Latest Entries »

CASE 2016-0060: PEOPLE VS. MERCELITA ARENAS (G.R. NO. 23598, 27 JULY 2016, PERALTA J.) (SUBJECT/S: PENALTY WHEN QUANTITY OF SHABU IS NOT STATED IN THE INFORMATION; INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW) (BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS. ARENAS)

Filed under: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES — Leave a comment
September 16, 2016

CASE 2016-0060: PEOPLE VS. MERCELITA ARENAS (G.R. NO. 23598, 27 JULY 2016, PERALTA J.) (SUBJECT/S: PENALTY WHEN QUANTITY OF SHABU IS NOT STATED IN THE INFORMATION; INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW) (BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS. ARENAS)


DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated January 22, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05533 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION only insofar as to the penalty imposable for the crime of illegal possession so that appellant is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate sentence of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

 SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

IN CRIME OF ILLEGAL  POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS, HOW WILL THE PENALTY BE DETERMINED?

 

BASED ON THE QUANTITY OF THE DANGEROUS DRUGS POSSESSED.

 

IN THIS CASE THE QUANTIIY OF SHABU FOUND WAS NOT INDICATED IN THE INFORMATION. BUT THE PROSECUTION DURING TRIAL WAS ABLE TO PROVE THE QUANTITY FOUND. CAN THIS QUANTITY FOUND BE USED AS BASIS?

 

NO.

 

APPELLANT’S RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE ACCUSATION AGAINST HER WOULD BE VIOLATED.

 

 IN THIS CASE  WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE RANGE OF PENALTY APPLICABLE?

 

SINCE IT WAS PROVED THAT APPELLANT WAS IN POSSESSION OF SHABU BUT THE QUANTITY WAS NOT SPECIFIED IN THE INFORMATION, THE CORRESPONDING PENALTY TO BE IMPOSED ON HER SHOULD BE THE MINIMUM PENALTY CORRESPONDING TO ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF LESS THAN FIVE GRAMS OF METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE OR SHABU WHICH IS PENALIZED WITH IMPRISONMENT OF TWELVE (12) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY TO TWENTY (20) YEARS AND A FINE RANGING FROM THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P300, 000. 00) TO FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P400,000.00).

 

UNDER THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW HOW WILL PENALTY BE IMPOSED?

 

THE MINIMUM PERIOD OF THE IMPOSABLE PENALTY SHALL NOT FALL BELOW THE MINIMUM PERIOD SET BY THE LAW AND THE MAXIMUM PERIOD SHALL NOT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERIOD ALLOWED UNDER THE LAW;


APPLYING THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW WHAT THEN IS THE IMPOSABLE PENALTY IN THIS CASE?

 

THE IMPOSABLE PENALTY SHOULD BE WITHIN THE RANGE OF TWELVE (12) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY TO FOURTEEN (14) YEARS AND EIGHT (8) MONTHS.

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

scd-2016-0060-arenas

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “JABBULAO AND THE TOPIC”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “JABBULAO AND FORUM SHOPPING”.

 

 

Comment

TRIVIA 0043: MORO HISTORY IS REPLETE WITH TALES OF ATROCITY

Filed under: TRIVIA — Leave a comment
September 15, 2016

MORO HISTORY IS REPLETE WITH TALES OF ATROCITY 

By: Macabangkit Lanto

PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER – 15 SEPTEMBER 2016

President Duterte did not tell the whole grim truth about the massacre of the Moros by American soldiers.

According to media reports on the recent East Asia Summit in Vientiane, Laos, the President cited in his speech only the massacre of Moros in the great Battle of Bud Dajo in the early 1900s, during the American pacification campaign. Actually, there were about 1,000 proud Tausug Moros who perished in that battle, not 600, as the President narrated. And he failed to highlight the fact that, as history records it, “the attack ended on March 7, 1906, and not one Moro was standing, women and children among them.”

The President was being “diplomatic.” In fact, Moro history is replete with tales of more atrocities of gruesome magnitude, like the epic battle at Bud Bagsak, also in Sulu, where 5,000 Tausug Moros valiantly fought America’s mighty army led by then Maj. Gen. Leonard Wood. About 2,000 Moro lives were sacrificed. This revelation has rubbed salt on the wounds of the Moro psyche, and brought back memories of the gory Moro past.

When the President’s charge of violation of human rights by American soldiers was reported, I remembered the day a Moro activist, Bae Normala Lucman Pacasum (then vice governor of Lanao del Sur), visited my office at the Department of Tourism. She was asking for assistance in a restoration project of whatever remained of Kota (Fort) Padang Karbala in Bayang, Lanao del Sur.

I was then the undersecretary of tourism in charge of promotion and marketing. I had my staff do research on the significance of the Kota. I also rummaged through my dusty files, and what I discovered justified the need to immortalize the valor, gallantry and martyrdom of the Maranaw Moros. Indeed, the Kota needed to be restored, if only to inculcate in the succeeding generations of Filipinos lessons in patriotism and nationalism. I recommended the restoration project, but unfortunately, it was overtaken by events.

The American campaigners had started on the wrong foot in their pacification campaign. Their reputation—that they would subjugate the natives of their newly-acquired colony and impose their language and other ways of life—had preceded their campaign. The natives put up a violent resistance. Among the Maranaw then, the American administration was referred to as “gobierno o mga saruang a tao” (a government of the foreigners). And their campaign to teach the natives the English language was resisted because of the belief that going to school at that time was a form of apostasy and an embrace of the religion of the “Nazrani” (Christians, from Nazareth, the birthplace of Jesus).

So as history records it, on that fateful day of May 2, 1902, after negotiations with Maranaw datus failed, American soldiers mercilessly attacked the 700 Maranaw warriors (not counting the women and children who refused to leave husbands and fathers) who stood their ground at the Kota Padang Karbala, armed only with bolos, krises and spears against the rifles, pistols and grenades of the colonizers.

When the smoke of battle cleared, all 700 Moro warriors were found martyred in the tradition of the epic sieges of Fort Alamo in the United States and the fortress of Masada in Israel.

But was President Duterte correct in raising this human-rights issue? A resounding “Yes!” is heard from us Moros.

Macabangkit Lanto (amb_mac_lanto@yahoo.com), UP Law 1967, was a Fulbright fellow to New York University for his postgraduate studies. He is a former assemblyman and speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Autonomous Region 12, and a former congressman, ambassador to Egypt and Sudan, and undersecretary of tourism and of justice.

Comment

CASE 2016-0059: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VERSUS LUISITO GABORNE Y CINCO (G.R. No. 210710, 27 JULY 2016, PEREZ, J.) (SUBJECT/S: MURDER WITH UNLICENSED FIREARM; FRUSTRATED MURDER; CIVIL INDEMNITIES IN CASE OF DEATH RESULTING FROM MURDER) (BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS. CINCO)

Filed under: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES — Leave a comment
September 14, 2016

CASE 2016-0059: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VERSUS  LUISITO GABORNE Y CINCO (G.R. No. 210710, 27 JULY 2016, PEREZ, J.) (SUBJECT/S: MURDER WITH UNLICENSED FIREARM; FRUSTRATED MURDER; CIVIL INDEMNITIES IN CASE OF DEATH RESULTING FROM MURDER) (BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS. CINCO)

 

 DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the 29 July 2013 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01183 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Appellant LUISITO GABORNE Y CINCO is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder with the use of Unlicensed Firearm and shall suffer a penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, without eligibility for parole and shall pay the Heirs of Sixto Elizan y Herrera Pl00,000.00 as civil indemnity, Pl 00,000.00 as moral damages, and Pl 00,000.00 as exemplary damages; and of the crime of Frustrated Murder and is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty ranging from eleven ( 11) years of Pris ion Mayor as minimum, to eighteen ( 18) years of Reclusion Temporal as maximum and shall pay P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages.

 

All monetary awards for damages shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent ( 6%) per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.

 

In the service of his sentence, appellant, who is a detention prisoner, shall be credited with the entire period of his preventive imprisonment.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

 “Illegal Possession of Firearm as an aggravating circumstance in the crimes of Murder and Frustrated Murder


The CA appropriately appreciated the use of an unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance in the crimes of Murder and Frustrated Murder. Under R.A. No. 1059, use of loose firearm in the commission of a crime, like murder, shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. 58

 

In view of the amendments introduced by R.A. No. 8294 and R.A. No. 10591, to Presidential Decree No. 1866, separate prosecutions for homicide and illegal possession are no longer in order. Instead, illegal possession of firearm is merely to be taken as an aggravating circumstance in the crime of murder. 59 It is clear from the foregoing that where murder results from the use of an unlicensed firearm, the crime is not qualified illegal possession but, murder.· In such a case, the use of the unlicensed firearm is not considered as a separate crime but shall be appreciated as a mere aggravating circumstance. Thus, where murder was committed, the penalty for illegal possession of firearms is no longer imposable since it becomes merely a special aggravating circumstance. 60 The intent of Congress is to treat the offense of illegal possession of firearm and the commission of homicide or murder with the use of unlicensed firearm as a· single offense.61

 

In the case at hand, since it was proven that accused-appellant was not a licensed firearm holder, 62 and that he was positively identified by the witnesses as the one who fired shots against the victims, the use of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of the crimes of Murder and Frustrated Murder should be considered as an aggravating circumstance thereof.

 

The presence of such aggravating circumstance would have merited the imposition of the death penalty for the crime of Murder. However, in view of R.A. No. 9346, we are mandated to impose on appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.


Damages and civil liability

 

This Court resolves to modify the damages awarded by the appellate court in line with the recent jurisprudence.63 Appellant shall pay the Heirs of Sixto Elizan y Herrera Pl 00,000.00 as civil indemnity, Pl 00,000.00 as moral damages, and Pl00,000.00 as exemplary damages for the crime of Murder with the use of Unlicensed Firearm.

 

Appellant shall also be liable to pay P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages for the crime of Frustrated Murder. In addition, interest at the rate of six percent ( 6%) per annum shall be imposed on all monetary awards from date of finality of this Judgment until fully paid.”


TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

scd-2016-0059-cinco

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

 

 

Comment