February 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 199468 : February 01, 2012]
BENJAMIN PAYUMO AND RICARDO LUCIANO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, JAIME APARIS, REYNALDO APARIS AND AQUILINA APARIS
G.R. No. 199468 (BENJAMIN PAYUMO AND RICARDO LUCIANO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, JAIME APARIS, REYNALDO APARIS and AQUILINA APARIS) - Considering the allegations, issues and arguments presented in the Petition for Review, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in its assailed Decision dated December 13, 2010 and Resolution dated April 29, 2011 as to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court ADOPTS the findings and conclusions of law in the Decision dated December 13, 2010 and Resolution dated April 29, 2011 of the Court of Appeals and AFFIRMS said Decision and Resolution finding petitioners Benjamin Payumo and Ricardo Luciano guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Domicile penalized under Article 128 of the Revised Penal Code, with the MODIFICATION that the penalty imposed should be the straight penalty of six (6) months and one (1) day, instead of the indeterminate penalty of four (4) months and one (1) day of Arresto Mayor as minimum to six (6) months and one (1) day of Prision Correccional as maximum as imposed by the MTC and affirmed by the RTC and CA, considering that under Article 128 of the RPC,[1] the imposable penalty is prision correccional in its minimum period which is six (6) months and one (1) day to two (2) years and four (4) months and because the maximum penalty imposed by the MTC is less than one year, which is still within the range of the penalty, under the Indeterminate Sentence Law,[2] there is no need to fix a minimum period. Thus, a straight penalty, not exceeding one (1) year, as long as it is within the range of the penalty imposed by law, may be meted by the Court. (Abad, J., on official leave; Reyes, J., designated additional member, per Special Order No. 1178 dated January 26, 2012.)cralaw
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Art. 128. Violation of domicile. - The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who, not being authorized by judicial order, shall enter any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof, search papers or other effects found therein without the previous consent of such owner, or, having surreptitiously entered said dwelling, and being required to leave the premises, shall refuse to do so.If the offense be committed in the nightime, or if any papers or effects not constituting evidence of a crime be not returned immediately after the search made by the offender, the penalty shall be prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
[2] Section 2. This Act shall not apply to persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or life imprisonment, to those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason; to those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage; to those convicted of piracy; to those who are habitual delinquents; to those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence; to those who have been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive shall have violated the terms thereof; to those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year, not to those already sentenced by final judgment at the time of approval of this Act, except as provided in Section 5 hereof. (Emphasis supplied.)