Republic
of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN
BANC
G.R. Nos. 138874-75
January 31, 2006
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
vs.
FRANCISCO JUAN LARRAÑAGA alias "PACO;" JOSMAN AZNAR; ROWEN ADLAWAN alias "WESLEY;" ALBERT CAÑO alias "ALLAN PAHAK;" ARIEL BALANSAG; DAVIDSON VALIENTE RUSIA alias ‘TISOY TAGALOG;" JAMES ANTHONY UY alias "WANGWANG;" and JAMES ANDREW UY alias "MM," Appellants.
vs.
FRANCISCO JUAN LARRAÑAGA alias "PACO;" JOSMAN AZNAR; ROWEN ADLAWAN alias "WESLEY;" ALBERT CAÑO alias "ALLAN PAHAK;" ARIEL BALANSAG; DAVIDSON VALIENTE RUSIA alias ‘TISOY TAGALOG;" JAMES ANTHONY UY alias "WANGWANG;" and JAMES ANDREW UY alias "MM," Appellants.
R
E S O L U T I O N
PER CURIAM:
Most
jurisdictions recognize age as a barrier to having full responsibility over
one’s action.1
Our legal system, for instance, does not punish a youth as it would an adult,
and it sees youthful misconduct as evidence of
unreasoned or impaired judgment. Thus, in a myriad of cases, we have
applied the PRIVILEGED
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF MINORITY EMBODIED IN ARTICLE 68 OF THE REVISED PENAL
CODE -- the rationale of which is to show mercy and some extent of
leniency in favor of an accused who, by reason of his age, is presumed to have
acted with less discernment. The case at bar is another instance when the
privileged mitigating circumstance of minority must apply.
For our
resolution is the motion for reconsideration2
filed by brothers James Anthony and James Andrew, both surnamed Uy, praying for
the reduction of the penalties we imposed upon the latter on the ground that he
was a minor at the time the crimes were committed.
A brief review of
the pertinent facts is imperative.
On February 3, 2004, we rendered a Decision3
convicting the Uy brothers, together with Francisco Juan Larrañaga,
Josman Aznar, Rowen Adlawan, Alberto Caño and Ariel Balansag of the crimes of (a)
special complex crime of kidnapping and serious
illegal detention with homicide and rape; and (b) simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention. The
dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 7, Cebu City in Criminal Cases Nos. CBU 45303 and 45304 is AFFIRMED with
the following MODIFICATIONS:
(1) In Criminal
Case No. CBU-45303, appellants FRANCISCO JUAN LARRAÑAGA alias ‘PACO;’
JOSMAN AZNAR; ROWEN ADLAWAN alias ‘WESLEY;’ ALBERTO CAÑO alias
‘ALLAN PAHAK;’ ARIEL BALANSAG; and JAMES ANDREW UY alias
‘MM,’ are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special
complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide and
rape and are sentenced to suffer the penalty of DEATH by lethal
injection;
(2) In Criminal
Case No. CBU-45304, appellants FRANCISCO JUAN LARRAÑAGA alias ‘PACO’;
JOSMAN AZNAR; ROWEN ADLAWAN alias ‘WESLEY;’ ALBERTO CAÑO alias
‘ALLAN PAHAK;’ ARIEL BALANSAG; and JAMES ANDREW UY alias
‘MM,’ are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of simple kidnapping
and serious illegal detention and are sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION
PERPETUA;
(3) In Criminal
Case No. CBU-45303, appellant JAMES ANTHONY UY who was a minor at the
time the crime was committed, is likewise found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention
with homicide and rape and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION
PERPETUA; in Criminal Case No. CBU-45304, he is declared guilty of simple
kidnapping and serious illegal detention and is sentenced to suffer the penalty
of TWELVE (12) years of prision mayor in its maximum period, as MINIMUM,
to seventeen (17) years of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as
MAXIMUM;
(4) Appellants are ordered to pay jointly and
severally the heirs of Marijoy and Jacqueline, in each case, the amounts of (a)
P100,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) P25,000.00 as
temperate damages; (c) P150,000.00 as moral damages; and (d) P100,000.00
as exemplary damages.
Three
(3) Justices of the Court maintain their position that RA 7659 is
unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes the death penalty; nevertheless, they submit to the ruling of
the majority that the law is constitutional and the death penalty can be
lawfully imposed in the case at bar.
In accordance
with Article 83
of The Revised Penal Code, as amended by
Section 25 of RA No. 7659, upon the finality
of this Decision let the records of this
case be forthwith forwarded to the Office
of the President for the possible
exercise of Her Excellency’s
pardoning power.
SO ORDERED.
On March 23,
2004, the Uy brothers filed a motion for reconsideration anchored on the
following grounds:
I
ACCUSED JAMES ANDREW S. UY WAS, LIKE HIS YOUNGER
BROTHER JAMES ANTHONY S. UY, A MINOR AT THE TIME THE OFFENSES AT BAR
ALLEGEDLY HAPPENED LAST JULY 16, 1997;
II
THE IDENTITY
OF THE DEAD BODY OF THE WOMAN FOUND IN TAN-AWAN, CARCAR, CEBU LAST JULY 18,
1997 WAS NEVER CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHED THUS THE NEED FOR ITS EXHUMATION
FOR DNA TESTING.4
The issues raised
in the above motion being intertwined with those raised by Larrañaga, Aznar,
Adlawan, Caño and Balansag in their separate motions for reconsideration, we
deemed it appropriate to consolidate the motions. After a painstaking
evaluation of every piece and specie of evidence presented before the trial
court in response to the movants’ plea for the reversal of their conviction, still we are convinced that the movants’ guilt has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, in our Resolution dated July 21,
2005, we denied all the motions. However, left
unresolved is the issue of James Andrew’s minority.
Hence,
this disquisition A long or elaborate essay or discussion on a particular subject..
In their motion,
the Uy brothers claim that James Andrew
was only seventeen (17) years and two hundred sixty two (262) days old at the
time the crimes were committed. To substantiate such claim, he begs leave
and pleads that we admit at this stage of the proceedings his (1) Certificate
of Live Birth issued by the National Statistics Office, and (2) Baptismal
Certificate. In the ultimate, he prays that his penalty be reduced, as in the
case of his brother James Anthony.
Considering that
the entry of James Andrew’s birth in the proffered Certificate of Live Birth is
not legible, we required the Solicitor General (a) to secure from the City
Civil Registrar of Cotobato, as well as the National Statistics Office, a clear
and legible copy of James’ Certificate of Live Birth, and thereafter, (b) to
file an extensive comment on the Uy brothers’ motion, solely on the issue of
James Andrew’s minority.
On November 17, 2005, the Solicitor General submitted his
comment. Attached therewith are clear and legible copies of James’ Certificate
of Live Birth duly certified by the Office of the City Civil Registrar of
Cotobato and the National Statistics Office. Both documents bear the entry
October 27, 1979 as the date of his birth, thus, showing that he was indeed only 17 years and 262 days old when
the crimes were committed on July 16, 1997.
Consequently, the
Solicitor General recommended that the
penalty imposed on James Andrew be modified as follows:
In Criminal Case No. CBU-45303 for the special
complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide and
rape, the death penalty should be reduced
to reclusion perpetua.
In Criminal Case No. CBU-45304, for the crime
of simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention, the penalty of reclusion
perpetua should be reduced to twelve
(12) years of prision mayor in its maximum period, as minimum, to seventeen
(17) years of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as maximum, similar to
the penalty imposed on his brother James Anthony in Criminal Case No.
CBU-45303.
The motion is meritorious.
Article 68 of the Revised Penal
Code provides:
ART. 68. – Penalty to be imposed upon a person
under eighteen years of age. – When the
offender is a minor under eighteen years and his case is one coming under the
provisions of the paragraph next to the last of article 80 of this Code, the
following rules shall be observed:
x x x
2. Upon a person over
fifteen and under eighteen years of age the penalty
next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in
the proper period.
Thus, the imposable penalty
on James Andrew, by reason of his minority, is one degree lower than the
statutory penalty. The penalty for the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with
homicide and rape, being death, one degree lower
therefrom is reclusion perpetua.5 On
the other hand, the penalty for simple
kidnapping and serious illegal detention is reclusion perpetua to
death. One degree lower therefrom is reclusion temporal.6
There being no aggravating and mitigating circumstance, the penalty to be
imposed on James Andrew is reclusion temporal in its medium period.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he should be sentenced to suffer the
penalty of twelve (12) years of prision mayor in its maximum period, as
minimum, to seventeen (17) years of reclusion temporal in its medium
period, as maximum.7
Accordingly, in
Criminal Case No. CBU-45303, the penalty of reclusion perpetua should be
imposed upon James Andrew; while in Criminal Case No. CBU-45304, the imposable
penalty upon him is twelve (12) years of prision mayor in its maximum period,
as minimum, to seventeen (17) years of reclusion temporal in its medium period,
as maximum.
WHEREFORE, the motion for
reconsideration is hereby GRANTED.
Our Decision dated February 3, 2004 is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that in
Criminal Case No. CBU-45303, James Andrew Uy is sentenced to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua; while in Criminal Case No. CBU-45304, the penalty of
twelve (12) years of prision mayor in its maximum period, as MINIMUM, to
seventeen (17) years of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as
maximum.
SO ORDERED.
Footnotes
The
Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply to persons convicted of offenses
punished with death penalty or life imprisonment. (Section 2) While the
exception in Section 2 of the law speak of "life imprisonment," this
term has been considered to also mean reclusion perpetua. (Regalado,
Criminal Law Conspectus, First Edition, at 207).
