Cerezo y Ramos v. People

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 241593. January 14, 2019.]

REYNALDO CEREZO y RAMOS AND ROGELIO MEJIA y PASCUA, petitioners, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated January 14, 2019which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 241593 (Reynaldo Cerezo y Ramos and Rogelio Mejia y Pascua v. People of the Philippines). — The petitioners' first and second motions for extension totaling to thirty-five (35) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari are GRANTED, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period.

After review, the Court resolves to DENY the petition. Petitioners mainly raise questions of fact. The Rules of Court is clear that only questions of law should be raised in petitions filed under Rule 45. Moreover, we have held that in a criminal case, factual findings of the trial court are generally accorded great weight and respect on appeal, especially when such findings are supported by substantial evidence on record and affirmed on appeal by the Court of Appeals. It is only in exceptional circumstances, such as when the trial court overlooked material and relevant matters, that this Court will re-calibrate and evaluate the factual findings of the court below. 1 In this case, the trial court did not overlook such factual matters. Consequently, we find no necessity to review, much less, overturn its factual findings.

However, based on the settled facts, we find petitioners guilty of robbery in an uninhabited place punishable under Article 302 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), instead of Article 299 as held by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA).

Petitioners were charged with robbery in an inhabited house or public building or edifice devoted to worship under Article 299 of the RPC, which is punishable with reclusion temporal when the value of the property taken exceeds P250.00. The same provision states that when the offenders do not carry arms and the value of the property taken exceeds P250.00, the penalty next lower in degree shall be imposed. Since petitioners did not carry arms, the RTC imposed the penalty lower in degree from reclusion temporal, which is prision mayor. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL), the RTC sentenced petitioners to suffer two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum. CAIHTE

Notably, the information does not state that the robbery was committed in an inhabited house or an uninhabited place. It merely stated that petitioners committed the robbery "by forcibly breaking the bamboo windows and padlocks and then steal and carry away" private complainant's personal belongings without his consent and permission. 2 This matter was overlooked by both the RTC and CA, yet its importance cannot be underestimated since robbery in an inhabited house is punished more severely than robbery in an uninhabited place.

Article 301 of the RPC defines "inhabited house" as "any shelter, ship or vessel constituting the dwelling of one or more persons, even though the inhabitants thereof shall temporarily be absent therefrom when the robbery is committed." Here, the place robbed was not an inhabited house inasmuch as it was described as a "rest house" over which private complainant employed a caretaker in the person of prosecution witness Aldrin Gonzales. 3 The record also bears that it was not being used as a dwelling by private complainant who resided in Urdaneta, Pangasinan while the rest house is located in Lingayen. In this view, the applicable provision is Article 302 — robbery in an uninhabited place — and not Article 299 of the RPC.

Article 302 of the RPC provides that when the robbery is committed in an uninhabited place or in a private building and the value of the property exceeds P250.00, the penalty shall be prision correccional, in its medium and maximum periods, provided that, among other circumstances, any wall, roof, floor, or the outside door or window has been broken. 4 In 2017, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10951 5 took effect, increasing the threshold amount to P50,000.00. When the value of the property taken does not exceed P50,000.00, the penalty next lower in degree from prision correccional, in its medium and maximum, periods shall be imposed. The law also specifically provides that it shall have retroactive effect to the extent favorable to the accused. 6 Since the application of the new law will result to a lower penalty for petitioners, it shall have retroactive effect.

Here, petitioners entered the rest house of private complainant by forcibly breaking its bamboo windows and padlocks. Afterwards, they stole and carried away personal belongings with an approximate value of P14,000.00. Under R.A. No. 10951, the imposable penalty is arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, which has a term of four (4) months and one (1) day to two (2) years and four (4) months. Following Article 65 in relation to Article 64 of the RPC, there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances present in this case, the maximum penalty imposable is the medium period of the said penalty, i.e., one (1) year and one (1) day to one (1) year and eight (8) months. On the other hand, the minimum period of the penalty imposable under the ISL is the range of penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense, which is arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, i.e., ranging from one (1) month and one (1) day to four (4) months. We accordingly modify the penalty imposed by the RTC.

Finally, we note the manifestation 7 of the Public Attorney's Office-Special and Appealed Cases Service on the demise of petitioner Jerry Manuel y Rayos during the pendency of this appeal. In this view, we declare said petitioner's criminal liability and any civil liability based solely thereon extinguished, following our ruling in People v. Bayotas. 8 We also amend the caption of this case by dropping the name of the deceased petitioner.

WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The January 25, 2018 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 38930, which affirmed the July 12, 2016 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan, Branch 68, in Criminal Case No. L-10059 is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that petitioners Reynaldo Cerezo y Ramos and Rogelio Mejia y Pascua are found guilty of violating Article 302 of the Revised Penal Code, for which they are sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison term of four (4) months of arresto mayor as minimum, to one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision correccional as maximum. DETACa

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.People v. Esteban, G.R. No. 200920, June 9, 2014, 725 SCRA 517, 525.

2.Rollo, p. 71.

3.Id. at 72.

4.Marquez v. People, G.R. No. 181138, December 3, 2012, 686 SCRA 723, 743.

5. An Act Adjusting the Amount or the Value of Property and Damage on Which a Penalty is Based and the Fines Imposed under the Revised Penal Code, Amending for the Purpose Act No. 3815, Otherwise Known as "The Revised Penal Code," As Amended.

6. Republic Act No. 10951, Sec. 100.

7.Rollo, pp. 15-19, 111-142.

8. G.R. No. 102007, September 2, 1994, 236 SCRA 239.