ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
November-2008 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 5851 - GRACE DELA CRUZ-SILLANO v. ATTY. WILFREDO PAUL D. PANGAN

  • A.M. No. 03-9-02-SC - RE: ENTITLEMENT TO HAZARD PAY OF SC MEDICAL AND DENTAL CLINIC PERSONNEL

  • A.M. No. 2008-13-SC - RE: VEHICULAR ACCIDENT INVOLVING SC SHUTTLE BUS NO. 3 WITH PLATE NO. SEG-357 DRIVEN BY GERRY B. MORAL, DRIVER II-CASUAL

  • A.M. No. MTJ-07-1680 Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 07-1876-MTJ - KATIPUNAN NG TINIG SA ADHIKAIN, INC. (KATIHAN) v. JUDGE LUIS ZENON O. MACEREN, ETC.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-08-1720 Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 02-1267-MTJ - LOLITA ANDRADA v. HON. EMMANUEL G. BANZON

  • A.M. No. P-08-2494 Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-2399-P - RE: REPORT ON THE IRREGULARITY IN THE USE OF BUNDY CLOCK BY ALBERTO SALAMAT, SHERIFF IV, RTC-BR.80, MALOLOS CITY

  • A.M. No. P-08-2519 Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2155-P and A.M. NO. P-08-2520 : November 19, 2008 Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2156-P - ANONYMOUS LETTER-COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTY. MIGUEL MORALES, CLERK OF COURT, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF MANILA

  • A.M. No. P-08-2542 Formerly A.M. No. 08-1-09-RTC - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. CYRIL JOTIC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-08-2572 Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 08-2950-P - JUDGE ILUMINADA P. CABATO v. FELIX S. CENTINO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-07-2053 Formerly OCA IPI No. 05-2171-RTJ - LILIA RAGA v. JUDGE SIBANAH E. USMAN, RTC BR 28, CATBALOGAN, SAMAR

  • A.M. No. RTJ-08-2108 Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 08-2-93-RTC - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JUDGE ORLANDO P. DOYON, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-08-2144 - ATTY. RAUL H. SESBREÑO v. JUDGE IRENEO L. GAKO, JR., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-08-2146 Formerly OCA-I.P.I. No. 07-2742-RTJ - MELY HANSOR MAGPALI v. JUDGE MOISES M. PARDO

  • G.R. No. 138437 - RAMON J. QUISUMBING v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148435 - ROGELIO GUEVARRA, ET AL. v. SPOUSES ENGRACIO AND CLAUDIA BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 149017 - VALENTE RAYMUNDO v. TEOFISTA ISAGON VDA DE SUAREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 149322 - JAIME L. YANEZA v. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 149984 and G.R. NO. 154991 - SPS ROLANDO M. ZOSA AND LUISA Y. ZOSA v. HON. SANTIAGO ESTRELLA ETC. ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 150270 - CITY ENGINEER OF BAGUIO ET AL. v. ROLANDO BANIQUED

  • G.R. No. 154491 - COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS. INC. v. QUINTIN J. GOMEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 155407 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL OIL COMPANY v. LEONILO A. MAGLASANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 155635 and G.R. NO. 163979 - MARIA REBECCA MAKAPUGAY BAYOT v. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 156029 - SANTOSA B. DATUMAN v. FIRST COSMOPOLITAN MANPOWER AND PROMOTION SERVICES, INC.

  • G.R. No. 156654 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. VICENTE LOPEZ, JR.

  • G.R. No. 157870, G.R. NO. 158633 and G.R. NO. 161658 - SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS) v. DANGEROUS DRUGS BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 158312 - JOHN DY v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 158996 - SPS FREDELICTO FLORES (DECEASED) & FELICISIMA FLORES v. SPS DOMINADOR PINEDA ETC. ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 160127 - RAFAEL P. LUNARIA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 161946 - MEDARDO AG. CADIENTE v. BITHUEL MACAS

  • G.R. No. 163443 and G.R. NO. 163568 - LIZA M. QUIROG, ET AL. v. GOV. ERICO B. AUMENTADO

  • G.R. No. 163609 - SPS. BUENA VENTURA JAYME AND ROSARIO JAYME v. RODRIGO APOSTOL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 163794 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ETC. v. HON. NORMELITO J. BALLOCANAG ETC. ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 163942 and G.R. NO. 166295 - NUWHRAIN-APL-IUF DUSIT HOTEL NIKKO CHAPTER v. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 164242 - DESTILERIA LIMTUACO & CO. INC., ET AL. v. ADVERTISING BOARD OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 164340 - OTILIA STA. ANA v. SPOUSES LEON G. CARPO and AURORA CARPO

  • G.R. No. 164510 - SPS SANTIAGO J. TANCHAN, JR & RUFINA C. TANCHAN v. ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 165060 - ALBINO JOSEF v. OTELIO SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 165969 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. HEIRS OF NOBLE CASIONAN

  • G.R. NOS. 166309-10 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ETC. v. UNIMEX MICRO-ELECTRONICS GMBH

  • G.R. No. 166377 - MA. ISABEL T. SANTOS v. SERVIER PHILIPPINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 166554 - JULITO SAGALES v. RUSTAN'S COMNMERCIAL CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 167357 - 88 MART DUTY FREE, INC. v. FERNANDO U. JUAN

  • G.R. No. 167571 - LUIS PANAGUITON, JR. v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 167622 - GREGORIO V. TONGKO v. THE MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO. (PHILS.), INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 167755 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NESTOR VELUZ

  • G.R. No. 167805 - ARNOLD STA. CATALINA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 167809 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSEFINA R. DUMLAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 168819 - ALFREDO, PRECIOSA, ANGELITA & CRISOSTOMO ALL SURNAMED BUENA VETURA v. AMPARO PASCUAL & REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 169047 - EVA FLOYD, ET AL. v. BENJAMIN GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 169365 and G.R No. 169669 - SPS PEDRO SANTIAGO AND LIWANAG SANTIAGO v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 169888 - RAMON Y. TALAGA v. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 168923 - BIENVENIDO M. CADALIN, ET AL. v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 170567 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CONRADO DIOCADO

  • G.R. No. 170596 - NGO SIN SING and TICIA DY NGO v. LI SENG GIAP & SONS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 171164 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NASARIO CASTEL

  • G.R. No. 171348 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LARRY ERGUIZA

  • G.R. NOS. 171383 & 172379 - SILKAIR (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. 171961 - FERDINAND A. DELA CRUZ, ET AL. v. AMELIA G. QUIAZON

  • G.R. No. 172241 - PUREFOODS CORPORATION (NOW SAN MIGUEL PUREFOODS COMPANY, INC.) v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 172428 - HERMAN C. CRYSTAL, ET AL. v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

  • G.R. No. 172584 - EDMUNDO Y. TORRES, JR., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 172910 - SPS LORETO LEYBA AND MATEA LEYBA v. RURAL BANK OF CABUYAO, INC. ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 173248 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DANTE NUEVA Y SAMARO

  • G.R. No. 173608 - JESUS GERALDO, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 173856 - DAO HENG BANK INC. NOW BANCO DE ORO UNIVERSAL BANK v. SPS LILIA & REYNALDO LAIGO

  • G.R. No. 174012 - MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. BENJAMIN TUDTUD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 174641 - NATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION v. MARCOPPER MINING CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 175006 - BELEN A. SALVACION v. SANDIGANBAYAN & LEO H. MANLAPAS

  • G.R. No. 175049 - HEIRS OF SOFIA NANAMAN LONOY, ET AL. v. CITY OF ILIGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 175894 - NYK-FIL SHIP MANAGEMENT, INC., ET AL. v. ALFONSO T. TALAVERA

  • G.R. No. 176152 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NIDO GARTE

  • G.R. No. 176169 - ROSARIO NASI-VILLAR v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 176276 - PHILIPPINE HEALTH INSURANCE CORPORATION v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 176474 - HEIRS OF ARTURO REYES REP BY EVELYN R. SAN BUENA VENTURA v. ELENA SOCCO-BELTRAN

  • G.R. No. 176484 - CALAMBA MEDICAL CENTER, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 176951 - LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 177353 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PANCHO ENTRIALGO

  • G.R. No. 176951 - G.R. No. 176951, G.R. No. 177499, G.R. No. 178056 - REYES - DISSENTING OPINION

  • G.R. No. 177354 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RICARDO TALAN Y DOE @ CARDING

  • G.R. No. 177356 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOHBERT AMODIA Y BABA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 177414 - NOEL E. MORA v. AVESCO MARKETING CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 177505 - HEIRS OF GORGONIO MEDINA, ET AL. v. BONIFACIO NATIVIDAD REP BY PHILIP M. NATIVIDAD

  • G.R. No. 177886 - SPOUSES LEOPOLDO AND MERCEDITA VIOLA v. EQUITABLE PCI BANK, INC.

  • G.R. No. 177947 - SPS GABRIEL LLANES AND MARIA LLANES v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 178923 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v. ROLANDO L. MAGNO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 179413 - PRISCILA R. JUSTIMBASTE v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 179802 - MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORP., ET AL. v. JAIME M. VELASQUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 179848 - NESTOR A. JACOT v. ROGEN T. DAL ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 180507 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NESTOR BAJADA Y BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 180597 - RAUL BASILIO D. BOAC, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R No. 181441 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LARRY LOPEZ

  • G.R. No. 181899 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROLLY MONTESA y LUMIRAN

  • G.R. No. 181901 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EMILIO MANCHU, ET AL.

  • G.R. NOS. 182136-37 - BON-MAR REALTY AND SPORT CORPORATION v. SPS NICANOR AND ESTHER DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 182193 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FIDEL CANETE

  • G.R. No. 182348 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CARLOS DELA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 182374 - JEMIAS V. ESTEVES v. RENE V. SARMIENTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 182867 - ROBERTO LACEDA, SR. v. RANDY L. LIMENA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 184098 - AMADO TAOPA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 177353 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PANCHO ENTRIALGO

      G.R. No. 177353 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PANCHO ENTRIALGO

    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. NO. 177353 : November 28, 2008]

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. PANCHO ENTRIALGO, Appellant.

    D E C I S I O N

    CORONA, J.:

    On August 14, 2000, appellant Pancho Entrialgo was charged with two counts of murder1 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Puerto Princesa City, Branch 492 under the following information:

    Criminal Case No. 16095

    That on or about the 30th day of July, 2000 at about 8:20 in the evening of [Brgy.] Sta Cruz, Puerto Princesa City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, [appellant] with intent to kill with treachery, evident premeditation, grave abuse of superior strength and taking advantage of nighttime and while armed with a bolo, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack and hack therewith one Benjamin Tabang, hitting him and inflicting upon him mortal wounds at the different parts of his body, which were the direct and immediate cause of his death shortly thereafter.

    CONTRARY TO LAW.

    Criminal Case No. 16096

    That on or about the 30th day of July, 2000 at about 8:20 in the evening of [Brgy.] Sta Cruz, Puerto Princesa City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, [appellant] with intent to kill with treachery, evident premeditation, grave abuse of superior strength and taking advantage of nighttime and while armed with a bolo, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack and hack therewith one Avelina M. Tabang, hitting [her] and inflicting upon [her] mortal wounds at the different parts of [her] body, which were the direct and immediate cause of his death shortly thereafter.

    CONTRARY TO LAW.

    Upon arraignment, the appellant pleaded not guilty.

    In the absence of an eyewitness, the prosecution presented the theory that appellant had the motive to kill the victims as he in fact killed the spouses Benjamin and Avelina Tabang.

    Appellant's brother-in-law, Rolly Panaligan, was the prosecution's principal witness. Rolly testified that he and appellant were both tanods of Barangay Sta. Cruz in Puerto Princesa City. However, appellant was dismissed by their barangay chairman, victim Benjamin Tabang, sometime before July 30, 2000. As a result thereof, appellant harbored ill-feelings towards Benjamin.

    On the evening of July 30, 2000, Rolly met the Tabangs on his way to the sari-sari store. Soon thereafter, appellant (armed with a bolo) saw him and inquired about Benjamin's whereabouts. He told appellant that Benjamin was on his way to report for duty as barangay captain. Appellant then divulged his plan to kill Benjamin. Rolly discouraged appellant but appellant did not respond.

    Later that evening, appellant went to Rolly's house and confessed that he had killed Benjamin and his wife, Avelina.

    The next morning, Rolly heard about the Tabangs' death. Out of remorse, he surrendered to police authorities and executed a statement regarding the incident.

    Rolly's wife (appellant's sister), Mary Ann Panaligan, corroborated the testimony of the principal witness. Mary Ann testified that appellant went to see her husband on the evening of July 30, 2000 and the two spoke in a dimly lit area. She brought an improvised light to the area but appellant told her not to light it so she went home.

    Dr. Carla Vigonte was presented as an expert witness. According to Dr. Vigonte, Benjamin suffered four hacking wounds while Avelina bore three hacking wounds and two lacerated wounds. Both victims died due to multiple hacking wounds.

    Appellant denied the allegations against him. According to him, he slept at around 7 p.m. on July 30, 2000 after a long day at work. He did not present any evidence to corroborate his testimony.

    Weighing the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses vis - à-vis appellant's uncorroborated denial, the RTC ruled that denials cannot prevail over the positive declarations of the prosecution's witnesses. Thus, it concluded that appellant killed the Tabangs but found that the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation3 was present only with respect to Benjamin.4

    In a decision dated August 2, 2004, the RTC found appellant guilty of murder and homicide5 for the deaths of Benjamin and Avelina, respectively.6 Thus:

    Therefore, upon a consideration of the foregoing facts and circumstances, the Court:

    1. Finds [appellant] guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder in Criminal Case No. 16095, and taking into consideration the presence of aggravating circumstance of nighttime, there being no mitigating circumstance, is meted the penalty of death and is ordered to pay by way of civil indemnity the heirs of the victim in the amount of seventy-five thousand pesos (P75,000).

    2. Finds [appellant] guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide in Criminal Case No. 16096, taking into consideration the presence of the aggravating circumstance of nighttime, there being no mitigating circumstance of, is meted the penalty of imprisonment for seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one day to twenty years and is directed to pay the heirs of the victim by way of civil indemnity the amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000).

    The City Warden of Puerto Princesa City is hereby directed to immediately bring and commit [appellant] to the National Penetentiary in Muntinlupa City.

    SO ORDERED.

    The Court of Appeals (CA), on intermediate appellate review,7 affirmed the findings and the ruling of the RTC in toto.8

    We affirm appellant's guilt and the penalties and civil liabilities imposed on him.

    With regard to Criminal Case No. 16095, in view of Section 2 of RA 9346,9 appellant is sentenced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. Conformably with present jurisprudence, he is also ordered to pay the heirs of Benjamin P75,000 as civil indemnity ex delicto.10 He is further ordered to pay P50,000 as moral damages, as these are warranted under the circumstances. In cases of violent death, moral damages are awarded even in the absence of proof because an untimely death invariably brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim's family.11

    With regard to Criminal Case No. 169069, appellant is sentenced to suffer indeterminate imprisonment from a minimum of 12 years of prision mayor in its maximum period to a maximum of 20 years of reclusion temporalin its maximum period.12 Moreover, to conform with recent jurisprudence, appellant is ordered to pay the heirs of Avelina P50,000 as moral damages.13

    WHEREFORE, the June 30, 2006 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 00391 is hereby AFFIRMED.

    Appellant Pancho Entrialgo is found guilty of murder as defined in Article 248(5) of the Revised Penal Code in Criminal Case No. 16095 and is sentenced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. He is further ordered to pay the heirs of the victim Benjamin Tabang P75,000 as civil indemnity ex delicto and P50,000 as moral damages.

    He is likewise found guilty of homicide as defined in Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code in Criminal Case No. 16096 and is sentenced to a minimum of 12 years of prision mayor in its maximum period to a maximum of 20 years ofreclusion temporalin its maximum period. He is further ordered to pay the heirs of the victim Avelina M. Tabang P50,000 as civil indemnity ex delicto and P50,000 as moral damages.

    Costs against appellant.

    SO ORDERED.

    Endnotes:


    * On official leave.

    ** On leave.

    1 Penal Code, Art. 248 states:

    Article 248. Murder. - Any person who, not falling with the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetuato death if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:

    1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken defense, or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity;

    x x x x x x x x x

    5. With evident premeditation;

    x x x x x x x x x

    2 Docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 16095 and 16096 respectively.

    3 People v. Biso, 448 Phil.591, 602 (2003) and People v. Tigle, 465 Phil. 368, 383. (2004). In order that evident premeditation may be appreciated as a qualifying circumstances, the following must be proven by the prosecution:

    (a) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime;

    (b) an act manifestly indicating that the offender clung to his determination and

    (c) a sufficient interval of time between the determination and execution of the crime to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.

    It must be established by clear and convincing evidence that the accused persistently and continuously clung to this resolution despite the lapse of sufficient time to clear their minds and overcome their determination to commit the same.

    4 It appears that the prosecution did not submit any evidence to show that appellant intentionally committed the crimes in the evening. The RTC, on the other hand, did not explain why it considered nighttime as an aggravating circumstance.

    5 Penal Code, Art. 249 states:

    Article 249. Homicide.' -Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article, shall be deemed guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal. (emphasis supplied)

    6 Decision penned by Judge Panfilo S. Salva. CA rollo, pp. 25-31.

    7 Docketed as CA-G.R. CR HC No. 00391.

    8 Decision penned by Associate Justice Portio Aliño-Hormachuelos and concurred in by Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Santiago Javier Ranada of the Fourth Division of the Court of Appeals. Rollo, pp. 2-16.

    9 An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines.

    10 People v. Tubongbanua, G.R. No. 171271, 31 August 2006, 500 SCRA 727, 743.

    11 People v. Mallari, 452 Phil. 210 (2003).

    12 Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum penalty should be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the Revised Penal Code. In the presence of an aggravating circumstance, the penalty should be imposed in its maximum period, in this case, the maximum of reclusion temporal(i.e., 17 years, four months and one day to 20 years). The minimum term of the indeterminate penalty should be taken from the minimum period of the penalty next lower in degree (i.e., prision mayor in its maximum period, from 10 years and one day to 12 years.). The maximum term, on the other hand, should be taken from the maximum of reclusion temporal.

    13 People v. Romero, 447 Phil. 506, 516 (2003).

    G.R. No. 177353 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PANCHO ENTRIALGO


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED