GEROCHE vs. PEOPLE (G.R. No.

179080 November 26, 2014)

Topic: Penalties>>Indeterminate Sentence Law

SHORT VERSION

FACTS: Baleriano Limbag (Baleriano) testified that around 10:00 o’clock in the evening of May 14, 1989,
accused Geroche (who admitted he is a Barangay Captain) together with accused Garde and Marfil (who
were members of Citizen Armed Forces Geographical Unit (CAFGU), without a search warrant,
suddenly entered the house of Baleriano by destroying the main door. The petitioners mauled him,
striking with a garand rifle, which caused his injuries.

The trial court, alleging that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused were public officers through
clear and convincing evidence other than that of the testimony of the witnesses, found the accused guilty
of Less Serious Physical Injuries under the Article 265 of the RPC.

Petitioners elevated the case to the CA, which set aside the trial court’s judgment and ruled that they are
guilty of Violation of Domicile sentencing them to an indeterminate penalty of 4 months and 1 day of
arresto mayor maximum to 6 months and 1 day of prision correccional minimum.

Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied; hence, this petition.

ISSUE: 1. Whether or not the petitioners are guilty of the crime of Violation of Domicile under Article
128 of the Revised Penal Code (YES)

2. Whether the corresponding penalty adjudged was correct under the Indeterminate Sentence Law (No.)

HELD: 1. Yes, the petitioners are guilty of the crime of Violation of Domicile. In their judicial
admissions, in their testimony before the open court as well as in the pleadings they filed, neither
Geroche denied that he was a barangay captain nor Garde and Marfil refuted that they were CAFGU
members. In holding such positions, they are considered as public officers/employees.

2. Under Article 128 of the RPC, the penalty shall be prision correccional in its medium and maximum
periods (two [2] years, four [4] months and one [1] day to six [6] years) if Violation of Domicile be
committed at nighttime or if any papers or effects not constituting evidence of a crime be not returned
immediately after the search made by the offender. In this case, petitioners barged in the house of
Baleriano while they were sleeping at night and, in addition, they took away with them his airgun.

In imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the RPC, the Indeterminate Sentence Law
requires courts to impose upon the accused an indeterminate sentence. The maximum term of the prison
sentence shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the
rules of the said Code. Yet the penalty prescribed by Article 128 of the RPC is composed of only two, not
three, periods. In which case, Article 65 of the same Code requires the division into three equal portions
the time included in the penalty, forming one period of each of the three portions.

Applying the provision, the minimum, medium and maximum periods of the penalty prescribed by Article
128 are:
Minimum – 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 3 years, 6 months and 20 days
Medium – 3 years, 6 months and 21 days to 4 years, 9 months and 10 days
Maximum – 4 years, 9 months and 11 days to 6 years

The foregoing considered, in view of the attending circumstances in this case, the Court hereby
sentences the petitioners to suffer the indeterminate penalty from two (2) years and four (4) months of
prision correccional, as minimum, to four ( 4) years, nine (9) months and ten (10) days of prision
correccional, as maximum.

*No more LONG VERSION kasi maikli lang to.

 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 179080               November 26, 2014
EDIGARDO GEROCHE, ROBERTO GARDE and GENEROSO MARFIL alias "TAPOL", Petitioners,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
This is an appeal from the Decision1 dated November 18, 2005 and Resolution2 dated June 19, 2007 of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in G.R. CR No. 26418, which set aside the November 15, 2001 Decision 3 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 17, Kidapawan City, Cotabato.
Petitioners Edigardo Geroche, Roberto Garde and Generoso Marfil alias "Tapol" were charged with the
crime of Violation of Domicile under Article 128 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). 4 The Information dated
May 3, 1990 reads:
The undersigned accuses EDIGARDO GEROCHE, ROBERTO GARDE AND GENEROSO MARFIL Alias
"TAPOL" of the crime of Violation of Domicile, committed as follows:
That at about 10:00 o’clock in the evening of May 14, 1989, at Sitio New Lantawan, Barangay Greenhills,
Municipality of President Roxas, Province of Cotabato, Philippines, the above-named accused
EDIGARDO GEROCHE, being a Barangay Captain and the rest being CAFGUs, hence, persons
inauthority, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, armed with garand rifles, did then
and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, without proper judicial order, entered the house of
ROBERTO MALLO by forcibly breaking the door of said house against the will of the occupants thereof,
search the effects of the house without the previous consent of the owner and then mauled one of the
occupant BARILIANO LIMBAG inflicting injuries to the latter.
CONTRARY TO LAW.5
During the arraignment on November5, 1990, all the petitioners pleaded not guilty. 6 Thereafter, trial
ensued.
Baleriano Limbag (Baleriano) testified that the crime happened around 10:00 o’clock in the evening of
May 14, 1989 inside the house which he already bought from Roberto Mallo. He roused from sleep when
petitioners, who were not armed with search warrant, suddenly entered the house by destroying the main
door. The petitioners mauled him, striking with a garand rifle, which caused his injuries. They looked for
firearms but instead found and took away his airgun. Roberto Limbag, Baleriano’s nephew who was living
with him, witnessed the whole incident and corroborated his testimony.
Aside from presenting SPO4 Felomino Calfoforo, the Subpoena and Warrant Officer of President Roxas
Police Station who testified on the police blotter, Dr. Antonio Cabrera also took the witness stand for the
prosecution. Essentially, he affirmed the medical certificate that he issued. His findings indicated that
Baleriano suffered hematoma on the left side of the nose, back portion of the body at the level of the hip
region, and back portion at the right side of the scapular region as well as abrasion on the right side of the
breast and left side of the body at the axilliary region. 7 Dr. Cabrera opined that the injuries inflicted would
heal from seven to ten days.8 For the defense, petitioners denied the crime charged, declaring in unison
that they were in their respective houses the entire evening of May 14, 1989. They alleged, however, that
the night before, on May 13, 1989, they conducted a roving footpatrol, together with other barangay
officials, due to the rampant cattle rustling in the area. At the time, they recovered a stolen carabao
owned by a certain Francisco Pongasi9 from three unidentified persons who managed to escape.
On November 15, 2001, the trial court found petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Less Serious Physical Injuries under the Article 265 of the RPC. They were sentenced to suffer the
penalty of imprisonment of arresto mayor maximum, that is, four (4) months and one (1) day to six (6)
months. According to the RTC, the prosecution failed to prove that petitioners are public officers, which is
an essential element of Article 128 of the RPC. It held:
The prosecution who has that onus probandifailed to prove one of the essential elements of the crime; on
the issue of whether or not all the accused were public officers; while it is true that accused were named
CVO’s and the other as a barangay captain and that even if the same were admitted by them during their
testimony in open court, such an admission is not enough to prove that they were public officers; it is for
the prosecution to prove by clear and convincing evidence other than that of the testimony of witnesses
that they werein fact public officers; there exist a doubt of whether or not all the accused were in fact and
in truth public officers; doubts should be ruled in favorof the accused; that on this lone and essential
element the crime charged as violation of domicile is ruled out; that degree of moral certainty of the crime
charged was not established and proved by convincing evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt; x x
x.10 Petitioners elevated the case to the CA, which, on November 18, 2005, set aside the trial court’s
judgment. While it agreed with both parties that petitioners should not be convictedfor Less Serious
Physical Injuries, the CA still ruled that they are guilty of Violation of Domicile considering their judicial
admissions that they were barangay captain (in the case of Geroche) and part of the Citizen Armed
Forces Geographical Unit (in the case of Garde and Marfil). The dispositive portion of the assailed
Decision states:
WHEREFORE, pursuant to applicable law and jurisprudence on the matter and the evidence on hand, the
appealed decision is hereby SET ASIDE and a new one entered finding the accused-petitioners GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Domicile under Article 128 of the Revised Penal
Code and sentencing them to an indeterminate penalty of Four (4) Months, One (1) Day of arresto mayor
maximum to Six (6) Months and One (1) Day of prision [correccional] minimum with the accessory penalty
of suspension from public office and from the right to follow a professionor calling pursuant to Article 43 of
the Revised Penal Code.
SO ORDERED.11
Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied; hence, this petition. They argue that there is double
jeopardy since the trial court already acquitted them of Violation of Domicile and such judgment, being
now final and executory, is res judicata. Petitioners insist that their appeal before the CA is limited to their
conviction for the crime of Less Serious Physical Injuries, focusing their arguments and defense for
acquittal from said crime, and that the CA violated their constitutional right to due process when it
convicted them for Violation of Domicile.
We deny.
An appeal in a criminal case opensthe entire case for review on any question including one not raised by
the parties.12 When an accused appeals from the sentence of the trial court,he or she waives the
constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy and throws the whole case open to the review of the
appellate court, which is then called upon to render such judgment as law and justice dictate. 13 An appeal
confers upon the appellate court jurisdiction to examine the records, revise the judgment appealed from,
increase (or reduce) the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law. 14 The appellate court may,
and generally does,look into the entire records to ensure that no fact of weight or substance has been
overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied by the trial court. 15
Thus, when petitioners appealed the trial court’s judgment of conviction for Less Serious Physical Injuries,
they are deemed to have abandoned their right to invoke the prohibition on doublejeopardy since it
becomes the duty of the appellate court to correct errors as may be found in the assailed judgment.
Petitioners could not have been placed twice in jeopardy when the CA set aside the ruling of the RTC by
finding them guilty of Violation of Domicile as charged in the Information instead of Less Serious Physical
Injuries.
The Court adopts the findings of factand conclusions of law of the CA. In their testimony before the open
court as well as in the pleadings they filed, neither Geroche denied that hewas a barangay captain nor
Garde and Marfil refuted that they were CAFGU members. In holding such positions, they are considered
as public officers/employees.16
As to the penalty imposed by the CA, however, We modify the same. Under Article 128 of the RPC, the
penalty shall be prision correccionalin its medium and maximum periods (two [2] years, four [4] months
and one [1] day to six [6] years) if Violation of Domicile be committed at nighttime or if any papers or
effects not constituting evidence of a crime be not returned immediately after the search made by the
offender. In this case, petitioners barged in the house of Baleriano while they were sleeping at night and,
in addition, they took away with them his airgun.
In imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the RPC, the Indeterminate Sentence
Law17 requires courts to impose upon the accused an indeterminate sentence. The maximum term of the
prison sentence shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed
under the rules of the said Code.1âwphi1 Yet the penalty prescribed by Article 128 of the RPC is
composed of only two, not three, periods. In which case, Article 65 of the same Code requires the division
into three equal portions the time included in the penalty, forming one period of each of the three portions.
Applying the provision, the minimum, medium and maximum periods of the penalty prescribed by Article
128 are:
Minimum – 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 3 years, 6 months and 20 days
Medium – 3 years, 6 months and 21 days to 4 years, 9 months and 10 days
Maximum – 4 years, 9 months and 11 days to 6 years
Thus, applying in this case, the maximum term should be within the medium period or from 3 years, 6
months and 21 days to 4 years, 9 months and 10 days, in light of the provisions of Article 64 of the
Revised Penal Code that if there are no other mitigating or aggravating circumstances attending the
commission of the crime, the penalty shall be imposed in its medium period.
On the other hand, the minimum term shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed
by the RPC for the crime. The penalty next lower to that prescribed by Article 128 is arresto mayor in its
maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period (or 4 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4
months).
The foregoing considered, in view of the attending circumstances in this case, the Court hereby
sentences the petitioners to suffer the indeterminate penalty from two (2) years and four (4) months of
prision correccional, as minimum, to four ( 4) years, nine (9) months and ten (10) days of prision
correccional, as maximum.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the Decision dated November 18, 2005 and Resolution dated June
19, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. CR No. 26418 finding petitioners Edigardo Geroche, Roberto
Garde and Generoso Marfil alias "Tapol" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Domicile,
penalized under Article 128 of the Revised Penal Code, with the MODIFICATION that the penalty that
should be imposed is an indeterminate sentence from two (2) years and four (4) months of prision
correccional, as minimum, to four (4) years, nine (9) months and ten (10) days of prision correccional, as
maximum.
SO ORDERED.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice