1. People People vs. vs. De los los Reye Reyes s FACTS: Accused Cresencio Cresencio Singue, Crispulo de los Reyes and Perfecto Gulo as as found guilty of t!e cri"e of Ro##ery it! $o"icide and P!ysical %n&uries, and as sentenced to R'C()S%*+ P'RP'T)A. Perfecto Perfecto assailed t!at t!e RTC failed to consider !is "inority in i"posing upon !i" a prison ter" of reclusion perpetua. $e argues t!at under P.D. P.D. -, ot!erise /non as t!e 0C!ild and out! 2elfare Code0, !e as still a yout!ful offender !en t!e cri"e as co""itted, #eing t!en only 13 years old, so t!at t!e i"ple"entation of !is sentence s!ould !ave #een suspended. %SS)': 2!et!er or not t!e t!e sentence of Perfecto Gulo, #eing a "inor, s!ould #e suspended. $'(D: To #enefit fro" P.D. -, t!e accused "ust #e a yout!ful offender not only at t!e ti"e of co""ission of t!e cri"e #ut also at t!e ti"e of trial. Perfecto as already 4 years old !en !e as convicted. )nder t!e Code, !ere an accused is no longer a yout!ful offender at t!e ti"e of sentencing, !e cannot any"ore avail of t!e #enefit of suspension of !is sentence, neit!er can !is "inority at t!e ti"e of co""ission of t!e cri"e #e appreciated as a "itigating factor.
45 6aclayon vs. 7utia FACTS: Florentina (. 6aclayon, a sc!ool teac!er, as convicted of t!e cri"e of Serious *ral Defa"ation co""itted against t!e principal of t!e Plaridel Central Sc!ool. 6aclayon applied for pro#ation !ic! as granted #ut "odified #y i"posing conditions, of !ic! 0to refrain fro" continuing !er teac!ing profession0 as one of t!e". 6aclayon pleaded for t!e deletion of said condition, for it is not only detri"ental and pre&udicial to !er rig!ts #ut is also not in accordance it! t!e purposes, o#&ectives and #enefits of t!e pro#ation la, #ut as re&ected. %SS)': 2!et!er or not to refrain 6aclayon fro" continuing !er teac!ing profession is a valid condition of pro#ation.
$'(D: Teac!ing Teac!ing !as #een t!e lifeti"e and only calling and profession of petitioner. T!e la re8uires t!at s!e devote !erself to a laful calling and occupation during pro#ation. et, et, to pro!i#it !er fro" engaging in teac!ing ould practically prevent !er fro" co"plying it! t!e ter"s of t!e pro#ation.
5 People vs. +ang 9ay FACTS: +ang 9ay as c!arged it! illegal possession of firear"s. $e as sentenced to i"prison"ent for five ;5 years and one 15 day, it! t!e accessories of t!e la, and to pa y costs. T!e Solicitor General 8uestions t!e correctness of t!e penalty i"posed, e
$'(D: %f e are no to apply t!e la on indeter"inate sentence in t!e instant case, t!e prison ter" ould to #e "ore t!an five ;5 years for t!e reason t!at t!e "ini"u" could not #e less t!an five ;5 years and t!e "a
=. Fascinal vs Cru> Case
FACTS:
T!e Facinals on a 1-?!ecatre parcel of land. 4- !ectares of it as leased to @a"ora and *r#ion for 1- years. )pon e
, petitioners filed for a co"plaint for unlaful detainer against t!e respondents. T!e 7C later on ordered t!e respondents to vacate t!e area. T!e trial court issued a rit of e, affir"ing t!e decision of t!e trial court. T!e case as t!en #roug!t #efore t!e CA !ic! affir"ed t!e decision of t!e loer courts. T!e respondents t!en applied for pro#ation. $oever, t!is as denied #y t!e court #ecause t!ere as no delivery of property to t!e petitioners, respondents are still in t!e state of defiance of t!e decision !ic! !as #eco"e final and e
ISSUE: 2+ t!e respondents can #e granted t!eir petition for pro#ation.
HELD: +o. T!oug! respondents are 8ualified for pro#ation #ecause t!ey do not possess any dis8ualifications under t!e pro#ation act, t!eir continuous defiance of t!e courtBs order as a s!oing of t!eir unillingness of repentance nor predisposition for re!a#ilitation !ic! t!e pro#ation la soug!t to ac!ieve Sec 4, P.D 35. Private respondents ere declared in conte"pt of court !en t!ey repeatedly refused to co"ply it! t!e final decision of t!e trial court !ic! ordered t!e" to vacate t!e su#&ect property.
;. Su"#illa vs. 7atri< Corporation FACTS: Petitioner o#tained a cas! loan fro" 7FC, !ere s!e issued c!ec/s it! unifor" face value of P. )pon clai"ing t!e a"ount fro" t!e draee #an/, it as dis!onored on t!e ground t!at t!ey ere dran against a closed account. T!e 7eTC found petitioner cri"inally and civilly lia#le for t!e issuance of t!e si< ru##er c!ec/s in violation of
6P 44. T!e penalty of fine as -/, it! su#sidiary i"prison"ent. $er civil lia#ility for t!e si< consolidated cases as in t!e total of P=-,--4. %ssue: 2*+ t!e penalty i"posed in t!e 7eTC Decision dated @anuary 1=, 4--3, !ic! is already final and e
$eld:
T!e penalty i"posed in t!e 7eTC Decision dated @anuary 1=, 4--3, !ic! is already final and e
T!e petition is GRANTED. %n t!e interest of &ustice, t!e Decision dated @anuary 1=, 4--3 of 6ranc! , 7etropolitan Trial Court of 7a/ati City in Cri"inal Case +os. 4113 to 411= is MODIFIED. Accused @ulie S. Su"#illa is !ere#y found GUILTY #eyond reasona#le dou#t of si< counts of violation of 6atas Pa"#ansa 6lg. 44, and is sentenced to pay a FINE of THIRTEEN THOUSAND AND THREE HUNDRED THIRTY-FOUR PESOS (P13,334.00) for ea! "#$%, and to inde"nify private co"plainant 7atri< Finance Corporation t!e total a"ount of P=-,--4.-- plus E interest per annu" fro" Septe"#er 41, 4--4 until full pay"ent.
. 7ic!ael Padua vs. People
FACTS:
Padua and )#alde ere c!arged #efore t!e RTC of Pasig of violation of RA 31; for selling dangerous drugs. )pon arraign"ent, !e pleaded not guilty. 6ut to avail of t!e privilege of 1 st ti"e offenders, !e pleaded guilty. $e filed for a petition for pro#ation alleging t!at !e is "inor and a 1st ti"e offender, and did not possess any of t!e dis8ualifications of t!e pro#ation la. RTC forarded t!e case to t!e Pro#ation *ffice, !ere it reco""ended !is pro#ation. $oever, @udge Carpio issued an order denying t!e petition pursuant to section 4= of RA 31;.
%SS)':2*+ Padua can avail a pro#ation
$'(D:
+o, any person convicted for drug traffic/ing or pus!ing, regardless of t!e penalty i"posed, can not avail of t!e privilege granted #y t!e Pro#ation (a.
. Declarador vs. Gu#aton
Facts: A 1 years old "inor as proven to !ave co""itted a cri"e of "urder it! evident pre"editation and a#use of strengt! of sta##ing 1; ti"es a teac!er, ife of t!e petitioner, in Ca#ug?Ca#ug +ational $ig! Sc!ool in President Ro #ut t!e sentenced is suspended #y t!e @udge auto"atically. A petition t!at t!e suspension of sentenced as not proper #ecause t!e "inor is dis8ualified as provided in Article 134 of P.D. +o. -
%ssue: 2!et!er or not respondent @udge co""itted grave a#use of discretion a"ounting to e
. People vs. 7antala#a
PP & ALLEN MANTALA'A
RTC: found guilty for violation of RA 31;, Art %% Secs. ; and 115 Dangerous Drugs Act 4--4 CA: Affir"ed SC (GUILTY #% "*++e* e$a%/ *#e %" +&+ee* +%+a%+$ +#2%a$e " +$"+%/) •
•
•
T!e Tas/ Force Regional Anti?Cri"e '"ergency Response RAC'R5 in 6utuan City received a report t!at Allen 7antala#a, 1 years old at t!e ti"e, as selling shabu. A #uy?#ust tea" as organi>ed, co"posed of to police"en and to 45 poseur?#uyers it! to 45 pieces of P1-- "ar/ed #ills. T!e to poseur?#uyers approac!ed Allen !o as said to #e in t!e act of selling s!a#u. T!e appellant !anded a sac!et of s!a#u to one of t!e poseur?#uyers and t!e latter gave t!e "ar/ed "oney to t!e appellant. T!e poseur?#uyers ent #ac/ to t!e police officers and told t!e" t!at t!e transaction !as #een co"pleted. Police officers Pa&o and Si"on rus!ed to t!e place and !andcuffed t!e appellant as !e as leaving t!e place. After t!e operation, t!e police officers "ade an inventory of t!e ite"s recovered fro" t!e appellant: 15 one #ig sac!et of s!a#u 45 one s"all sac!et of s!a#u and 5 to pieces of P1-- "ar/ed "oney and a P;- peso #ill. T!ereafter, to separate %nfor"ations ere filed #efore t!e RTC of 6utuan City against appellant for violation of Sections ; and 11 of RA 31; C*7PR'$'+S%H' DA+G'R*)S DR)GS ACT *F 4--45.
RTC '#%#a$ (GUILTY) CA (GUILTY) +&+ee* +%+a%+$ +#2%a$e " +$"+%/)
SC
(GUILTY
#%
"*++e*
e$a%/
*#e
%"
ISSUE: ON %!ee 2!"#* !a&e ee$ a 2#2e$2+"$ " 2e$%e$e / ea2"$ " +$"+%/ HELD: YES. T!e appellant as seventeen 15 years old !en t!e #uy?#ust operation too/ place or !en t!e said offense as co""itted, #ut as no longer a "inor at t!e ti"e of t!e pro"ulgation of t!e RTCIs Decision. %t "ust #e noted t!at RA 3== too/ effect on 7ay 4-, 4--, !ile t!e RTC pro"ulgated its decision on t!is case on Septe"#er 1=, 4--;, !en said appellant as no longer a "inor. T!e RTC did not suspend t!e sentence in accordance it! The Child and Youth Welfare Code and T!e Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law, t!e las t!at ere applica#le at t!e ti"e of t!e pro"ulgation of &udg"ent, #ecause t!e i"posa#le penalty for violation of Section ; of RA 31; is life i"prison"ent to deat!. T!e aea$% 2!"#* !a&e ee$ e$%+%e* %" a 2#2e$2+"$ " !+2 2e$%e$e under Sections and of RA 3==. $oever, t!is Court !as already ruled in People v. SarciaJ t!at !ile Section of RA 3== provides t!at suspension of sentence can still #e applied even if t!e c!ild in conflict it! t!e la is already eig!teen 15 years of age or "ore at t!e ti"e of t!e pronounce"ent of !is!er guilt, Section =- of t!e sa"e la li"its t!e said suspension of sentence until t!e c!ild reac!es t!e "a
$ence, t!e appellant, !o is no #eyond t!e age of tenty?one 415 years can no longer avail of t!e provisions of Sections and =- of RA 3== as to !is suspension of sentence, #ecause suc! is already "oot and acade"ic.
T!e privileged "itigating circu"stance of "inority can no #e appreciated in fi
3. Rura vs. (opena
Facts:
Rura as found guilty of ; counts of estafa. S!e as sentenced to serve 1 "ont!s and 4; days, eac! c!arge of estafa !ic! is t!ree "ont!s and fifteen days.T!e case as consolicated, tried as one and !ad one conviction on t!e sa"e date. Rura applied for pro#ation !ic! as not granted upon t!e reco""endation of t!e pro#ation officer t!at s!e co""ited several cri"es of estafa on different dates.
%ssue:
%s Rura 8ualified for pro#ationK
T!e accused is 8ualified for pro#ation. Since t!e cases ere consolidated, tried toget!er, and !ad only one conviction, t!ere is no previous conviction !ic! can stop t!e accused fro" availing pro#ation. $ence, t!e accused is 8ualified.
1-. Santos vs. CA
Facts:
Santos as found guilty of ;= counts of #ouncing c!ec/s in t!e a"ount of .3 "illion pesos. %n violation of 6.P 44, Santos as sentenced to ;= years of i"prison"ent and a fine of five "illion pesos. Santos applied for pro#ation and it as granted. $oever, t!e accused #egan to sell !is properties to evade possi#le confiscation.
%ssue:
2!et!er or not Santos is eligi#le for pro#ation
$eld:
Pro#ation is not a rig!ts, #ut a privilege. SantosB action of selling toe properties s!o t!at !e is not a penitent offender. Santos did not ta/e seriously t!e gravity of !is offense. $ence, t!e privilege of suspension is it!dran.
