Digest Cases (Crim)

in 1983.
Because he could not be found, the warrant of his

GUMABON vs DIRECTOR OF PRISONS arrest remained unserved. Seven years later, on June 5,
G.R. No. L-30026 January 30, 1971 1990, he was arrested on the basis of the warrant on the
subversion case. During the arrest, an unlicensed gun was
FACTS: found in his possession. He was therefore charged with two
After pleading guilty for complex crime of rebellion with crimes, Subversion under RA 1700 and Illegal Possession of
multiple murder, robbery, arson, and kidnapping, Mario Firearm and Ammunition in Furtherance of Subversion
Gumabon and five others were sentenced to reclusion under PD 1866.
perpetua.
Each of the petitioners has been since then imprisoned by However, on September 22, 1992, RA 7636 was enacted.
virtue of the above convictions and has served more than The law totally repealed RA 1700.
13 years.
Issue:
Subsequently, the Supreme Court negated the complex Can RA 7636 be given retroactive for Tujan?
crime stating that rebellion cannot be complexed with
other crimes. Thus, the accused in the Hernandez case was Ruling:
only sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment. Yes. In enacting RA 7636, the intent was to abrogate the
anti-subversion law. Since Tujan was not a habitual
Petitioners now seek for the retroactive application of the delinquent, a requirement for the application of the law,
Hernandez doctrine which was promulgated after their the republic act may be retroactively applied to his case.
conviction.
BERNARDO VS. BALAGOT
ISSUE:
[G.R. No. 86561. November 10, 1992.]
Does the rule of prospective and non-retroactive
operation of judicial doctrines, and its corollary rule Facts:
of the law of the case have application here?
It is stressed at the outset that the petitioner is not among
the disqualified offenders listed in Section 9 of P.D. 968
RULING: (Law on Probation). Section 4 of the said decree, which was
promulgated on July 24, 1976, provided for the grant of
The rule of prospective and non-retroactive probation. On December 1, 1977, that section was
operation of judicial doctrines, and its corollary rule amended by P.D. 1257. This was the prevailing law on
of the law of the case, have no application here. probation at the time the petitioner was convicted in 1984.
These salutary rules decree that rights of parties On October 5, 1985, Section 4 was again amended, this
having been decisively settled and determined by time by P.D. 1990. This was the law in force at the time the
final judgment of the court of competent jurisdiction petitioner filed his application for probation. P.D. 1990 was
with the party adversely affected having had the promulgated on October 5, 1985, and published in the
opportunity to raise in the case all relevant Official Gazette on December 30, 1985. It took effect on
questions, the decision becomes the law of the January 15, 1986, after fifteen days from the date of its
case, and vested rights would be impaired, judicial publication. The petitioner’s application for probation was
chaos and disorder ensue and litigation would be filed on February 3, 1986, after P.D. 1990 had already
never-ending and would become more intolerable become effective. Consequently, the petitioner cannot
than the wrongs it is intended to redress, should an invoke the original Section 4 of P.D. 968, as he is not among
adjudicated case be reopened simply because in "those who have already filed their respective applications
another and subsequent case, this Court adopted for probation at the time of the effectivity of P.D. 1990.
a new or different construction of the law under
Issue: Should PD 1990 should apply to the petitioner?
which a different result of the adjudicated case
might have been obtained. Ruling:
P.D. No. 1990 was issued when it was observed that even if
a person’s conviction was finally affirmed after he had
People v. Pimentel exhausted the appeal process (usually up to this Court), he
G.R. No. 100210 nevertheless could still apply for probation and thus in
April 1, 1998 effect undo such affirmance. To prevent loss of time,
money, and effort on the part of the State in this wasteful
exercise, the law was amended to make appeal and
Facts: probation mutually exclusive remedies. The present case
Antonio Tujan was charged with subversion under RA 1700 falls squarely within the objectives of P.D. 1990.
At any rate, even if it be assumed that the respondent provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law (People vs.
judge did gravely abuse his discretion, the petition was still Co Pao [1934], 58 Phil., 545; People vs. Gayrama [1934],
correctly dismissed because of the amended Section 4 of 60 Phil., 796), the principal penalty imposed by the court a
P.D. 1990. quo is modified and instead the penalty of six months
and one day to two years, eleven months and eleven
days of prision correctional, is hereby imposed upon the
PEOPLE v. BLENVENLDO VENUS defendant-appellant, Bienvenido Venus. With this only
[ GR No. 45141, Sep 15, 1936 ] modification, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed,
with costs against the appellant in both instances.
Facts:
An information charging the defendant, Same case, Pakisulat pa rin ito. This has different
Bienvenido Venus, with the crime of robbery in an application.
inhabited house. The information alleges that the
GUMABON vs DIRECTOR OF PRISONS
defendant entered the house then occupied by Zoila de
G.R. No. L-30026 January 30, 1971
Talaban by breaking the hasp of the door of said house
which was secured by a padlock and once inside took and
FACTS:
carried away, with the intent of gain and without the
After pleading guilty for complex crime of rebellion with
consent of the owner thereof, various personal properties
multiple murder, robbery, arson, and kidnapping, Mario
belonging to Zoila de Talaban of the total value of one
Gumabon and five others were sentenced to reclusion
hundred and eighty-eight pesos and fifty centavos. The
perpetua.
information further alleges "that the said accused is a
Each of the petitioners has been since then imprisoned by
habitual delinquent, he having previously been convicted
virtue of the above convictions and has served more than
by final judgment rendered by a competent court, once for
13 years.
the crime of attempted robbery in an inhabited house and
once for theft, the date of his last conviction being
Subsequently, the Supreme Court negated the complex
November 14, 1934."
crime stating that rebellion cannot be complexed with
The accused pleaded guilty to the information whereupon other crimes. Thus, the accused in the Hernandez case was
the trial court rendered judgment imposing the prison only sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment.
sentence upon the defendant-appellant, took into
account the aggravating circumstance of recidivism Petitioners now seek for the retroactive application of the
because the date of the conviction of the accused for the Hernandez doctrine which was promulgated after their
crime of theft is specified in the information, but it conviction.
refused to consider the defendant-appellant a habitual
delinquent under the provisions of article 62 of the Revised ISSUE:
Penal Code for the following reason:
Whether or not the court erred in imposing excessive
'That the said accused is a habitual delinquent, he having penalty.
previously been convicted by final judgments rendered by
a competent court, once for the crime of attempted
robbery in an inhabited house and once for theft” RULING:
Issue: As the Court had ruled since 1956 that only the crime of
simple rebellion exists in our legal system for which the
Can the defendant-appellant in this case be considered a maximum penalty of prision mayor may be imposed, the
habitual delinquent? excess of the life sentences imposed upon petitioners over
the imposable maximum of prision mayor cannot stand and
Ruling:
must necessarily be declared void.
The defendant and appellant in the case at bar can not be
considered a habitual delinquent but only a recidivist. As Prescinding then from the question of jurisdiction of the
the plea of guilty offsets the aggravating circumstance of sentencing courts, the case at bar presents a clear case of
recidivism, the penalty provided for in article 299 of the an excess in penalty imposed beyond twelve years
Revised Penal Code for the crime of robbery in an of prision mayor which has become illegal by virtue of this
inhabited house by means of unlawful entry where the Court's settled doctrine that the crime of rebellion cannot
criminal is not armed and the value of the property stolen be complexed with other common crimes. On this ground,
does not exceed 250 pesos, should be imposed in the as well as on the further and more fundamental ground
medium degree in accordance with the provisions of that to hold them liable to continue serving life sentences
article 64 of the Revised Penal Code. Applying the
for a crime that the law—at the time of their conviction as
well as now—punishes only with prision mayor which they
have more than fully served, would be to deny them their
constitutional rights of due process and equal protection of
the law.

Digest Cases (Crim)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digest Cases (Crim)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digest Cases (Crim)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

in 1983.

Because he could not be found, the warrant of his

You might also like