Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 25 views

    People Vs Dapitan

    Uploaded by

    Cidg Nueva Vizcaya
    The accused was found guilty of robbery with homicide by the trial court and sentenced to reclusion temporal. The accused appealed, arguing his sentence violated due process and constituted cruel punishment. The Supreme Court ruled that due process was satisfied because the accused was afforded a fair trial and opportunity to present evidence. The Court also found that reclusion temporal did not constitute cruel punishment as it is recognized in the Constitution. While there were mitigating circumstances present, the Court held that robbery with homicide carries an indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua under the law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People Vs Dapitan

    Uploaded by

    Cidg Nueva Vizcaya
    25 views2 pages
    The accused was found guilty of robbery with homicide by the trial court and sentenced to reclusion temporal. The accused appealed, arguing his sentence violated due process and constituted cruel punishment. The Supreme Court ruled that due process was satisfied because the accused was afforded a fair trial and opportunity to present evidence. The Court also found that reclusion temporal did not constitute cruel punishment as it is recognized in the Constitution. While there were mitigating circumstances present, the Court held that robbery with homicide carries an indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua under the law.

    Original Title

    People vs Dapitan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The accused was found guilty of robbery with homicide by the trial court and sentenced to reclusion temporal. The accused appealed, arguing his sentence violated due process and constituted cruel punishment. The Supreme Court ruled that due process was satisfied because the accused was afforded a fair trial and opportunity to present evidence. The Court also found that reclusion temporal did not constitute cruel punishment as it is recognized in the Constitution. While there were mitigating circumstances present, the Court held that robbery with homicide carries an indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua under the law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    25 views2 pages

    People Vs Dapitan

    Uploaded by

    Cidg Nueva Vizcaya
    The accused was found guilty of robbery with homicide by the trial court and sentenced to reclusion temporal. The accused appealed, arguing his sentence violated due process and constituted cruel punishment. The Supreme Court ruled that due process was satisfied because the accused was afforded a fair trial and opportunity to present evidence. The Court also found that reclusion temporal did not constitute cruel punishment as it is recognized in the Constitution. While there were mitigating circumstances present, the Court held that robbery with homicide carries an indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua under the law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    G.R. No.

    90625 May 23, 1991 • The accused is thus deemed to be in


    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, complete agreement with the findings and
    plaintiff-appellee, vs. conclusion of facts by the trial court. But
    BENEDICTO DAPITAN y MARTIN, @ that, the trial court erred in not applying
    "Benny" and FRED DE GUZMAN,accused. the indeterminate sentence law.
    FACTS: • Accused-appellant argues that the
    • The information was filed against imposition over him of the penalty of
    accused-appellant and his co-accused. reclusion temporal by the trial court is
    When "tantamount to deprivation of life or liberty
    arraigned with the assistance of counsel without due process of law or is
    de oficio, Atty. Magsanoc, accused entered tantamount to a cruel, degrading or
    a plea of not guilty. inhuman punishment prohibited by the
    • At the scheduled hearing, new counsel de Constitution" and he submits that "the
    oficio for the accused manifested that righteous and humane punishment that
    the accused had expressed to him the should have been meted out should be
    desire to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser indeterminate sentence" with "all mitigating
    offense circumstances as well as the legal
    •The court issued an order acknowledging provisions favorable to the accused . . .
    the manifestation of the de oficio counsel appreciated or . . . taken advantage for
    and noted there are two mitigating constructive and humanitarian reasons."
    circumstances that maybe applied. The
    Prosecuting Fiscal made no objection but ISSUE: Whether or not due process was
    also manifested that he has to look into the denied?
    penalty applicable. The hearing was reset to
    another date. RULING:
    • Upon motion of the prosecution and the There was no denial of due process.
    defense in view of the projected settlement • REQUISITES:
    of the civil liability of this case, the hearing Due process is satisfied if the following
    was reset again. However, counsel de oficio conditions are present: (1) there must be a
    for the accused did not appear, hence "a court or tribunal clothed with judicial
    report on the projected settlement of the power to hear and determine the matter
    civil aspect of the case cannot be made" before it; (2) jurisdiction must be lawfully
    and the hearing was reset again which acquired by it over the person of the
    schedule was later on cancelled due to the defendant or over the property which is the
    compulsory retirement subject of the proceeding; (3) the defendant
    of the presiding judge. must be given an opportunity to be heard;
    • In the meantime, Judge Francisco C. and (4) judgment must be rendered upon
    Rodriguez, Jr. presided over the trial court. lawful hearing.
    • The initial reception of evidence took place • People vs. Castillo: If an accused has
    on 4/24/1987 with the accusedappellant been heard in a court of competent
    represented by Atty. Benjamin Pozon. jurisdiction, and proceeded against under
    Thereafter, hearings were had until the the orderly processes of law, and only
    parties completed the presentation of their punished after inquiry and investigation,
    evidence. upon notice to him, with opportunity to be
    heard, and a judgment awarded within the
    TRIAL COURT: authority of the constitutional law, then he
    Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the has had due process.
    crime of Robbery with Homicide • All the requisites or conditions of due
    • The accused-appellant filed his Notice of process are present in this case. The
    Appeal. However, Judge Cipriano de Roma records further disclose that accused-
    erroneously directed the transmittal of the appellant was given the fullest and
    records of the case to the CA. The CA unhampered opportunity not only to reflect
    transmitted to this Court on the records dispassionately on his expressed desire to
    which were erroneously transmitted to it. plead guilty to a lesser offense which
    prompted the court to cancel the hearing of
    2/10/1987, but also to confront the
    witnesses presented against him and to
    present his own evidence
    • If indeed accused-appellant had been
    deprived of due process, he would have
    faulted the trial court not just for failure to
    apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
    but definitely for more.
    • Neither is the penalty of reclusion
    perpetua cruel, degrading, and inhuman.
    To
    make that claim is to assail the
    constitutionality of Article 294, par. 1 of the
    RPC or of any other provisions therein and
    of special laws imposing the said penalty for
    specific crimes or offenses. The proposition
    cannot find any support. Article 294, par. 1
    of the RPC has survived four Constitutions
    of the Philippines, namely: the 1935
    Constitution, the 1973 Constitution, the
    Freedom Constitution of 1986 and the 1987
    Constitution. All of these documents
    mention life imprisonment or reclusion
    perpetua as a penalty which may be
    imposed in appropriate cases.
    • The same paragraph of the section of
    Article III (Bill of Rights) of the 1987
    Constitution which prohibits the imposition
    of cruel degrading and inhuman
    punishment expressly recognizes reclusion
    perpetua. Thus: Sec. 19(l). Excessive fines
    shall not beimposed, nor cruel, degrading
    or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither
    shall the death penalty be imposed, unless,
    for compelling reasons involving heinous
    crimes, the Congress hereafter provides it.
    Any death penalty already imposed shall be
    reduced to reclusion perpetua
    • As to the appreciation of mitigating
    circumstances, We agree with the Solicitor
    General that since robbery with homicide
    under paragraph 1 of Article 294 of the
    RPC is now punishable by the single and
    indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua in
    view of the abolition of the death penalty, it
    follows that the rule prescribed in the first
    paragraph of Article 63 of the RPC shall
    apply. Consequently, reclusion perpetua
    must be imposed in this case regardless of
    the presence of mitigating or aggravating
    circumstances.

    You might also like