THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 222704. April 13, 2016.]
GERALD SISON, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated April 13, 2016, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 222704 (Gerald Sison v. People of the Philippines). — This petition seeks to reverse the conviction of petitioner Gerald Sison by the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan, Branch 38 and subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR. No. 35403.
Petitioner and Jason Pobre (Pobre) were caught carrying and pulling a PLDT cable wire along MacArthur highway in Binmaley, Pangasinan. Jay Ar Santos was seen on the driver's side of the motorized tricycle with petitioner and Pobre as passengers. In an Information dated 28 June 2008, they were charged with theft of 22 meters PLDT wire worth P78,384.00.
On 17 August 2012, the trial court found petitioner and Pobre guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of theft and were sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of three (3) years, six (6) months, and Twenty (20) days of prision correccional, as minimum, to nine (9) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, and to solidarily pay PLDT the amount of P78,384.00. Santos was acquitted.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision to convict petitioner and Pobre, as well as the penalty imposed on them. The Court of Appeals gave credence to the testimony of the principal witness, Sherwin Mapili (Mapili), who positively identified petitioner and Pobre as the ones whom he saw cutting the PLDT cable wires. The Court of Appeals found no motive on the part of Mapili to falsely testify against petitioner and Pobre. The Court of Appeals pointed out the inconsistent testimony of petitioner regarding their alibi. The Court of Appeals also found weak their alibi and denial.
Anent the imposition of the penalty, the Court of Appeals explained in this wise:
As regards the penalty imposed, Art. 309 (1) of the Revised Penal Code provides:
Penalties — Any person guilty of theft shall be punished by:
(1) The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum medium periods, if the value of the thing stolen is more than 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000.00 pesos, but if the value of the thing stolen exceeds the latter amount, the penalty shall be the maximum period of the one prescribed in this paragraph, and one year for each additional ten thousand pesos, but the total of the penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term should be twelve (12) years while the minimum term would fall under the next lower penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods (2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 6 years), to be imposed in any of its periods.
Thus, [w]e affirm the penalty imposed by the trial court which is 3 years, 6 months and 20 days of prision correccional, as minimum, to 9 years and 4 months and 1 day of prision mayor, as maximum. 1
In the instant petition, petitioner insists that the version of the prosecution witness Mapili is too incredible to warrant even the slightest belief. Petitioner points out that Mapili's statements in two blotter entries are inconsistent. In Entry No. 6043, Mapili claims that the alleged theft incident occurred at 2:45 am, while in Entry No. 6044, the incident happened at around 3:00 am. Again, in the first blotter, Mapili could not identify the persons who caught cutting PLDT cable wires, while in the second entry, Mapili readily identified the alleged perpetrators. Mapili also gave conflicting statements in that he first stated that he discovered the PLDT wires lying on the highway and later, he claimed to see petitioner and Pobre pulling the cable wires. Petitioner maintains that he was heavily drunk and sleeping at the waiting shed when the alleged theft incident transpired.
We affirm the findings and conclusion of the Court of Appeals but a modification of the penalty imposed is in order.
The value of the property stolen by appellant was P78,384.00. Under Article 309 (1), the basic penalty is prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods to be imposed in the maximum period since the value of the stolen goods exceeded P22,000.00. The minimum, medium, and maximum periods of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, are:
Minimum — 6 years and 1 day to 7 years and 4 months
To determine the additional years of imprisonment, we deduct the amount of P22,000.00, thus leaving the amount of P56,384.00. Next, the net amount should be divided by P10,000.00, disregarding any amount below P10,000.00. Thus, five (5) years must be added to the basic penalty of the maximum period of prision mayor minimum and medium periods. Thus, the imposable penalty is thirteen (13) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum of the indeterminate penalty is that which, taking into consideration the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the Revised Penal Code. The minimum of the indeterminate penalty shall be anywhere within the range of the penalty next lower in degree to that prescribed for the offense.
The maximum penalty is fifteen (15) years. The penalty next lower in degree to that prescribed for the offense is the maximum period of prision mayor minimum and medium or anywhere from eight (8) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to ten (10) years.
Thus, a modification of the penalty is in order. The correct penalty to be imposed is eight (8) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum and thirteen (13) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that petitioner Gerard Sison is sentenced to suffer the penalty of eight (8) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum and thirteen (13) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
SO ORDERED. J. Peralta, on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 46-47.