Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2A
JUDGE OSCAR B. PIMENTEL
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS
CASE DIGESTS
RULING:
The penalty for the offense charged in this case is not prision correccional in its maximum period
to prision mayor in its medium period, as the appellant argues, but prison mayor in its minimum
and medium period, as provided for in Rep. Act 1060, amending Art. 217 of the Revised Penal
Code. The penalty lower by one degree of this penalty isprision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and taking into consideration the
mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty, the minimum of the penalty is from 2 years, 4 months
and 1 day to 6 years of prision correccional, while the maximum is from 6 years and 1 day to 7
years and 4 months of mayor.
The Indeterminate Sentence Law provides:
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 Code, and to a minimum which
shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense;
...
The penalty prescribed for the offense charged in the case at bar is prision mayor in its minimum
and medium periods, or from 6 years, 1 day to 10 years. In view of the presence of one mitigating
circumstance and no aggravating, the proper penalty imposable is the minimum of the penalty
prescribed, which is from 6 years, 1 day to 7 years, and 4 months of prision mayor. One degree
lower to that penalty prescribed by the Code is prision correccional in its medium and maximum
periods, or 2 years, 4 months, 1 day to 6 years. The penalty imposed by the trial court as minimum
is 3 years. This is within the range of the penalty next lower in degree to that scribed by the Code;
the 7 years maximum is also within the range of the penalty properly imposable under the
circumstances.
It is also argued that extreme poverty should be considered as an additional mitigating
circumstance, for reason the penalty could be lowered by two degrees cause of two mitigating
circumstances, namely plea guilty and poverty. The mitigating circumstance of poverty was
neither admitted by the prosecution nor by the judge. According to the record, of the P2,376.43
misappropriated, only P50.00 was used for the illness of appellant's son. Furthermore, appellant
may not claim poverty for he was a clerk receiving salary. Poverty is a condition worse than that
of a poor person. (Webster's International Dictionary) He may have been poor, but with his salary
as clerk he certainly was not in a condition of poverty. The claim of an additional mitigating
circumstance can not, therefore, be justified.
The CA ordered the remand of the case to the RTC for further proceedings, for the purpose of
affording petitioner his right to due process pursuant to Presidential Decree (PD) No. 968, and the
Revised Rules on Probation Methods and Procedures.
In compliance with the CA Decision, the RTC conducted a hearing on the Motion to Revoke. A
Violation Report was filed by the Dagupan City Parole and Probation Office recommending the
revocation of probation. The Violation Report provides in part:
At the outset of his probation period, probationer showed manifested negative attitude by
incurring absences and not attending rehabilitation activities despite constant follow-up by
his supervising officers. He continued with his illegal drug activities despite counselling
and warning from this Office.
Obviously, probationer has failed to recognize the value of freedom and second chance
accorded him by the Honorable Court, his conduct and attitude bespeaks of his deviant
character, hence he is unworthy to continuously enjoy the privilege of probation.
The RTC issued an Order revoking the probation. It ruled that it had granted petitioner due process
by affording him the full opportunity to contest the Motion to Revoke; but that instead of rebutting
the Violation Report, he merely questioned the absence of a violation report when his probation
was first revoked. The RTC further held that there was positive testimony and documentary
evidence showing that petitioner had indeed violated the conditions of his probation. He never
rebutted the fact of his commission of another offense and conviction therefor while on probation.
He filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it was denied.
The CA denied his appeal. With regard to the procedural issues discussed in the assailed Decision,
it ruled that petitioner was afforded due process. A full-blown trial was conducted precisely to
allow him to refute the allegations made in the Motion to Revoke. It added that the procedural
infirmities in the Motion to Revoke were cured when the RTC conducted a hearing in accordance
with the directive laid down in the first CA Case.
With regard to the substantive issue of revocation, the CA ruled that, for having been apprehended
twice for the commission of two offenses similar in nature, petitioner violated one of the conditions
prescribed in the Probation Order. He even admitted to having served out his sentence for those
offenses.
Defense
Aggrieved yet again, petitioner filed an appeal with this Court. On procedural grounds, he alleges
that there was no fact-finding investigation of the alleged violations conducted by the probation
officer, and thus no results were furnished him. Likewise, no warrant of arrest was issued by the
RTC. Neither was he afforded any opportunity to adduce evidence in his favor with the assistance
of counsel.
On substantive grounds, petitioner alleges that he already showed repentance after his conviction.
In his first case, he readily admitted his accountability by pleading guilty to the charge. Thus, he
was convicted and he subsequently applied for probation. He further alleges that, of the two cases
filed against him, one was ordered dismissed; he has already served his sentence for the other.
Since then, no derogatory information has been received either by the probation office or the trial
court. Petitioner points out that he has already reformed his ways and is thus entitled to the grace
of law. He contends that the CA should have ordered him to resume his probation pursuant to the
Positivist Theory adopted in our criminal justice system.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the probation was validly revoked (YES)
RULING:
The probation of petitioner was validly revoked.
On the procedural grounds, the Court does not subscribe to petitioner’s contention that his right to
due process was violated after the RTC had already conducted a full-blown trial on the Motion to
Revoke, in compliance with the directive of the CA. Based on record, he had ample opportunity
to refute the allegations contained in the Violation Report.
On substantive grounds, the Court believes that there was sufficient justification for the revocation
of his probation.
Petitioner does not deny the fact that he has been convicted, and that he has served out his sentence
for another offense while on probation. Consequently, his commission of another offense is a direct
violation of Condition No. 9 of his Probation Order, and the effects are clearly outlined in Section
11 of the Probation Law.
Section 11 of the Probation Law provides that the commission of another offense shall
render the probation order ineffective. Section 11 states:
SECTION 11. Effectivity of Probation Order. - A probation order shall take effect upon its
issuance, at which time the court shall inform the offender of the consequences thereof and
explain that upon his failure to comply with any of the conditions prescribed in the said
order or his commission of another offense, he shall serve the penalty imposed for the
offense under which he was placed on probation.
As probation is a mere discretionary grant, petitioner was bound to observe full obedience to the
terms and conditions pertaining to the probation order or run the risk of revocation of this privilege.
Regrettably, petitioner wasted the opportunity granted him by the RTC to remain outside prison
bars, and must now suffer the consequences of his violation. The Court's discretion to grant
probation is to be exercised primarily for the benefit of organized society and only incidentally for
the benefit of the accused. Having the power to grant probation, it follows that the trial court also
has the power to order its revocation in a proper case and under appropriate circumstances.
Dimat’s defense is flawed. First, the Nissan Safari Delgado bought from him, when stopped on the
road and inspected by the police, turned out to have the engine and chassis numbers of the Nissan
Safari stolen from Mantequilla. This means that the deeds of sale did not reflect the correct
numbers of the vehicle’s engine and chassis. Second, P.D. 1612 is a special law and, therefore,
its violation is regarded as malum prohibitum, requiring no proof of criminal intent.
Evidently, Dimat knew that the Nissan Safari he bought was not properly documented. He said
that Tolentino showed him its old certificate of registration and official receipt. But this certainly
could not be true because, the vehicle having been carnapped, Tolentino had no documents to
show. That Tolentino was unable to make good on his promise to produce new documents
undoubtedly confirmed to Dimat that the Nissan Safari came from an illicit source. Still, Dimat
sold the same to Sonia Delgado who apparently made no effort to check the papers covering her
purchase. That she might herself be liable for fencing is of no moment since she did not stand
accused in the case.
ISSUE:
W/N Enrile could be separately charged for violation of PD No. 1829 notwithstanding the rebellion
case earlier filed against him.
RULING:
NO. The violation of PD No. 1829 is ABSORBED in the crime of rebellion.
The SC cited People v. Hernandez in stating the long-standing proscription against splitting the
component offenses of rebellion and subjecting them to separate prosecutions.
If a person can not be charged with the complex crime of rebellion for the greater penalty to be
applied, neither can he be charged separately for two (2) different offenses where one is a
constitutive or component element or committed in furtherance of rebellion.
As can be readily seen, the factual allegations supporting the rebellion charge constitute or include
the very incident which gave rise to the charge of the violation under Presidential Decree No. 1829.
Under the Department of Justice resolution there is only one crime of rebellion complexed with
murder and multiple frustrated murder but there could be 101 separate and independent
prosecutions for harboring and concealing" Honasan and 100 other armed rebels under PD No.
1829. The splitting of component elements is readily apparent.
Necessarily, being in conspiracy with Honasan, petitioners alleged act of harboring or concealing
was for no other purpose but in furtherance of the crime of rebellion thus constitute a component
thereof. it was motivated by the single intent or resolution to commit the crime of rebellion. As
held in People v. Hernandez, supra:
“In short, political crimes are those directly aimed against the political order, as well as
such common crimes as may be committed to achieve a political purpose. The decisive
factor is the intent or motive.”
The crime of rebellion consists of many acts. It is described as a vast movement of men and a
complex net of intrigues and plots. Jurisprudence tells us that acts committed in furtherance of the
rebellion though crimes in themselves are deemed absorbed in the one single crime of rebellion.
In this case, the act of harboring or concealing Col. Honasan is clearly a mere component or
ingredient of rebellion or an act done in furtherance of the rebellion. It cannot therefore be made
the basis of a separate charge.
Re: argument of Judge Amin that PD No. 1829 is a special law and rebellion is under RPC/general
law: All crimes, whether punishable under a special law or general law, which are mere
components or ingredients, or committed in furtherance thereof, become absorbed in the crime of
rebellion and can not be isolated and charged as separate crimes in themselves.
Hernandez and other related cases mention common crimes as absorbed in the crime of rebellion.
These common crimes refer to all acts of violence such as murder, arson, robbery, kidnapping etc.
as provided in the Revised Penal Code. The attendant circumstances in the instant case, however,
constrain us to rule that the theory of absorption in rebellion cases must not confine itself to
common crimes but also to offenses under special laws which are perpetrated in furtherance of the
political offense.
The prosecution must make up its mind whether to charge Senator Ponce Enrile with rebellion
alone or to drop the rebellion case and charge him with murder and multiple frustrated murder and
also violation of P.D. 1829. It cannot complex the rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated
murder.
As earlier mentioned, the intent or motive is a decisive factor. If Senator Ponce Enrile is not
charged with rebellion and he harbored or concealed Colonel Honasan simply because the latter is
a friend and former associate, the motive for the act is completely different. But if the act is
committed with political or social motives, that is in furtherance of rebellion, then it should be
deemed to form part of the crime of rebellion instead of being punished separately.
DISPOSITIVE:
- Petition GRANTED. Information is QUASHED.