THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 234842. March 14, 2018.]
REMEGIO DACLIZON y ROBLES, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 14, 2018, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 234842 (Remegio Daclizon y Robles, Petitioner, v. People of the Philippines, Respondent.) — After a judicious perusal of the records, the Court RESOLVES TO DENY the petition for review on certiorari for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in promulgating its assailed decision 1 as to warrant the exercise of this Court's appellate jurisdiction.
Firstly, the petitioner objects to the jurisdiction of the trial court over his person because his arrest was not valid. The objection is unwarranted. The records show that he raised no objection to the irregularity of his arrest prior to or at the time of his arraignment; hence, he was deemed to have waived any defect attending his arrest. Indeed, any objection by the accused to the procedure by which the trial court acquired jurisdiction over his person that is not made before the plea is deemed waived. 2 In addition, the petitioner's active participation in the trial surely established his submission to the jurisdiction of the trial court, and cured any defect attending his arrest. 3
Secondly, there is no question that the evidence against the petitioner was validly obtained. He had voluntarily permitted complainant Erlinda Labaco and another neighbor, Flor Dela Cruz, to enter his premises, where the stolen articles were soon discovered. On that occasion, Labaco recovered the stolen articles. Although Labaco and Dela Cruz were in the company of Sitio Chairman Enrique Vinluan, the identification and the recovery of the stolen articles did not emanate from an illegal search. Labaco, Dela Cruz and Vinluan were not agents of the law whose entry would have been constitutionally objectionable in the absence of any judicial warrant to authorize the entry, search and seizure. At the very least, their entry had been consented to by the petitioner.
Thirdly, the petitioner assails the finding of unlawful taking on his part. The issue is a factual one that the Court cannot dwell on absent a persuasive showing by him of gross misappreciation on the part of the lower courts. Not being a trier of facts in this appeal on certiorari, the Court accepts the findings of the trial court and the CA on the credibility of the witnesses. Verily, the factual findings of the trial court and the CA are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal without a clear showing by the petitioner of abuse on their part. 4
Fourthly, the Court modifies the penalty imposed by the CA in view of the amendment of Article 299 of the Revised Penal Code by Section 79 of Republic Act No. 10951. 5 The amendment, which has adjusted the penalty based on the value of the stolen articles, is retroactive, pursuant to Section 100 of Republic Act No. 10951 which specifically provides that the law shall have a retroactive effect to the extent that it is favorable to the accused, or to any person serving sentence by final judgment.
Article 299 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 10951, states:
Art. 299. Robbery in an inhabited house or public building or edifice devoted to worship. — Any armed person who shall commit robbery in an inhabited house or public building or edifice devoted to religious worship, shall be punished by reclusion temporal, if the value of the property taken shall exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000), and if —
(a) The malefactors shall enter the house or building in which the robbery was committed, by any of the following means:
1. Through an opening not intended for entrance or egress.
2. By breaking any wall, roof, or floor or breaking any door or window.
3. By using false keys, picklocks or similar tools.
4. By using any fictitious name or pretending the exercise of public authority.
Or if —
(b) The robbery be committed under any of the following circumstances:
1. By the breaking of doors, wardrobes, chests, or any other kind of locked or sealed furniture or receptacle.
2. By taking such furniture or objects away to be broken or forced upon outside the place of the robbery.
When the offenders do not carry arms, and the value of the property taken exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000), the penalty next lower in degree shall be imposed.
The same rule shall be applied when the offenders are armed, but the value of the property taken does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000).
When said offenders do not carry arms and the value of the property taken does not exceed Fifty Thousand pesos (P50,000), they shall suffer the penalty prescribed in the two (2) next preceding paragraphs, in its minimum period.
If the robbery be committed in one of the dependencies of an inhabited house, public building, or building dedicated to religious worship, the penalties next lower in degree than those prescribed in this article shall be imposed. (Bold underscoring for emphasis)
Given that the value of the stolen articles was P15,160.00, and that the petitioner was not armed, his penalty is prision mayor in its minimum period. In the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the imposable penalty is prision mayor minimum in its medium period, i.e., six (6) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to seven (7) years and four (4) months. Conformably with the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court fixes an indeterminate sentence whose minimum is five (5) years of prision correccional, and whose maximum is six (6) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on May 31, 2017 by the Court of Appeals subject to the MODIFICATION that the penalty of the petitioner is an indeterminate sentence of five (5) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum.
The petitioner shall pay the cost of suit.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 32-39; penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting with the concurrence of Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia and Associate Justice Leoncia K. Dimagiba.
2.Rebellion v. People, G.R. No. 175700, July 5, 2010, 623 SCRA 343, 348.
3.Valdez v. People, G.R. No. 170180, November 23, 2007, 538 SCRA 611, 622.
4.Chua Tiong Tay v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112130, March 31, 1995, 243 SCRA 183, 186; Castillo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 106472, August 7, 1996, 260 SCRA 374, 381.
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.