Pedro
Ladines vs. People of the Philippines and Edwin De Ramon
G.R. No.
167333. January 11, 2016
BERSAMIN,
J.:
Doctrine:
To impose
the highest within a period of the imposable penalty without
specifying the justification for doing so is an error on the part of
the trial court that should be corrected on appeal. In default of
such justification, the penalty to be imposed is the lowest of the
period.
Facts:
While
Prosecution witnesses Philip de Ramon and Mario Lasala, along with
victim Erwin de Ramon (Erwin), were watching the dance held during
the June 12, 1993 Grand Alumni Homecoming of the Bulabog Elementary
School in Sorsogon, Sorsogon, the petitioner and Licup appeared and
passed by them. The petitioner suddenly and without warning
approached and stabbed Erwin below the navel with a machete. The
petitioner then left after delivering the blow. At that juncture,
Licup also mounted his attack against Erwin but the latter evaded the
blow by stepping back. Erwin pulled out the machete from his body and
wielded it against Licup, whom he hit in the chest. Licup pursued but
could not catch up with Erwin because they both eventually fell down.
Erwin was rushed to the hospital where he succumbed.
Dr. Myrna
Listanco, who performed the post-mortem examination on the cadaver of
Erwin, attested that the victim had sustained two stab wounds on the
body, one in the chest and the other in the abdomen. She opined that
one or two assailants had probably inflicted the injuries with the
use of two distinct weapons; and that the chest wound could have been
caused by a sharp instrument, like a sharpened screwdriver, while the
abdominal injury could have been from a sharp bladed instrument like
a knife.
In his
defense, the petitioner tendered alibi and denial. He recounted that
at the time in question, he was in the Bulabog Elementary School
compound along with his wife and their minor child; that they did not
enter the dance hall because there was trouble that had caused the
people to scamper; that they had then gone home; that he had learned
about the stabbing incident involving Erwin on their way home from
Barangay Tanod Virgilio de Ramon who informed him that Licup and
Erwin had stabbed each other; and that Prosecution witnesses Philip
and Lasala harbored ill-will towards him by reason of his having
lodged a complaint in the barangay against them for stealing coconuts
from his property.
The
petitioner presented Angeles Jasareno and Arnulfo Palencia to
corroborate his denial. Jasareno and Palencia testified that at the
time in question they were in the Bulabog Elementary School, together
with the petitioner, the latter's wife and their minor daughter; that
while they were watching the dance, a quarrel had transpired but they
did not know who had been involved.
On August
12, 1993, an information was filed in the RTC charging the petitioner
and one Herman Licup with homicide.
On February
10, 2003, the RTC pronounced the petitioner guilty as charged,
decreeing:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds accused
Pedro Ladines guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Homicide, defined and penalized under Article 249 of the Revised
Penal Code, sans any mitigating circumstances and applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, accused Pedro
Ladines is hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of from Ten
(10) years and One (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to 17 years
and 4 months of reclusion temporal as maximum
and to pay the sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity without
subsidiary imprisonment [in] case of insolvency and [to] pay the
costs.
On appeal,
the CA affirmed the conviction. Petitioner filed an appeal insisting
that the CA committed reversible error in affirming his conviction
despite the admission of Licup immediately after the incident that he
had stabbed the victim; and that the res gestae statement of Licup
constituted newly-discovered evidence that created a reasonable doubt
as to the petitioner's guilt.
Issues:
- Whether the res gestae statement of Licup constitutes newly-discovered evidence that would create a reasonable doubt as to the petitioner's guilt.
- Whether the RTC imposed the proper penalty.
- Whether the lower court's limitation of the civil liability to civil indemnity of only P50,000.00 is correct.
Rulings:
1.
No, the res gestae statement of Licup did not constitute
newly-discovered evidence that created a reasonable doubt as to the
petitioner's guilt. We point out that the concept of newly-discovered
evidence is applicable only when a litigant seeks a new trial or the
re-opening of the case in the trial court. Seldom is the concept
appropriate on appeal, particularly one before the Court.
Furthermore,
the Court has issued guidelines designed to balance the need of
persons charged with crimes to afford to them the fullest opportunity
to establish their defenses, on the one hand, and the public interest
in ensuring a smooth, efficient and fair administration of criminal
justice, on the other. The
first guideline is to restrict the concept of newly-discovered
evidence to only such evidence that can satisfy the following
requisites, namely: (1) the evidence was discovered after trial; (2)
such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the
trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence; (3) the
evidence is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or
impeaching; and (4) the evidence is of such weight that it would
probably change the judgment if admitted.
(Emphasis
is mine).
We agree
with the State that the proposed evidence of the petitioner was not
newly-discovered because the first two requisites were not present.
The petitioner, by his exercise of reasonable diligence, could have
sooner discovered and easily produced the proposed evidence during
the trial by obtaining a certified copy of the police blotter that
contained the alleged res gestae declaration of Licup and the
relevant documents and testimonies of other key witnesses to
substantiate his denial of criminal responsibility.
2.
We declare that the lower courts could not
impose 17 years and four months of the medium period of reclusion
temporal, which was the ceiling of the medium period of reclusion
temporal, as the maximum of the indeterminate penalty without
specifying the justification for so imposing. They thereby ignored
that although Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code, which has set the
rules "for the application of penalties which contain three
periods," requires under its first rule that the courts should
impose the penalty prescribed by law in the medium period should
there be neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, its
seventh rule expressly demands that "[w]ithin the limits of each
period, the courts shall determine the extent of the penalty
according to the number and nature of the aggravating and mitigating
circumstances and. the greater or lesser extent of the evil produced
by the crime." By not specifying the justification for imposing
the ceiling of the period of the imposable penalty, the fixing of the
indeterminate sentence became arbitrary, or whimsical, or capricious.
In the absence of the specification, the maximum of the indeterminate
sentence for the petitioner should be the lowest of the medium period
of reclusion temporal, which is 14 years, eight months and one day of
reclusion temporal.
3.
The limitation was a plain error that we must
correct. Moral damages and civil indemnity are always granted in
homicide, it being assumed by the law that the loss of human life
absolutely brings moral and spiritual losses as well as a definite
loss. Moral damages and civil indemnity require neither pleading nor
evidence simply because death through crime always occasions moral
sufferings on the part of the victim's heirs. The
civil indemnity and moral damages are fixed at P75,000.00 each
because homicide was a gross crime.
WHEREFORE,
the Court AFFIRMS the
decision promulgated on October 22, 2004 subject to the MODIFICATION
that: (a) the INDETERMINATE SENTENCE
of petitioner PEDRO LADINES
is 10 years and one day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 14 years,
eight months and one day of the medium period of reclusion temporal,
as maximum; and (b) the petitioner shall pay to the heirs of the
victim Erwin de Ramon: (1) civil indemnity and moral damages of
P75,000.00 each; (2) temperate damages of P25,000.00; (c) interest of
6% per annum on all items of the civil liability computed from the
date of the finality of this judgment until they are fully paid; and
(d) the costs of suit.
No comments:
Post a Comment