ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 121087.October 27, 1999]

FELIPE NAVARRO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 27, 1999.

G.R. No. 121087 (Felipe Navarro vs. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines, et al.)

����������� For resolution are petitioner's (a) urgent ex-parte motion to admit motion for reconsideration; and (b) the aforesaid motion for reconsideration of our decision in this case.

In his motion to admit motion for reconsideration, petitioner Navarro avers that his former counsel received a copy of the decision in this case on September 16, 1999 and therefore he had until October 1, 1999 within which, to file a motion for reconsideration. However, petitioner was able to secure the services of his present counsel, Atty. Porfirio B. Villena, Jr., only on September 28, 1999, who completed the preparation of the motion for reconsideration only at around 7:00 p.m. on October 1, 1999, by which time government offices were already closed. He filed the motion for reconsideration the next working day, October 4, 1999.

Petitioner alleges the following grounds in his motion for reconsideration:

a. The physical evidence, e.g., the tape recording of the incident and the medico-legal report, shows that petitioner did not cause the death of the victim;

b. Assuming without admitting the guilt of petitioner, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be appreciated in his favor because he voluntarily submitted to the proper authorities; and

c. Assuming without admitting the guilt of petitioner, the aggravating circumstance of commission of a crime was erroneously appreciated against the petitioner because there was proof, as noted by the Honorable Court itself, that the petitioner had no intent to commit a crime when he entered the alleged place of commission of the crime - the Lucena police Station.

The first ground raised by petitioner was already discussed extensively in our decision of August 26, 1999. The second ground is likewise without merit, since petitioner was not able to establish the circumstances constituting his alleged voluntary surrender, either in the proceedings before the trial court, the Court of Appeals, or this Court.

However, the third ground raised by petitioner is meritorious. It is settled that for the aggravating circumstance of commission of an offense in a place dedicated to religious worship to be considered, it must be shown that the accused entered the place with the intention to commit the offense therein. ¹ People v. Jaurigue, 76 Phil. 174 (1946). The same rule should be applied with respect to the appreciation of the aggravating circumstance of commission of an offense in a place where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties.

In this case, it was not sufficiently established that petitioner went to the police station with the intention of committing the offense there. He attacked the victim, Enrique "Ike" Lingan, only after having been provoked by the latter. Hence, the aggravating circumstance of commission of an offense in a place where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties should not have been considered against him.

The crime committed as found by the trial court and the Court of Appeals was homicide, for which the penalty under Art. 249 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion temporal. As there were two mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances, the penalty to be imposed should be the one next lower in degree to that prescribed by law, i.e., prision mayor. ² REVISED PENAL CODE, ART. 64. Applying the Intermediate Sentence Law, petitioner Navarro should be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty the minimum of which is within the range of the penalty next lower in degree, i.e., prision correccional and the maximum of which is prision mayor. ³ Act No. 4103, �1.

Accordingly, the Court RESOLVED: (1) to NOTE and GRANT the motion to admit the motion for reconsideration of petitioner Felipe Navarro; and (2) to MODIFY the dispositive portion of the decision of August 26, 1999 to read as follows:

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with the modification that petitioner Felipe Navarro is hereby SENTENCED to suffer a prison term of 6 years of prision correccional, as minimum, to 12 years of prision mayor as maximum.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG

Acting Div. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE