You are on page 1of 3

People vs.

Esparas

Facts:
Esparas was charge with violation of RA 6425 as amended by RA 759 for importing into the
country 20 kg of shabu. As the accused remains at large up to the present time, the issue confronts the
Court is whether or not it will proceed to automatically review her death sentence.

Issues:
Whether the Court may proceed to automatically review Esparas' death sentence despite her
absence.

Decision:
Yes

Rationale:
The reimposition of the death penalty revived by the procedure by which the Supreme Court
reviews death penalty cases pursuant to the Rules of Court it remains automatic and continues to be
mandatory and does not depend on the whims of the death convict and leaves the SC without any
option. Any court decision authorizing the State to take life must be as error-free as possible. It is not
only within the power of the SC but also it is its duty to review al death penalty cases.
Sec. 8 of Rule 124 of the Rules of Court which authorizes the dismissal of an appeal when the
appellant jumps bail has no application to cases where the death penalty has been imposed.
People of the Philippines vs. Gatwad

Facts:
The accused was convicted of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act for unlawfully importing into
the Philippines heroin. The trial court sentenced the accused to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for
35 years of reclusion perpetua there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance shown to have
attended in the commission of the crime.

Issues:
Whether or not the decision or penalty imposed by the trial court violated the accused
constitutional or legal right ?

Decision:
no constitutional or legal right of this accused is violated by the imposition upon him of the
corrected duration, inherent in the essence and concept, of the penalty.

Rationale:
As amended by RA 7659, the penalty of reclusion perpetua is now accorded a defined duration
ranging from 20 years and 1 day to 40 years. The Court held that in spite of the amendment putting the
duration of RP, it should remain as indivisible penalty since there was never an intent on the part of the
Congress to reclassify it into a divisible penalty. The maximum duration of reclusion perpetua is not
and has never been 30 years which is merely the number of years which the convict must serve in order
to be eligible for pardon or for the application of the 3-fold rule.
People vs. Munoz

Facts:
Feliciano Munoz alias Tony and Justo Millora alias Tito of the crime of Murder committed
as follows: that on or about 22nd day of August 1972 at San Carlos City Pangasinan and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, armed with firearms, conspiring
together and mutually aiding each other, with evident premeditation and treachery, with intent to kill,
did there and then willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack, assault and shoot one, Ricardo
Depacina alias Carding, thereby inflicting upon the latter gunshot wounds on his head which mortal
injuries caused the death of said Ricardo Depacina, alias Carding, as a consequence.
The lower court found the accused guilty thru the testimonies presented by the prosecution. The
accused argued that the testimonies are inconsistent, thus the credibility of the witnesses is doubtful.

Issues:
Whether the witness for the prosecution established that the appellant Feliciano Munoz shot
Ricardo Depacina to death through the testimonies of the witnesses.

Rationale:
No, Feliciano Munoz claims that the lower court erred in holding that the witnesses for the
prosecution have established that he shot Ricardo Depacina to death. Apellant Munoz points out that
whle prosecution witness Narciso Rosal testified on in cross-examination that the incident in question
occurred between 2:00 & 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon of August 22, 1972, Dr. Silverio Petrasanta, who
conducted a post-mortem examination on the cadaver of the deceased between 3:30 & 4:00 o'clock in
the the afternoon of the same date, testifed, on the other hand, that said deceased had already been dead
from 2 to 3 hours on that date. Hence, appellant Munoz concludes that prosecution witness Narciso
Rosal was not telling the truth. The alleged contradiction between the testimony of prosecution witness
Narciso Rosal and that of Dr. Silverio Petrasanta is superficial because if Dr. Petrasanta examined the
dead body of Ricardo Depacina after the latter had been dead for two hours, the time of death must
have been at about 1:30 o'clock pm, which coincides, more or less, with the testimony of Narciso Rosal
that the victim was killed at around two o'clock in the afternoon. The apparent difference of 30 minutes
in their testimonies as to the time of death is a minor inconsistency which, as repeated declared by this
Court, does not affect the witness' basic credibility.

You might also like