Conopio y Bicina v. People

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 260194. August 17, 2022.]

DAISY CONOPIO y BICINA and DELIA CONOPIO y BAYONA, petitioners,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated August 17, 2022, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 260194 (Daisy Conopio y Bicina and Delia Conopio y Bayona v. People of the Philippines). — The Court resolves to DENY the Petition for Review on Certiorari for failure to sufficiently show any reversible error in the assailed judgment as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction pursuant to Section 6, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, and for lack of merit in the appeal pursuant to Section 5, Rule 45 in relation to Section 5 (b), Rule 56 of the Rules of Court. 1

The penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals should, however, be modified. While the penalty for Qualified Theft remains to be two degrees higher than those stated in Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) for Simple Theft, Article 309 has been amended by Republic Act No. (RA) 10951. 2 Under the amendment, the penalty for theft, "if the value of the property stolen is over Five thousand pesos (P5,000) but does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000)" shall now be arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period. 3

Thus, if the value of the property stolen is over Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) but does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00), the penalty under Article 309 (4) of the RPC, as amended, is arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period. However, by virtue of Article 310 of the RPC, Qualified Theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees which is prisión mayor in its medium period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period which has a prison term of 8 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months. There being no aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the range of the penalty that must be imposed as the maximum term should rest on the medium period of the said penalty, or from 10 years, 2 months and 21 days to 12 years, 5 months and 10 days. 4

Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the range of the minimum term that should be imposed upon petitioners is anywhere within the period of prisión correccional in its medium period to prisión mayor in its minimum period which has a range of 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 8 years. 5

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The Decision dated May 31, 2021 and the Resolution dated March 24, 2022 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 43609 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioners Daisy Conopio y Bicina and Delia Conopio y Bayona are GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Qualified Theft under Article 310 in relation to Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 81 of Republic Act No. 10951. Accordingly, they are sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of four years, two months and 21 days of prisión correccional, as minimum, to 10 years, 2 months and 21 days of prisión mayor, as maximum.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Miranda v. People, 680 Phil. 126, 134-136 (2012).

2. 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; approved on August 29, 2017.

3. People v. Santos, G.R. No. 237982, October 14, 2020.

4. Id.

5. Id.