penalized separately.

Held:
NO. In line with our decision in People vs. Molina, the appellant is liable only for murder under the Revised Penal
Code. Further, in view of amendments introduced by R.A. No. 8294 to P.D. No. 1866, the use of the unlicensed firearm in
killing the victim, Sonny Sotto, is no longer considered as a separate offense, instead, it is considered as an aggravating
circumstance. However, it will not affect the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed against the appellant." Charge on
illegal possession of firearms is dropped, rather it was treated as an aggravating circumstance to murder.

People vs. Montinola

Facts:
November 1996, accused William Montinola boarded a passenger jeepney bound to Libertad Plaza, Iloilo City
when all of a sudden he drew his gun, an unlicensed pistol, and directed Jose Eduardo Reteracion who is also on board
the passenger jeep to hand over his money or else he would be killed. Accused aimed at the neck of Reteracion and fired
successive shot which caused his death. Accused was able to take away P67,500 cash money of Reteracion but was
apprehended by the police officer who heard the shot . The RTC sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for the crime of
robbery with homicide and to penalty of death for the illegal possession of firearm.
IX. PENALTIES IN GENERAL

Issue/s: Whether or not the penalties imposed by the RTC is correct.

Ruling:
The SC ruled that there could be no separate conviction for illegal possession of firearm if homicide or murder is
committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm; instead such use shall be considered merely as an aggravating
circumstance in the homicide or murder committed as provided by RA 8294 which took effect pending the trial of the
accused. Therefore, the accused is acquitted for the crime of illegal possession of firearm and he was spared the penalty
of death and convicted for the crime of robbery with homicide with the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

People vs. Narvasa

Facts:
On February 6, 1992 at Sitio Bugtong, Batar, Agno, Pangasinan, acussed Felicisimo Narvasa, Jimmy Orania and
Mateo Narvasa armed with unlicensed high powered firearms had an exchange of gunfire with two police officers.
Unfortunately, SPO3 Camba was hit, bled profusely that caused his death. When the accused was apprehended they were
brought to trial. The RTC convicted Felicisimo Narvasa and Jimmy Orania to the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearm and
sentenced them to death penalty, but during that time the law prohibits death penalty. Therefore they were sentenced
to reclusion perpetua. The case of homicide filed against them did not pursue because it was considered an element of
the principal offense of illegal possession which is the graver offense. Mateo Narvasa is at large.

Issue: Whether or not the penalty imposed is correct.

Ruling:
The SC ruled that if murder or homicide is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of unlicensed
firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance, and not as a separate offense as provided by RA 8294. Under
RA 8294, accused can be held liable only for homicide and penalized with reclusion temporal. Pursuant to Art. 22 of the
RPC, RA 8294 should be given retroactive effect. Therefore, Narvasa and Orania were found guilty of homicide with the
special aggravating circumstance of using unlicensed firearm and sentenced them to prision mayor as minimum, to
reclusion temporal as maximum.

People vs. Delos Santos

Facts:
The accused was sentenced to the supreme penalty of death by the RTC for raping Nhanette Delos Santos, a 13-
year old in a vacant apartment. The SC affirmed the RTC’s decision on September 17, 1998. The accused filed a motion to
re-open the case so as to reduce the penalty imposed upon him for the Information filed against him failed to state that
he is the step-father of the victim, hence, his relationship with the victim may not be considered as a qualifying
circumstance to justify the imposition of the death penalty.

Issue: Whether or not the Decision of Supreme Court on the case be re-opened and be given retroactive effect in favor
of the accused.

Ruling:
The SC ruled that qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the information so as to justify the
imposition of death penalty. The information filed against the accused charged only the felony of simple rape and no
attendant qualifying circumstance, thus, the flaw committed by the prosecution constrains the Court to reduce the penalty
of death to that of reclusion perpetua, the penalty prescribe for simple rape. Also, the relationship of the accused to the
victim cannot be considered an aggravating circumstance to increase his liability. Likewise, although the accused was
convicted on September 17, 1998, before the Court enunciated the Garcia doctrine which states that the Court has the
authority to suspend the execution of a final judgment or to cause a modification thereof as and when it becomes
imperative in the higher interest of justice or when supervening events warrant it. Considering Art. 22 of the RPC, the
IX. PENALTIES IN GENERAL

Garcia doctrine must perforce, be given retroactive effect in this case, said ruling being favorable to accused-appellant,
who is not a habitual criminal.

Donio-Teves vs Vamenta, Jr

Facts:
In July 1972, Julian Teves submitted a thumb marked letter-complaint to Pablo Cabahug, the City Fiscal of
Dumaguete. The letter-complaint alleges that he is charging criminally his wife, Milagros Donio-Teves, and his wife’s
paramour, Manuel Moreno, with adultery. The fiscal conducted the initial preliminary investigation. Thereafter, Milagros
and Manuel filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the fiscal cannot charge them in court of the crime of adultery
because there was no valid complaint filed by Teves as it appeared that the letter-complaint filed by Teves was not
appended with his affidavit. The fiscal denied the motion. Teves however filed a second letter-complaint, this time, he
attached his affidavit. The fiscal however ordered the removal of some witnesses for the prosecution. Hence, a third letter-
complaint was submitted by Teves. It was this third letter-complaint which was used by the fiscal as Information in
charging the accused. Eventually, teh case was docketed in court the two accused were set for arraignment.
Thereafter, Milagros and Manuel filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus to enjoin the fiscal and
Judge Cipriano Vamenta, Jr. from hearing the case. While the petition was pending, Teves died. The accused then amended
their petition to include the argument that since Teves died, the case should be dismissed considering that adultery, the
crime charged against them, is a private crime which cannot be prosecuted without the offended party.

Issue: Whether or not the instant case should be dismissed due to the death of the complainant.

Ruling:
No. The death of the offended party is not a ground for extinguishment of criminal liability whether total or
partial. The participation of the offended party is essential not for the maintenance of the criminal action but solely for
the initiation thereof.

Bayot vs. Sandiganbayan

Facts:
Reynaldo Bayot was charged of 32 cases of estafa thru falsification of public documents when he was said to have
issued checks funded by the Ministry of Education and Culture for payment of construction materials. And said checks
were able to illegally encash and get the proceeds and once in the possession of the said amount, accused
misappropriated, misapplied and converted the same for his own personal needs to the damage and prejudice of the
Philippines government. He was sentenced and convicted of the crime with the penalty imposed to a total of 577 years
imprisonment.

Issue: Whether or not the penalty imposed was correct.

Ruling:
The SC ruled that it was not proven that Bayot really prepared and signed the checks and that he profited from
the malversed fund because he had been out of the government service when the checks was issued. Considering that
there are no reliable evidence that can support the conviction of the accused which the Court described as “woefully
inadequate,” “conjectural and presumptive”, an Acquittal would be the only proper judgment of the Court.