Article 10 Cases (Padilla vs. Dizon, Padilla vs. CA, Pp. vs. Simon)

8/16/2019 Article 10 Cases (Padilla vs. Dizon, Padilla vs. CA, Pp. vs. Simon)

1/21

Adm. Case No. 3086 February 23, 1988ALEXANDER PADILLA, complainant,

vs.!E !"N. #ALA$AR R. DI$"N, Pres%d%&' (ud'e o) *+e Re'%o&a r%a Cour* o) Pasay

C%*y #ra&-+ 113,respondent.R E " L / I " N PER C/RIA This is an administrative complaint, dated August 6, 1987, fled by the then Commissioner o Customs, Ale!ander"adilla, against respondent #alta$ar %. &i$on, %TC 'udge, #ranch 11(, "asay City, or rendering a maniestly erroneousdecision due, at the very least, to gross incompetence and gross ignorance o the la), in Criminal Case *o. 86+ 11-6+", entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Lo Chi Fai", acuitting said accused o the o/ense charged, i.e., smuggling ooreign currency out o the country.%euired by the Court to ans)er the complaint, the respondent 0udge fled an Ans)er, dated ctober 6, 1987, recitinghis 2commendable record as a earless prosecutor2 since his appointment as Assistant City 3iscal o 4anila on&ecember 5, 196-, until his appointment eventually as %TC 'udge on 3ebruary 18, 198 that at in the reorgani$ationo the 0udiciary ater the 3ebruary -6, 1986 revolution, he )as reappointed to his present position that his length oservice as prosecutor and 0udge is 2tangible proo that )ould negate the allegations o the petitioner2 should becomplainant, )hereas the latter did not last long in the service or reasons only :no)n to him that the decisioninvolved in the complaint )as promulgated by respondent on ;eptember -9, 1986, but the complaint against him )asfled only on August 6, 1987, a clear indication o malice and ill+)ill o the complainant to sub0ect respondent toharassment, humiliation and vindictiveness that his decision, o )hich he submits a copy Anne! A as part o hisAns)er, is based on 2undamental principles and the oundation o rights and 0ustice2 and that i there are mista:es orerrors in the uestioned decision, they are committed in good aith. Accordingly, respondent prays or the dismissal o

the petition should be complaint. The issue beore the Court is )hether or not the respondent 0udge is guilty o gross incompetence or gross ignoranceo the la) in rendering the decision in uestion. A 0udge can not be held to account or ans)er, criminally, civilly oradministratively, or an erroneous decision rendered by him in good faith. The case in )hich the respondent rendered a decision o acuittal involved a tourist,


2/21

4alaysian &ollar 4B. 15,76.

in chec:s

Australian &ollar AB 7,7(.

#ritish "ound 7.

; &ollar ;B 17,6.

Canadian &ollar CB 99.)ithout authority rom the Central #an:.Contrary to


3/21

abroad and not rom the local source )hich is )hat is being prohibited by the government. Des, simplyreading the provisions o said circular )ill, readily sho) that the currency declaration is reuired or thepurpose o establishing the amount o currency being brought by tourist or temporary non+residentvisitors into the country. The currency declarations, thereore, is already sic intended to serve as aguideline or the Customs authorities to determine the amounts actually brought in by them tocorrespond to the amounts that could be allo)ed to be ta:en out. =ndeed, this Court is ama$ed andreally has its misgivings in the manner currency declarations )ere made as testifed to by the Central#an: employees. Fhy the #ureau o Customs representative never too: part in all these declarationstestifed to by no less than fve ( Central #an: employeesL ;eemingly, these employees are theavorites o these travellers. =t is the hope o this Court that the authorities must do something toremedy the evident Ma) in the system or e/ective implementation o the uestioned Central #an:Circular *o. 96.#ut even )ith a doubtul mind this Court )ould not be able to pin criminal responsibility on theaccused. This is due to its steadast adherence and devotion to the rule o la)+a actor in restoring thealmost lost aith and erosion o confdence o the people in the administration o 0ustice. Courts o 'ustice are guided only by the rule o evidence.

The respondent+0udge has sho)n gross incompetence or gross ignorance o the la) in holding that to convict theaccused or violation o Central #an: Circular *o. 96, the prosecution must establish that the accused had thecriminal intent to violate the la). The respondent ought to :no) that proo o malice or deliberate intent mens rea isnot essential in o/enses punished by special la)s, )hich are mala prohi!ita. =n reuiring proo o malice, therespondent has by his gross ignorance allo)ed the accused to go scot ree. The accused at the time o hisapprehension at the 4anila =nternational Airport had in his possession the amount o ;B((,59.(7 in assortedoreign currencies and oreign e!change instruments 8 pieces, )ithout any specifc authority rom the Central #an:as reuired by la). At the time o his apprehension, he )as able to e!hibit only t)o oreign currency declarations in hispossession. These )ere old declarations made by him on the occasion o his previous trips to the "hilippines.

Although lac: o malice or )ilull intent is not a valid deense in a case or violation o Central #an: Circular *o. 96,the respondent nonetheless chose to e!onerate the accused based on his deense that the oreign currency he )asbringing out o the country at the time he )as apprehended by the customs authorities )ere brought into the"hilippines by him and his alleged business associates on several previous occasions )hen they came to the"hilippines, supposedly to be used or the purpose o investing in some unspecifed or undetermined businessventures that this money )as :ept in the "hilippines and he precisely came to the "hilippines to ta:e the money outas he and his alleged business associates )ere araid that the 2attempted revolution2 )hich occurred on 'uly 6,1986might spread. ;uch antastic tale, although totally irrelevant to the matter o the criminal liability o the accused underthe inormation, )as s)allo)ed by the respondent+0udge 2hoo:, line and sin:er.2 =t did not matter to the respondentthat the oreign currency and oreign currency instruments ound in the possession o the accused )hen he )asapprehended at the airport+8 pieces in all+and the amounts o such oreign e!change did not correspond to theoreign currency declarations presented by the accused at the trial. =t did not matter to the respondent that theaccused by his o)n story admitted, in e/ect, that he )as a carrier2 o oreign currency or other people. Therespondent closed his eyes to the act that the very substantial amounts o oreign e!change ound in the possessiono the accused at the time o his apprehension consisted o personal chec:s o other people, as )ell as cash in various

currency denominations 1- :inds o currency in all, )hich clearly belied the claim o the accused that they )ere parto the unds )hich he and his supposed associates had brought in and :ept in the "hilippines or the purpose oinvesting in some business ventures. The respondent ignored the act that most o the C# Currency declarationspresented by the deense at the trial )ere declarations belonging to other people )hich could not be utili$ed by theaccused to 0ustiy his having the oreign e!change in his possession. Although contrary to ordinary human e!perienceand behavior, the respondent 0udge chose to give credence to the antastic tale o the accused that he and his allegedbusiness associates had brought in rom time to time and accumulated and :ept in the "hilippines oreign e!change overy substantial amounts in cash and chec:s in various oreign currency denominations or the purpose o investing inbusiness even beore they :ne) and had come to an agreement as to the specifc business venture in )hich they )eregoing to invest. These and other circumstances )hich ma:e the story concocted by the accused so palpablyunbelievable as to render the fndings o the respondent 0udge obviously contrived to avor the acuittal o theaccused, thereby clearly negating his claim that he rendered the decision 2in good aith.2 @is actuations in this caseamount to grave misconduct pre0udicial to the interest o sound and air administration o 0ustice.@e not only acuitted the accused


4/21

oreign currencies. There is nothing in said circular that )ould 0ustiy returning to him the amount o at least;B,., i he is caught attempting to bring out oreign e!change in e!cess o said amount )ithout specifcauthority rom the Central #an:.Accordingly, the Court fnds the respondent %egional Trial Court 'udge, #alta$ar %. &i$on, guilty o gross incompetence,gross ignorance o the la) and grave and serious misconduct a/ecting his integrity and e?ciency, and consistent )iththe responsibility o this Court or the 0ust and proper administration o 0ustice and or the attainment o the ob0ectiveo maintaining the peopleNs aith in the 0udiciary "eople vs. Kalen$uela, 1( ;C%A 71-, it is hereby ordered that the%espondent 'udge be &=;4=;;>& rom the service. All leave and retirement benefts and privileges to )hich he may beentitled are hereby oreited )ith pre0udice to his being reinstated in any branch o government service, includinggovernment+o)ned andHor controlled agencies or corporations. This resolution is immediately e!ecutory.; %&>%>&.

.R. No. 93028 (uy 29, 199

PE"PLE "F !E P!ILIPPINE, plainti/+appellee,

vs.

ARIN I"N y /NA, respondent.

he #olicitor $eneral for plainti%&appellee.

'icardo (.#ampang for accused&appellant.

REALAD", J.:

@erein accused+appellant 4artin ;imon y ;unga )as charged on *ovember 1, 1988 )ith a violation o ;ection 5,

Article == o %epublic Act*o. 65-(, as amended, other)ise :no)n as the &angerous &rugs Act o 197-, under an indictment alleging that on or

about ctober --, 1988, at #arangay ;to. Cristo, Euagua, "ampanga, he sold our tea bags o mari0uana to a *arcotics

Command *A%C4 poseur+buyer in consideration o the sum o "5., )hich tea bags, )hen sub0ected to

laboratory e!amination, )ere ound positive or mari0uana. 1

>ventually arraigned )ith the assistance o counsel on 4arch -, 1989, ater his rearrest ollo)ing his escape rom

Camp livas, ;an 3ernando, "ampanga )here he )as temporarily detained, 2 he pleaded not guilty. @e voluntarily

)aived his right to a pre+trial conerence, 3 ater )hich trial on the merits ensued and )as duly concluded.

=


5/21

The evidence on record sho)s that a confdential inormant, later identifed as a *A%C4 operative, inormed the

police unit at Camp livas, ;an 3ernando, "ampanga, o the illegal drug activities o a certain 2Alyas "usa2 at ;to.

Cristo, Euagua, "ampanga. Capt. 3rancisco #ustamante, Commanding ?cer o the rd *arcotics %egional nit in the

camp, then ormed a buy+bust team composed o ;gt. #uenaventura


6/21

AppellantNs brother, *orberto ;imon, testifed to the act that appellant )as hospitali$ed at 3loridablanca, "ampanga

ater undergoing abdominal pain and vomiting o blood. @e li:e)ise confrmed that appellant had been su/ering rom

peptic ulcer even beore the latterNs arrest. 10 Also, &r. >velyn Eome$+Aguas, a resident physician o %omana "angan

&istrict @ospital, declared that she treated appellant or three days due to abdominal pain, but her e!amination

revealed that the cause or this ailment )as appellantNs peptic ulcer. ;he did not see any sign o slight or serious

e!ternal in0ury, abrasion or contusion on his body.11

n &ecember 5, 1989, ater )eighing the evidence presented, the trial court rendered 0udgment convicting appellant

or a violation o ;ection 5, Article == o %epublic Act *o. 65-(, as amended, and sentencing him to su/er the penalty o

lie imprisonment, to pay a fne o t)enty thousand pesos and to pay the costs. The our tea bags o mari0uana driedleaves )ere li:e)ise ordered confscated in avor o the Eovernment. 12

Appellant no) prays the Court to reverse the aorementioned 0udgment o the lo)er court, contending in his

assignment o errors that the latter erred in 1 not upholding his deense o 2rame+up2, - not declaring >!hibit 2E2

%eceipt o "roperty ;ei$edHConfscated inadmissible in evidence, and convicting him o a violation o the

&angerous &rugs Act. 13

At the outset, it should be noted that )hile the "eopleNs real theory and evidence is to the e/ect the appellant actually

sold only t)o tea bags o mari0uana dried leaves, )hile the other t)o tea bags )ere merely confscated subseuently

rom his possession, 1 the latter not being in any )ay connected )ith the sale, the inormation alleges that he sold

and delivered our tea bags o mari0uana dried leaves. 14 =n vie) thereo, the issue presented or resolution in this

appeal is merely the act of selling the t*o tea !agsallegedly committed by appellant, and does not include the

disparate and distinct issue o illegal possession of the other t*o tea !ags )hich separate o/ense is not charged

herein. 16

To sustain a conviction or selling prohibited drugs, the sale must be clearly and unmista:ably established. 15 To sel

means to give, )hether or money or any other material consideration. 18 =t must, thereore, be established beyond

doubt that appellant actually sold and delivered t)o tea bags o mari0uana dried leaves to ;gt.


7/21

rom him since, in open court, "e0oro asserted that he had nothing to do )ith the confscation o the mari0uana, but in

the aorementioned 2%eceipt o "roperty ;ei$edHConfscated,2 he signed it as the one )ho sei$ed the same. 26

;u?ce it to say that )hether it )as Killaru$ or "e0oro )ho confscated the mari0uana )ill not really matter since such is

not an element o the o/ense )ith )hich appellant is charged. Fhat is unmista:ably clear is that the mari0uana )as

confscated rom the possession o appellant. >ven, assuming arguendo that the prosecution committed an error on

)ho actually sei$ed the mari0uana rom appellant, such an error or discrepancy reers only to a minor matter and, as

such, neither impairs the essential integrity o the prosecution evidence as a )hole nor reMects on the )itnessesN

honesty. 25 #esides, there )as clearly a mere imprecision o language since "e0oro obviously meant that he did not ta:e

part in the ph)sical ta:ing o the drug rom the person o appellant, but he participated in the legal sei$ure oconfscation thereo as the investigator o their unit.

*e!t, appellant adduces the argument that the t)enty+peso bills allegedly confscated rom him )ere not po)dered or

fnger+printing purposes contrary to the normal procedure in buy+bust operations. 28 This omission has been

satisactorily e!plained by "c. Kirgilio Killaru$ in his testimony, as ollo)s

O =s it the standard operating procedure o your unit that in conducting such operation

you do not anymore provide a po)der sic on the ob0ect so as to determine the

thumbmar: or identity o the persons ta:ing hold o the ob0ectL

A Fe )ere not able to put po)der on these denominations because )e are lac:ing

that :ind o material in our o?ce since that item can be purchased only in 4anila andonly e) are producing that, sir.

!!! !!! !!!

O =s it not a act that your o?ce is )ithin the ".C. Crime


8/21

investigation that he )aived his right to counsel, the )aiver )as not made in )riting and in the presence o

counsel, 34 hence )hatever incriminatory admission or conession may be e!tracted rom him, either verbally or in

)riting, is not allo)able in evidence. 36#esides, the arrest report is sel+serving and hearsay and can easily be

concocted to implicate a suspect.

*ot)ithstanding the ob0ectionability o the aoresaid e!hibits, appellant cannot thereby be e!tricated rom his

predicament since his criminal participation in the illegal sale o mari0uana has been su?ciently proven. The

commission o the o/ense o illegal sale o prohibited drugs reuires merely the consummation o the selling

transaction 35 )hich happens the moment the buyer receives the drug rom the seller. 38 =n the present case, and in

light o the preceding discussion, this sale has been ascertained beyond any peradventure o doubt.

Appellant then asseverates that it is improbable that he )ould sell mari0uana to a total stranger. 39 Fe ta:e this

opportunity to once again reiterate the doctrinal rule that drug+pushing, )hen done on a small scale as in this case,

belongs to that class o crimes that may be committed at any time and in any place. 0=t is not contrary to human

e!perience or a drug pusher to sell to a total stranger, 1 or )hat matters is not an e!isting amiliarity bet)een the

buyer and seller but their agreement and the acts constituting the sale and delivery o the mari0uana leaves. 2 Fhile

there may be instances )here such sale could be improbable, ta:ing into consideration the diverse circumstances o

person, time and place, as )ell as the incredibility o ho) the accused supposedly acted on that occasion, )e can

saely say that those e!ceptional particulars are not present in this case.

3inally, appellant contends that he )as sub0ected to physical and mental torture by the arresting o?cers )hich caused

him to escape rom Camp livas the night he )as placed under custody. 3 This he asserts to support his e!planation

as to ho) his signatures on the documents earlier discussed )ere supposedly obtained by orce and coercion.

The doctrine is no) too )ell embedded in our 0urisprudence that or evidence to be believed, it must not only proceed

rom the mouth o a credible )itness but must be credible in itsel such as the common e!perience and observation o

man:ind can approve as probable under the circumstances. The evidence on record is beret o any support o

appellantNs allegation o maltreatment. T)o doctors, one or the prosecution4 and the other or the deense, 6 testifed

on the absence o any tell+tale sign or indication o bodily in0ury, abrasions or contusions on the person o appellant.

Fhat is evident is that the cause o his abdominal pain )as his peptic ulcer rom )hich he had been su/ering even

beore his arrest. 5 @is o)n brother even corroborated that act, saying that appellant has had a history o bleeding

peptic ulcer. 8

3urthermore, i it is true that appellant )as maltreated at Camp livas, he had no reason )hatsoever or not divulging

the same to his brother )ho )ent to see him at the camp ater his arrest and during his detentionthere.9 ;ignifcantly, he also did not even report the matter to the authorities nor fle appropriate charges against the

alleged maleactors despite the opportunity to do so 40 and )ith the legal services o counsel being available to him

;uch omissions unnel do)n to the conclusion that appellantNs story is a pure abrication.

These, and the events earlier discussed, soundly reute his allegations that his arrest )as baseless and premeditated

or the *A%C4 agents )ere determined to arrest him at all costs. 41 "remeditated or not, appellantNs arrest )as only

the culmination, the fnal act needed or his isolation rom society and it )as providential that it came about ater he

)as caught in the very act o illicit trade o prohibited drugs. Accordingly, this opinion could have concluded on a note

o a?rmance o the 0udgment o the trial court. @o)ever, %epublic Act *o. 65-(, as amended, )as urther amended by

%epublic Act *o. 76(9 e/ective &ecember 1, 199, 42 )hich supervenience necessarily a/ects the original disposition

o this case and entails additional uestions o la) )hich )e shall no) resolve.

==

The provisions o the aoresaid amendatory la), pertinent to the ad0udication o the case at bar, are to this e/ect

;ec. 1. ;ections , 5, (, 7, 8 and 9 o Art. == o %epublic Act *o. 65-(, as amended, :no)n as the

&angerous &rugs Act o 197-, are hereby amended to read as ollo)s

!!! !!! !!!

;ec. 5. #ale, dministration, -eliver), -istri!ution and ransportation of Prohi!ited

-rugs. J The penalty o reclusion perpetua to death and a fne ranging rom fve


9/21

hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person )ho,

unless authori$ed by la), shall sell, administer, deliver, give a)ay to another

distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any prohibited drug, or shall act as a bro:er

in any o such transactions.

!!! !!! !!!

;ec. 17. ;ection -, Article =K o %epublic Act *o. 65-(, as amended, :no)n as the &angerous &rugs

Act o 197-, is hereby amended to read as ollo)s

;ec. -. pplication of Penalties, Conscation and Forfeiture of the Proceeds or

/nstrument of the Crime. J The penalties or o/enses under ;ections , 5, 7, 8 and 9 o

Article == and ;ections 15, 15+A, 1( and 16 o Article === o this Act shall be applied i the

dangerous drugs involved is in any o the ollo)ing uantities

!!! !!! !!!

(. 7( grams or more o indian hemp or mari0uana

!!! !!! !!!

ther)ise, i the uantity involved is less than the oregoing uantities, the penaltyshall range rom prision correccional to reclusion perpetua depending upon the

uantity.

1. Considering that herein appellant is being prosecuted or the sale o our tea bags o mari0uana )ith a total )eight

o only .8 grams and, in act, stands to be convicted or the sale o only t)o o those tea bags, the initial inuiry

)ould be )hether the patently avorable provisions o %epublic Act

*o. 76(9 should be given retroactive e/ect to entitle him to the lesser penalty provided thereunder, pursuant to Article

-- o the %evised "enal Code.

Although %epublic Act *o. 65-( )as enacted as a special la), albeit originally amendatory and in substitution o the

previous Articles 19 to 195 o the %evised "enal Code, 43 it has long been settled that by orce o Article 1 o said

Code the benefcient provisions o Article -- thereo applies to and shall be given retrospective e/ect to crimespunished by special la)s. 4 The e!ecution in said article )ould not apply to those convicted o drug o/enses since

habitual delinuency reers to convictions or the third time or more o the crimes o serious or less serious

physical in0uries, ro!o, hurto, estafa or alsifcation. 44

;ince, obviously, the avorable provisions o %epublic Act *o. 76(9 could neither have then been involved nor invo:ed

in the present case, a corollary uestion )ould be )hether this court, at the present stage, can

sua sponte apply the provisions o said Article -- to reduce the penalty to be imposed on appellant. That issue has

li:e)ise been resolved in the cited case o People vs. (oran, et al., ante., thus

. . . . The plain precept contained in article -- o the "enal Code, declaring the retroactivity o penal

la)s in so ar as they are avorable to persons accused o a elony, )ould be useless and nugatory i

the courts o 0ustice )ere not under obligation to ulfll such duty, irrespective o )hether or not the

accused has applied or it, 0ust as )ould also all provisions relating to the prescription o the crime and

the penalty.

= the 0udgment )hich could be a/ected and modifed by the reduced penalties provided in %epublic Act *o. 76(9 has

already become fnal and e!ecutory or the accused is serving sentence thereunder, then practice, procedure and

pragmatic considerations )ould )arrant and necessitate the matter being brought to the 0udicial authorities or relie

under a )rit o ha!eas corpus. 46

-. "robably through oversight, an error on the matter o imposable penalties appears to have been committed in the

drating o the aoresaid la) thereby calling or and necessitating 0udicial reconciliation and cratsmanship.


10/21

As applied to the present case, ;ection 5 o %epublic Act *o. 65-(, as no) urther amended, imposes the penalty

o reclusion perpetua to death and a fne ranging rom "(,. to "1,,. upon any person )ho shal

unla)ully sell, administer, deliver, give a)ay, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any prohibited drug. That

penalty, according to the amendment to ;ection - o the la), shall be applied i )hat is involved is 7( grams or

more o indian hemp or mari0uana other)ise, i the uantity involved is less, the penalty shall range rom prision

correccional to reclusion perpetua depending upon the uantity.

=n other )ords, there is here an overlapping error in the provisions on the penalty o reclusion perpetua by reason o its

dual imposition, that is, as the ma!imum o the penalty )here the mari0uana is less than 7( grams, and also as the

minimum o the penalty )here the mari0uana involved is 7( grams or more. The same error has been committed )ithrespect to the other prohibited and regulated drugs provided in said ;ection -. To harmoni$e such conMicting

provisions in order to give e/ect to the )hole la), 45 )e hereby hold that the penalty to be imposed )here the uantity

o the drugs involved is less than the uantities stated in the frst paragraph shall range rom prision

correccional to reclusion temporal, and not reclusion perpetua. This is also concordant )ith the undamental rule in

criminal la) that all doubts should be construed in a manner avorable to the accused.

. Fhere, as in this case, the uantity o the dangerous drug is only .8 grams, hence covered by the imposable range

o penalties under the second paragraph o ;ection -, as no) modifed, the la) provides that the penalty shall be

ta:en rom said range 2depending upon the 1uantit) 2 o the drug involved in the case. The penalty in said second

paragraph constitutes a comple! one composed o three distinct penalties, that is, prision correccional,prision

ma)or, and reclusion temporal. =n such a situation, the Code provides that each one shall orm a period, )ith the

lightest o them being the minimum, the ne!t as the medium, and the most severe as the ma!imum period. 48

rdinarily, and pursuant to Article 65 o the Code, the mitigating and aggravating circumstances determine )hich

period o such comple! penalty

shall be imposed on the accused. The peculiarity o the second paragraph of #ection 23, ho)ever, is its specifc

mandate, above uoted, that the penalty shall instead depend upon the 1uantit) o the drug sub0ect o the crimina

transaction. 49 Accordingly, by )ay o e!ception to Article 77 o the Code and to subserve the purpose o ;ection - o

%epublic Act *o. 76(9, each o the aoresaid component penalties shall be considered as a principal imposable penalty

depending on the uantity o the drug involved. Thereby, the modiying circumstances )ill not altogether be

disregarded. ;ince each component penalty o the total comple! penalty )ill have to be imposed separately as

determined by the uantity o the drug involved, then the modiying circumstances can be used to f! the proper

period o that component penalty, as shall hereater be e!plained.

=t )ould, thereore, be in line )ith the provisions o ;ection - in the conte!t o our aoresaid disposition thereon thatunless there are compelling reasons or a deviation, the uantities o the drugs enumerated in its second paragraph be

divided into three, )ith the resulting uotient, and double or treble the same, to be respectively the bases o

allocating the penalty proportionately among the three aoresaid periods according to the severity thereo. Thus, i the

mari0uana involved is belo) -( grams, the penalty to be imposed shall be prision correccional rom -( to 599

grams, prision ma)or and ( to

759 grams, reclusion temporal. "arenthetically, fne is imposed as a con0unctive penalty only i the penalty is reclusion

perpetua to death. 60

*o), considering the minimal uantity o the mari0uana sub0ect o the case at bar, the penalty o prision correccional is

conseuently indicated but, again, another preliminary and cognate issue has frst to be resolved.

5. Prision correccional has a duration o 6 months and 1 day to 6 years and, as a divisible penalty, it consists o threeperiods as provided in the te!t o and illustrated in the table provided by Article 76 o the Code. The uestion is

)hether or not in determining the penalty to be imposed, )hich is here to be ta:en rom the penalty o prision

correccional, the presence or absence o mitigating, aggravating or other circumstances modiying criminal liability

should be ta:en into account.

Fe are not una)are o cases in the past )herein it )as held that, in imposing the penalty or o/enses under special

la)s, the rules on mitigating or aggravating circumstances under the %evised "enal Code cannot and should not be

applied. A revie) o such doctrines as applied in said cases, ho)ever, reveals that the reason thereor )as because the

special la)s involved provided their o)n specifc penalties or the o/enses punished thereunder, and )hich penalties

)ere not ta:en rom or )ith reerence to those in the %evised "enal Code. ;ince the penalties then provided by the

special la)s concerned did not provide or the minimum, medium or ma!imum periods, it )ould conseuently be


11/21

impossible to consider the aorestated modiying circumstances )hose main unction is to determine the period o the

penalty in accordance )ith the rules in Article 65 o the Code.

This is also the rationale or the holding in previous cases that the provisions o the Code on the graduation o

penalties by degrees could not be given supplementary application to special la)s, since the penalties in the latter

)ere not components o or contemplated in the scale o penalties provided by Article 71 o the ormer. The suppletory

e/ect o the %evised "enal Code to special la)s, as provided in Article 1 o the ormer, cannot be invo:ed )here there

is a legal or physical impossibility o, or a prohibition in the special la) against, such supplementary application.

The situation, ho)ever, is di/erent )here although the o/ense is defned in and ostensibly punished under a speciala), the penalty thereor is actually ta:en rom the %evised "enal Code in its technical nomenclature and, necessarily

)ith its duration, correlation and legal e/ects under the system o penalties native to said Code. Fhen, as in this case,

the la) involved spea:s o prision correccional, in its technical sense under the Code, it )ould conseuently be both

illogical and absurd to posit other)ise. 4ore on this later.

3or the nonce, )e hold that in the instant case the imposable penalty under %epublic Act *o. 65-(, as amended by

%epublic Act *o. 76(9, is prision correccional, to be ta:en rom the medium period thereo pursuant to Article 65 o the

%evised "enal Code, there being no attendant mitigating or aggravating circumstance.

(. At this 0uncture, a clarifcatory discussion o the developmental changes in the penalties imposed or o/enses under

special la)s )ould be necessary.

riginally, those special la)s, 0ust as )as the conventional practice in the nited ;tates but di/erently rom the

penalties provided in our %evised "enal Code and its ;panish origins, provided or one specifc penalty or a range o

penalties )ith defnitive durations, such as imprisonment or one year or or one to fve years but )ithout division into

periods or any technical statutory cognomen. This is the special la) contemplated in and reerred to at the time la)s

li:e the =ndeterminate ;entence


12/21

The same e!clusionary rule )ould apply to the last given e!ample, %epublic Act *o. 6(9. Fhile it is true that the

penalty o 15 years and

8 months to 17 years and 5 months is virtually euivalent to the duration o the medium period o reclusion

temporal, such technical term under the %evised "enal Code is not given to that penalty or carnapping. #esides, the

other penalties or carnapping attended by the ualiying circumstances stated in the la) do not correspond to those

in the Code. The rules on penalties in the Code, thereore, cannot suppletorily apply to %epublic Act *o. 6(9 and

special la)s o the same ormulation.

n the other hand, the rules or the application o penalties and the correlative e/ects thereo under the %evised "enal

Code, as )ell as other statutory enactments ounded upon and applicable to such provisions o the Code, havesuppletory e/ect to the penalties under the ormer %epublic Act

*o. 17 and those no) provided under "residential &ecrees *os. 161- and 1866. Fhile these are special la)s, the

act that the penalties or o/enses thereunder are those provided or in the %evised "enal code lucidly reveals the

statutory intent to give the related provisions on penalties or elonies under the Code the corresponding application to

said special la)s, in the absence o any e!press or implicit proscription in these special la)s. To hold other)ise )ould

be to sanction an indeensible 0udicial truncation o an integrated system o penalties under the Code and its allied

legislation, )hich could never have been the intendment o Congress.

=n People vs. (acatanda, 64 a prosecution under a special la) "residential &ecree *o. (, other)ise :no)n as the

Anti+Cattle %ustling


13/21

"reatorily, )hat ordinarily are involved in the graduation and conseuently determine the degree o the penalty, in

accordance )ith the rules in Article 61 o the Code as applied to the scale o penalties in Article 71, are the stage o

e!ecution o the crime and the nature o the participation o the accused. @o)ever, under paragraph ( o Article 65,

)hen there are t)o or more ordinary mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance, the penalty shall be

reduced by one degree. Also, the presence o privileged mitigating circumstances, as provided in Articles 67 and 68,

can reduce the penalty by one or t)o degrees, or even more. These provisions o Articles 65(, 67 and 68 should not

apply in toto in the determination o the proper penalty under the aorestated second paragraph o section - o

%epublic Act *o. 65-(, to avoid anomalous results )hich could not have been contemplated by the legislature.

Thus, paragraph ( o Article 61 provides that )hen the la) prescribes a penalty in some manner not specially providedor in the our preceding paragraphs thereo, the courts shall proceed by analogy there)ith. @ence, )hen the penalty

prescribed or the crime consists o one or t)o penalties to be imposed in their ull e!tent, the penalty ne!t lo)er in

degree shall li:e)ise consist o as many penalties )hich ollo) the ormer in the scale in Article 71. = this rule )ere to

be applied, and since the comple! penalty in this

case consists o three discrete penalties in their ull e!tent, that is,

prision correccional, prision ma)or and reclusion temporal, then one degree lo)er )ould be arresto

menor,destierro and arresto ma)or . There could, ho)ever, be no urther reduction by still one or t)o degrees, )hich

must each li:e)ise consist o three penalties, since only the penalties o fne and public censure remain in the scale.

The Court rules, thereore, that )hile modiying circumstances may be appreciated to determine the periods o the

corresponding penalties, or even reduce the penalty by degrees, in no case should such graduation o penalties reduce

the imposable penalty beyond or lo)er than prision correccional. =t is or this reason that the three component

penalties in the second paragraph o ;ection - shall each be considered as an independent principal penalty, and

that the lo)est penalty should in any event be prision correccional in order not to depreciate the seriousness o drug

o/enses. /nterpretatio enda est ut res magis valeat 1uam pereat . ;uch interpretation is to be adopted so that the la)

may continue to have e?cacy rather than ail. A perect 0udicial solution cannot be orged rom an imperect la)

)hich impasse should no) be the concern o and is accordingly addressed to Congress.

6. The fnal uery is )hether or not the =ndeterminate ;entence


14/21

the maximum term o )hich shall be that )hich, in vie) o the attending circumstances, could be properly

imposed under the rules of said Code, and the minimum )hich shall be )ithin the range o the penalt) next lo*er to

that prescri!ed !) the Code or the o/ense.2 >mphasis ours.

A divergent pedantic application )ould not only be out o conte!t but also an admission o the hornboo: ma!im

that 1ui haeret in litera haeret in cortice. 3ortunately, this Court has never gone only s:in+deep in its construction o

Act. *o. 51 by a mere literal appreciation o its provisions. Thus, )ith regard to the phrase in ;ection - thereo

e!cepting rom its coverage 2persons convicted o o/enses punished )ith death penalty or life imprisonment,2 )e

have held that )hat is considered is the penalty actually imposed and not the penalty imposable under the la), 50 and

that reclusion perpetua is li:e)ise embraced therein although )hat the la) states is 2lie imprisonment2.

Fhat irresistibly emerges rom the preceding disuisition, thereore, is that under the concurrence o the principles o

literal interpretation, )hich have been rationali$ed by comparative decisions o this Court o historical interpretation

as e!plicated by the antecedents o the la) and related contemporaneous legislation and o structural interpretation

considering the interrelation o the penalties in the Code as supplemented by Act *o. 51 in an integrated scheme o

penalties, it ollo)s that the minimum o the indeterminate sentence in this case shall be the penalt) next lo*er to

that prescribed or the o/ense. Thereby )e shall have interpreted the seeming ambiguity in ;ection 1 o Act *o. 51

in such a )ay as to harmoni$e la)s )ith la)s, )hich is the best mode o interpretation. 51

The indeterminate ;entence


15/21

R"#IN CARI" PADILLA R"#IN!""D PADILLA , petitioner , vs. C"/R "F APPEAL a&d PE"PLE o) *+eP!ILIPPINE, respondents.

D E C I I " NFRANCIC", J.

n ctober -6, 199-, high+po)ered frearms )ith live ammunitions )ere ound in the possession o petitioner%obin "adilla P %obinhood "adilla, i.e.

21 ne .(7 Caliber revolver, ;mith and Fesson, ;*+-919 )ith si! 6 live ammunitions2- ne 4+16 #aby Armalite riMe, ;*+%" 111- )ith our 5 long and one 1 short maga$ine )ith

ammunitions2 ne .8 "ietro #eretta, ;*+A (7- D )ith clip and eight 8 ammunitions and25 ;i! additional live double action ammunitions o .8 caliber revolver.2Q1R

"etitioner )as correspondingly charged on &ecember , 199-, beore the %egional Trial Court %TC o AngelesCity )ith illegal possession o frearms and ammunitions under ".&. 1866Q-R thru the ollo)ing =normationQR

2That on or about the -6th day o ctober, 199-, in the City o Angeles, "hilippines, and )ithin the 0urisdiction o this @onorable Court, the above+named accused, did then and there )illully, unla)ully andeloniously have in his possession and under his custody and control one 1 4+16 #aby Armalite riMe, ;*+%"111- )ith our 5 long and one 1 short maga$ines )ith ammunitions, one 1 .(7 caliber revolver ;mithand Fesson, ;*+-919 )ith si! 6 live ammunitions and one 1 .8 "ietro #eretta, ;*+A(7-D )ith clipand eight 8 ammunitions, )ithout having the necessary authority and permit to carry and possess thesame.

A%>3%>, the oregoing circumstances considered, the appealed decision is hereby A33=%4>&, andurthermore, the "-,. bailbond posted by accused+appellant or his provisional liberty, 3E =nsuranceCorporation #ond *o. 'C% - 6(-, is hereby cancelled. The %egional Trial Court, #ranch 61, Angeles City, isdirected to issue the rder o Arrest o accused+appellant and thereater his transmittal to the *ational

#ureau o "risons thru the "hilippine *ational "olice )here the said accused+appellant shall remain underconfnement pending resolution o his appeal, should he appeal to the ;upreme Court. This shall beimmediately e!ecutory. The %egional Trial Court is urther directed to submit a report o compliance here)ith.; %&>%>&.2Q1(R

"etitioner received a copy o this decision on 'uly -6, 199(. Q16R n August 9, 199( he fled a 2motion or reconsiderationand to recall the )arrant o arrest2Q17R but the same )as denied by respondent court in its ;eptember -, 199(%esolution,Q18R copy o )hich )as received by petitioner on ;eptember -7, 199(. The ne!t day, ;eptember -8petitioner fled the instant petition or revie) on certiorari )ith application or bailQ19R ollo)ed by t)o 2supplementapetitions2 fled by di/erent counsels,Q-R a 2second supplemental petition2Q-1R and an urgent motion or the separateresolution o his application or bail. Again, the ;olicitor+EeneralQ--R sought the denial o the application or bail, to)hich the Court agreed in a %esolution promulgated on 'uly 1, 1996.Q-R The Court also granted the ;olicitor+EeneralNsmotion to fle a consolidated comment on the petitions and thereater reuired the petitioner to fle his replyQ-5R @o)ever, ater his vigorous resistance and success on the intramural o bail both in the respondent court and this

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn1


16/21

Court and thorough e!position o petitionerNs guilt in his ((+page #rie in the respondent court, the ;olicitor+Eeneralno) ma:es a complete turnabout by fling a 24aniestation =n merlito 4iranda immediately borded a mobile patrol vehicle 4obile *o. and positioned themselves nearthe south approach o Abacan bridge since it )as the only passable )ay going to the north pp. 8+9, i!id. =ttoo: them about ten 1 seconds to cover the distance bet)een their o?ce and the Abacan bridge p.9, i!id9.2Another "*" mobile patrol vehicle that responded to the Mash message rom ;"- #uan )as 4obile *o. 7 o the "ulongmaragal &etachment )hich )as then conducting patrol along &on 'uico Avenue pp. 8+9, T;*,4arch 8, 199. n board )ere ;" %uben 4ercado and ;" Tan and ;"- de0ar p. 8, i!id. ;" %uben4ercado immediately told ;" Tan to proceed to the 4acArthur @igh)ay to intercept the vehicle )ith platenumber "4A 777 p. 1, i!id9.

2=n the meantime, 4anarang continued to chase the vehicle )hich fgured in the hit and run incident, evenpassing through a Mooded portion o the 4acArthur @igh)ay t)o - eet deep in ront o the =glesia ni Gristochurch but he could not catch up )ith the same vehicle pp. 11+1-, 3ebruary 1(, 199. Fhen he sa) thatthe car he )as chasing )ent to)ards 4agalang, he proceeded to Abacan bridge because he :ne)"ulongmaragal )as not passable pp. 1-+15, i!id.Fhen he reached the Abacan bridge, he ound 4obile *o. and ;"- #or0a and ;"- 4iranda )atching all vehicles coming their )ay p. 1, T;*, 3ebruary -, 199. @eapproached them and inormed them that there )as a hit and run incident p. 1, i!id. pon learning thatthe t)o police o?cers already :ne) about the incident, 4anarang )ent bac: to )here he came rom pp. 1+11 i!id. Fhen 4anarang )as in ront o TinaNs %estaurant, he sa) the vehicle that had fgured in the hit andrun incident emerging rom the corner ad0oining TinaNs %estaurant p. 1(, T;*, 3ebruary 1(, 199. @e sa)that the license plate hanging in ront o the vehicle bore the identiying number "4A 777 and he ollo)ed itp. 1(, i!id to)ards the Abacan bridge.2;oon the vehicle )as )ithin sight o ;"- #or0a and ;"- 4iranda o 4obile *o. p. 1, T;*, 3ebruary -,199. Fhen the vehicle )as about t)elve 1- meters a)ay rom their position, the t)o police o?cers

boarded their 4obile car, s)itched on the engine, operated the siren and strobe light and drove out tointercept the vehicle p. 11, i!id. They cut into the path o the vehicle orcing it to stop p. 11, i!id.2;"- #or0a and ;"- 4iranda alighted rom 4obile *o. ". 1-, T;*, 3ebruary -, 199. ;"- 4iranda)ent to the vehicle )ith plate number "4A 777 and instructed its driver to alight p. 1-, i!id9. The driverrolled do)n the )indo) and put his head out )hile raising both his hands.They recogni$ed the driver as%obin C. "adilla, appellant in this case p. 1, i!id. There )as no one else )ith him inside the vehicle p.-5. At that moment, #or0a noticed that 4anarang arrived and stopped his motorcycle behind the vehicle o appellant p. 15, i!id9. ;"- 4iranda told appellant to alight to )hich appellant complied. Appellant )as)earing a short leather 0ac:et p. 16, T;*, 4arch 8, 199 such that )hen he alighted )ith both his handsraised, a gun >!hibit NCN tuc:ed on the let side o his )aist )as revealed p. 1(, T;*, 3ebruary -, 199, itsbutt protruding p. 1(, i!id9. ;"- #or0a made the move to confscate the gun but appellant held the ormerNshand alleging that the gun )as covered by legal papers p. 16, i!id. ;"- #or0a, ho)ever, insisted that i thegun really )as covered by legal papers, it )ould have to be sho)n in the o?ce p. 16, i!id9. Ater disarmingappellant, ;"- #or0a told him about the hit and run incident )hich )as angrily denied by appellant p.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn26


17/21

17, i!id9. #y that time, a cro)d had ormed at the place p. 19, i!id. ;"- #or0a chec:ed the cylinder o thegun and fnd si! 6 live bullets inside p. -, i!id9.2Fhile ;"- #or0a and appellant )ere arguing, 4obile *o. 7 )ith ;" %uben 4ercado, ;" Tan and ;"-de0ar on board arrived pp. 11+1-, T;*, 4arch 8, 199. As the most senior police o?cer in the group, ;"4ercado too: over the matter and inormed appellant that he )as being arrested or the hit and run incidentp. 1, i!id9. @e pointed out to appellant the act that the plate number o his vehicle )as dangling and therailing and the hood )ere dented p. 1-,i!id9. Appellant, ho)ever, arrogantl) denied his misdeed and,instead, played )ith the cro)d by holding their hands )ith one hand and pointing to ;" #or0a )ith his righthand saying :i)an, kinuha ang !aril ko: pp. 1+1(, i!id9. #ecause appellantNs 0ac:et )as short, his gestureexposed a long maga6ine of an armalite ri+e tucked in appellant:s !ack right pocket p.16, i!id. ;"(ercado sa* this and so *hen appellant turned around as he *as talking and proceeding to hisvehicle, (ercado conscated the maga6ine from appellant pp. 16+17, i!id9. ;uspecting that appellant couldalso be carrying a riMe inside the vehicle since he had a maga$ine, ;"- 4ercado prevented appellant romgoing bac: to his vehicle by opening himsel the door o appellantNs vehicle 16+17, i!id9. e sa* a !a!) armalite ri+e >!hibit & l)ing hori6ontall) at the front !) the driver:s seat . =t had a long maga$ine flled )ithlive bullets in a semi+automatic mode pp. 17+-1, i!id9. e asked appellant for the papers covering the ri+eand appellant ans*ered angril) that the) *ere at his home pp. -6+-7, i!id9. ;" 4ercado modifed the arresto appellant by including as its ground illegal possession o frearms p. -8, i!id. #P< (ercado then read toappellant his constitutional rights pp. -8+-9, i!id.2The police o?cers brought appellant to the Tra?c &ivision at 'a:e Eon$ales #oulevard pp. 1+-, i!id)here appellant voluntaril) surrendered a third rearm, a pietro !erreta pistol >!hibit N!hibits 4, *, and , pp. 6+7, i!id. Ater appellant had been interrogated by the Chie o the Tra?c &ivision, he )as transerred to the "olice =nvestigation &ivision at ;to. %osario ;treet beside the City

@all #uilding )here he and the frearms and ammunitions )ere turned over to ;"- %ene 'esus Eregorio pp.(+1, T;*, 'uly 1, 199. -uring the investigation, appellant admitted possession of the rearms stating thathe used them or shooting p. 15, i!id. @e )as not able to produce any permit to carry or memorandumreceipt to cover the three frearms pp. 16+18, T;*, 'anuary -(, 1995.2n *ovember -8, 199-, a certifcation >!hibit N3N )as issued by Captain, ;enior =nspector 4ario >spino,"*", Chie, %ecord #ranch o the 3irearms and >!plosives ?ce pp. 7+8, T;*, 4arch 5, 199. TheCertifcation stated that the three frearms confscated rom appellant, an 4+16 #aby armalite riMe ;*+%"11-8, a .(7 caliber revolver ;mith and Fesson ;* -919 and a .8 "ietro #eretta ;*+A(7-, )ere notregistered in the name o %obin C. "adilla p. 6, i!id. A second Certifcation dated &ecember 11, 199- issuedby Captain >spino stated that the three frearms )ere not also registered in the name o %obinhood C. "adillap. 1, i!id.2"etitionerNs deenses are as ollo)s 1 that his arrest )as illegal and conseuently, the frearms and ammunitions

ta:en in the course thereo are inadmissible in evidence under the e!clusionary rule - that he is a confdential agentauthori$ed, under a 4ission rder and 4emorandum %eceipt, to carry the sub0ect frearms and that the penalty orsimple illegal possession constitutes e!cessive and cruel punishment proscribed by the 1987 Constitution.

Ater a careul revie) o the recordsQ-7Ro this case, the Court is convinced that petitionerNs guilt o the crimecharged stands on terra rma, not)ithstanding the ;olicitor+EeneralNs change o heart.

Anent the 7rs* de)e&se, petitioner uestions the legality o his arrest. There is no dispute that no )arrant )asissued or the arrest o petitioner, but that per se did not ma:e his apprehension at the Abacan bridge illegal.

Farrantless arrests are sanctioned in the ollo)ing instancesQ-8R

2;ec. (. rrest *ithout *arrant; *hen la*ful. + A peace o=cer or a private person may, )ithout a )arrant,arrest a person

a Fhen, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or isattempting to commit an o/enseb Fhen an o/ense has in act 0ust been committed, and he has personal :no)ledge o actsindicating that the person to be arrested has committed it.c Fhen the person to be arrested is a prisoner )ho has escaped rom a penal establishment orplace )here he is serving fnal 0udgment or temporarily confned )hile his case is pending, or hasescaped )hile being transerred rom one confnement to another.

"aragraph a reuires that the person be arrested i ater he has committed or )hile he is actually committing or is atleast attempting to commit an o/ense, ii in the presence o the arresting o?cer or private person. Q-9R #oth elementsconcurred here, as it has been established that petitionerNs vehicle fgured in a hit and run + an o/ense committed inthe 2presence2 o 4anarang, a private person, )ho then sought to arrest petitioner. =t must be stressed at this pointthat 2presence2 does not only reuire that the arresting person sees the o/ense, but also )hen he 2hears thedisturbance created thereby A*& proceeds at once to the scene.2QR As testifed to by 4anarang, he heard thescreeching o tires ollo)ed by a thud, sa) the sides)iped victim !alut vendor, reported the incident to the policeand thereater gave chase to the erring "a0ero vehicle using his motorcycle in order to apprehend its driver. Aterhaving sent a radio report to the "*" or assistance, 4anarang proceeded to the Abacan bridge )here he oundresponding policemen ;"- #or0a and ;"- 4iranda already positioned near the bridge )ho e/ected the actual arresto petitioner.Q1R

"etitioner )ould nonetheless insist on the illegality o his arrest by arguing that the policemen )ho actuallyarrested him )ere not at the scene o the hit and run.Q-R Fe beg to disagree. That 4anarang decided to see: the aid othe policemen )ho admittedly )ere no)here in the vicinity o the hit and run in e/ecting petitionerNs arrest, did not

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn32


18/21

in any )ay a/ect the propriety o the apprehension. =t )as in act the most prudent action 4anarang could have ta:enrather than collaring petitioner by himsel, inasmuch as policemen are unuestionably better trained and )ell+euipped in e/ecting an arrest o a suspect li:e herein petitioner )ho , in all probability, could have put up a degreeo resistance )hich an untrained civilian may not be able to contain )ithout endangering his o)n lie. 4oreover, it is areality that curbing la)lessness gains more success )hen la) enorcers unction in collaboration )ith privateciti$ens. =t is precisely through this cooperation, that the o/ense herein involved ortunately did not become anadditional entry to the long list o unreported and unsolved crimes.

=t is appropriate to state at this 0uncture that a suspect, li:e petitioner herein, cannot deeat the arrest )hich hasbeen set in motion in a public place or )ant o a )arrant as the police )as conronted by an urgent need to render aidor ta:e action.QR The e!igent circumstances o + hot pursuit, Q5R a Meeing suspect, a moving vehicle, the public placeand the raining nighttime + all created a situation in )hich speed is essential and delay improvident. Q(R The Courtac:no)ledges police authority to ma:e the orcible stop since they had more than mere "reasona!le andarticula!le2 suspicion that the occupant o the vehicle has been engaged in criminal activity. Q6R 4oreover, )hen caughtin+agrante delicto )ith possession o an unlicensed frearm ;mith S Fesson and ammunition 4+16 maga$inepetitionerNs )arrantless arrest )as proper as he )as again actually committing another o/ense illegal possession ofrearm and ammunitions and this time in the presence o a peace o?cer. Q7R

#esides, the policemenNs )arrantless arrest o petitioner could li:e)ise be 0ustifed under paragraph b as he hadin act 0ust committed an o/ense. There )as no supervening event or a considerable lapse o time bet)een the hit andrun and the actual apprehension.4oreover, ater having stationed themselves at the Abacan bridge in response to4anarangNs report, the policemen sa) or themselves the ast approaching "a0ero o petitioner, Q8R its dangling platenumber "4A 777 as reported by 4anarang, and the dented hood and railings thereo. Q9R These ormed part o thearresting police o?cerNs personal :no)ledge o the acts indicating that petitionerNs "a0ero )as indeed the vehicleinvolved in the hit and run incident. Kerily then, the arresting police o?cers acted upon verifed personal :no)ledgeand not on unreliable hearsay inormation.Q5R

3urthermore, in accordance )ith settled 0urisprudence, any ob0ection, deect or irregularity attending an arrest

must be made beore the accused enters his plea.Q51R

"etitionerNs belated challenge thereto aside rom his ailure touash the inormation, his participation in the trial and by presenting his evidence, placed him in estoppel to assail thelegality o his arrest.Q5-R ven assuming that the frearms and ammunitions )ere products o an active search done by the authorities onthe person and vehicle o petitioner, their sei$ure )ithout a search )arrant nonetheless can still be 0ustifed under asearch incidental to a la)ul arrest frst instance. nce the la)ul arrest )as e/ected, the police may underta:e aprotective searchQ(8R o the passenger compartment and containers in the vehicleQ(9R )hich are )ithin petitionerNsgrabbing distance regardless o the nature o the o/ense. Q6R This satisfed the t)o+tiered test o an incidental searchi the item to be searched vehicle )as )ithin the arresteeNs custody or area o immediate control Q61R and ii the

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn52http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn53http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn54http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn55http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn56http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn57http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn58http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn59http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn59http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn60http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn61http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn52http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn53http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn54http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn55http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn56http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn57http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn58http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn59http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn60http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn61


19/21

search )as contemporaneous )ith the arrest.Q6-R The products o that search are admissible evidence not e!cluded bythe e!clusionary rule. Another 0ustifcation is a search o a moving vehicle third instance. =n connection there)ith, a)arrantless search is constitutionally permissible )hen, as in this case, the o?cers conducting the search havereasonable or probable cause to believe, beore the search, that either the motorist is a la)+o/ender li:e hereinpetitioner )ith respect to the hit and run or the contents or cargo o the vehicle are or have been instruments or thesub0ect matter or the proceeds o some criminal o/ense.Q6R

Anent his se-o&d de)e&se, petitioner contends that he could not be convicted o violating ".&. 1866 because heis an appointed civilian agent authori$ed to possess and carry the sub0ect frearms and ammunition as evidenced by a4ission rderQ65R and 4emorandum %eceipt duly issued by "*" ;upt. %odialo Eumtang, the deputy commander o Tas:3orce Aguila, ven in appellantNs &emurrer to >vidence fled ater the prosecution rested contain no allegation o a4emorandum %eceipts and 4ission rder authori$ing appellant to possess and carry the sub0ect frearms.2At the initial presentation o appellantNs evidence, the )itness cited )as one 'ames *eneng to )hom asubpoena )as issued. ;uperintendent Eumtang )as not even mentioned. 'ames *eneng appeared in courtbut )as not presented by the deense. ;ubseuent hearings )ere reset until the deense ound;uperintendent Eumtang )ho appeared in court )ithout subpoena on 'anuary 1, 1995.2 Q67R

The Court is baIed )hy petitioner ailed to produce and present the 4ission rder and 4emorandum %eceipt i

they )ere really issued and e!isting beore his apprehension. "etitionerNs alternative e!cuses that the sub0ect frearms)ere intended or theatrical purposes, or that they )ere o)ned by the "residential ;ecurity Eroup, or that his 4issionrder and 4emorandum %eceipt )ere let at home, urther compound their irregularity. As to be reasonably e!pectedan accused claiming innocence, li:e herein petitioner, )ould grab the earliest opportunity to present the 4ission rderand 4emorandum %eceipt in uestion and save himsel rom the long and agoni$ing public trial and spare him rompro/ering inconsistent e!cuses. =n act, the 4ission rder itsel, as )ell as the


20/21

bee& o?-%ay *a@e& u

Camp Crame, Oue$on City2"*"3>( -8 *ovember 199-2C > % T = 3 = C A T = *2T F@4 =T 4AD C*C>%*2T@=; =; T C>%T=3D that %obin C. "adilla o (9 4A%= 4. >;"=*;r. =nspector, "*"

Chie, %ecords #ranch2 Q78R

=n several occasions, the Court has ruled that either the testimony o a representative o, or a certifcation rom,the "*" 3irearms and >!plosives ?ce 3> attesting that a person is not a licensee o any frearm )ould su?ce toprove beyond reasonable doubt the second element o illegal possession o frearm. Q79R =n People vs. o!ias,Q8R )ereiterated that such certifcation is su?cient to sho) that a person has in act no license. 3rom the oregoingdiscussion, the act that petitioner does not have the license or permit to possess )as over)helmingly proven by theprosecution. The certifcation may even be dispensed )ith in the light o the evidence Q81R that an 4+16 riMe and any

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn74http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn75http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn76http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn77http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn78http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn78http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn79http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn80http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn80http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn80http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn81http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn74http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn75http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn76http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn77http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn78http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn79http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn80http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn81


21/21

short frearm higher than a .8 caliber pistol, a:in to the confscated frearms, cannot be licensed to a civilian, Q8-R as inthe case o petitioner. The Court, thereore, entertains no doubt in a?rming petitionerNs conviction especially as )efnd no plausible reason, and none )as presented, to depart rom the actual fndings o both the trial court andrespondent court )hich, as a rule, are accorded by the Court )ith respect and fnality. Q8R

Anent his *+%rd de)e&se, petitioner aults respondent court 2in applying ".&. 1866 in a democratic ambience sicand a non+subversive conte!t2 and adds that respondent court should have applied instead the previous la)s on illegalpossession o frearms since the reason or the penalty imposed under ".&. 1866 no longer e!ists. Q85R @e stresses thatthe penalty o 17 years and 5 months to -1 years or simple illegal possession o frearm is cruel and e!cessive incontravention o the Constitution.Q8(R

The contentions do not merit serious consideration. The trial court and the respondent court are bound to applythe governing la) at the time o appellantNs commission o the o/ense or it is a rule that la)s are repealed only bysubseuent ones.Q86R =ndeed, it is the duty o 0udicial o?cers to respect and apply the la) as it stands. Q87R And until itsrepeal, respondent court can not be aulted or applying ".&. 1866 )hich abrogated the previous statutes adverted toby petitioner.

>ually lac:ing in merit is appellantNs allegation that the penalty or simple illegal possession is unconstitutional. The penalty or simple possession o frearm, it should be stressed, ranges rom reclusion temporal ma!imumto reclusion perpetua contrary to appellantNs erroneous averment. The severity o a penalty does not ipso facto ma:ethe same cruel and e!cessive.2=t ta:es more than merely being harsh, e!cessive, out o proportion, or severe or a penalty to be obno!ious to theConstitution. NThe act that the punishment authori$ed by the statute is severe does not ma:e it cruel andunusual.N -5 C.'.;., 1187+1188. >!pressed in other terms, it has been held that to come under the ban, thepunishment must be NMagrantly and plainly oppressiveN, N)holly disproportionate to the nature o the o/ense as toshoc: the moral sense o the communityN 2Q88R

=t is )ell+settled that as ar as the constitutional prohibition goes, it is not so much the e!tent as the nature o thepunishment that determines )hether it is, or is not, cruel and unusual and that sentences o imprisonment, though

perceived to be harsh, are not cruel or unusual i *ithin statutor) limits.Q89R

4oreover, every la) has in its avor the presumption o constitutionality. The burden o proving the invalidity othe statute in uestion lies )ith the appellant )hich burden, )e note, )as not convincingly discharged. To 0ustiynullifcation o the la), there must be a clear and uneuivocal breach o the Constitution, not a doubtul andargumentative implication,Q9R as in this case. =n act, the constitutionality o ".&. 1866 has been upheld t)ice by thisCourt.Q91R 'ust recently, the Court declared that 2the pertinent la)s on illegal possession o frearms Qare notR contraryto a&y provision o the Constitution. . .2Q9-R AppellantNs grievance on the )isdom o the prescribed penalty should notbe addressed to us. Courts are not concerned )ith the )isdom, e?cacy or morality o la)s. That uestion allse!clusively )ithin the province o Congress )hich enacts them and the Chie >!ecutive )ho approves or vetoesthem. The only unction o the courts, )e reiterate, is to interpret and apply the la)s.

Fith respect to the penalty imposed by the trial court as a?rmed by respondent court 17 years 5 months and 1day o reclusion temporal, as minimum, to -1 years o reclusion perpetua, as ma!imum, )e reduce the same in line)ith the airly recent case o People v. LianQ9R )here the Court en !anc provided that the indeterminate penaltyimposable or simple illegal possession o frearm, )ithout any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, should be)ithin the range o ten 1 years and one 1 day to t)elve years 1- o prision ma)or , as minimum, to eighteen 18

years, eight 8 months and one 1 day to t)enty - o reclusion temporal, as ma!imum. This is discernible rom theollo)ing e!planation by the Court2=n the case at bar, no mitigating or aggravating circumstances have been alleged or proved, =n accordance )ith thedoctrine regarding special la)s e!plained in People v. #imon,Q95R although "residential &ecree *o. 1866 is a special la)the penalties therein )ere ta:en rom the %evised "enal Code, hence the rules in said Code or graduating by degreesor determining the proper period should be applied. Conseuently, the penalty or the o/ense o simple illegapossession o frearm is the medium period o the comple! penalty in said ;ection 1, that is, 18 years, 8 months and 1day to - years.2This penalty, being that )hich is to be actually imposed in accordance )ith the rules thereor and not merelyimposable as a general prescription under the la), shall be the ma!imum o the range o the indeterminate sentence The minimum thereo shall be ta:en, as aoresaid, rom any period o the penalty ne!t lo)er in degree, )hichis, prision ma)or in its ma!imum period to reclusion temporal in its medium period.Q9(R

!EREF"RE, premises considered, the decision o the Court o Appeals sustaining petitionerNs conviction by thelo)er court o the crime o simple illegal possession o frearms and ammunitions is A33=%4>& >C>"T that petitionerNs

indeterminate penalty is 4&=3=>& to ten 1 years and one 1 day, as minimum, to eighteen 18 years, eight 8months and one 1 day, as ma!imum." "RDERED
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn82http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn83http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn84http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn85http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn86http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn86http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn87http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn88http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn89http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn90http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn91http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn91http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn91http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn92http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn93http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn94http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn95http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn82http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn83http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn84http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn85http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn86http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn87http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn88http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn89http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn90http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn91http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn92http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn93http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn94http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/121917.htm#_edn95

Date post:	05-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ericha-joy-gonadan
View:	220 times
Download:	0 times

Article 10 Cases (Padilla vs. Dizon, Padilla vs. CA, Pp. vs. Simon)

Documents