EMILIO J. AGUINALDO IV, v PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Law: Criminal Law
Cited Law/Order: Republic Act No. (RA) 10951, RA 10707
Issue: Estafa for having defrauded private complainant in the amount of P2,050,000.00
FACTS:
Petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa, defined and penalized under Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) by lower court.
Petitioner still filed the motions for Omnibus Motion for acquittal of the crime charged and Urgent Motion for Recomputation of Penalty for readjustment of petitioner’s sentence.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the Omnibus Motion for acquittal of the crime charged be granted by the SC
2. Whether or not the Urgent Motion for Recomputation of Penalty for readjustment of petitioner’s sentence be granted
3. Whether or not the petitioner can apply for probation even if his sentence from trial court is non-probationable, but in appeal, it became probationable
RULING:
1. NO.
Petitioner’s conviction for Estafa had become final and executory and it is immutable.
The Supreme Court explained the doctrine of immutability of judgment
⁃ it is a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable. As a result, it may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the Highest Court of the land.
With this, the Court finds that the issue of raising omnibus motions are mere reiterations of the grounds already evaluated.
2. Yes.
RA 10951 expressly provides for retroactive effect if it is favorable to the accused and the penalty does not provide mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
He was sentenced by the trial court a penalty of imprisonment for a period of:
4 years and 2 months of prison correccional,
as minimum to 20 years of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
The proper penalty to be imposed on petitioner should be
4 months and 20 days of arresto mayor, as minimum to 2 years, 11 months, and 10 days of prision correccional, as maximum.
3. Yes.
The reduction of penalty entitles petitioner to apply for probation that allows an accused-convict to apply for probation if he is sentenced to a non-probationable penalty by the trial court but subsequently modified by the appellate court to a probationable penalty.
Lesson of this case:
If there is a law that lessens the penalty of the accused, file an appeal to recompute the penalty. Like this case, the penalty was changed to bigger period, which the penalty became a probationable penalty.
At least, the accused can enjoy freedom without getting in the bars.
Full text of the case: https://juanbatas.files.wordpress.com/2021/03/gr_226615_2021.pdf
Cited Jurisprudence:
Uy v. Del Castillo
Bigler v. People (Bigler)
People v. Manlao
Hernan v Sandiganbayan
No comments:
Post a Comment