Back to Search
JurisprudenceG.R. No. 107699 -

G.R. No. 107699 - ALEX JACOBO Y SEMENTELA, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Cited Laws

RA 178,RA 342,RA 203,RA 479,RA 700,RA 226,RA 221,RA 448,RA 708,RA 558,RA 486,RA 327,RA 52,RA 499,RA 354,RA 709,RA 616RA 571,RA 370,RA 621
Share:

TL;DR — Ruling

WHEREFORE, finding the accused guilty of the crime charged in the Information beyond reasonable doubt, he is hereby sentenced to suffer an Indeterminate Penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of Prision Mayor as its minimum to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of Reclusion Temporal as its maximum. He is further sentenced to indemnify the heirs of the offended party the amount of thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00) for the death of the deceased and to pay the costs.

Decision

Ruling

WHEREFORE, finding the accused guilty of the crime charged in the Information beyond reasonable doubt, he is hereby sentenced to suffer an Indeterminate Penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of Prision Mayor as its minimum to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of Reclusion Temporal as its maximum. He is further sentenced to indemnify the heirs of the offended party the amount of thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00) for the death of the deceased and to pay the costs. In the service of the sentence the accused is entitled to the provisions of Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended." On appeal, the Second Division of the Court of Appeals [3] affirmed the decision of the trial court, holding that the strategy adopted by appellant was "diametrically opposed to what jurisprudence exacts from an accused who professes a justifying circumstance to secure exoneration." [4] The dispositive portion of this assailed Decision reads: [5] "WHEREFORE, except as to the civil indemnity to be paid by appellant which is hereby increased to fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) pursuant to the ruling of the Supreme Court in People vs. Bartulay (192 SCRA 621; 631), the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed in all other respects." Acting on a motion for reconsideration, the Special Former Second Division [6] of Respondent Court modified the assailed Decision by holding that voluntary surrender should be considered as a mitigating circumstance in petitioner's favor. The dispositive portion of Respondent Court's impugned Resolution, dated October 23, 1992, reads: [7] "WHEREFORE, the dispositive portion of Our decision dated May 21, 1992, stating that (')the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed in all other respects('), is hereby RECONSIDERED in that the accused-appellant, credited with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, is hereby sentenced to suffer an Indeterminate Penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of Prision Mayor, as minimum, to ten (10) years, two (2) months and twenty-one (21) days of Reclusion Temporal, as maximum. SO ORDERED.