G.R. No. 132024 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. LEONARDO BIHISON Y SILENCIO, PEPITO KADUSALE Y DEIS AND RELITO TIPONTIPON Y ESTOY, ACCUSED-. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Court finds the accused PEPITO KADUSALE y DEIS, RELITO TIPONTIPON y ESTOY, EDUARDO BIHISON y SILENCIO and LEONARDO BIHISON y SILENCIO, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as principals of the crime of MURDER, as this felony is defined and penalized by Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, and there being no modifying circumstance proven to either aggravate or mitigate their liability, and, furthermore, applying the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, hereby sentences said accused to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of Reclusion Temporal, as minimum to SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS and FOUR (4) MONTHS of Reclusion Temporal, as maximum; to pay the heirs of the deceased Honorio Lintag the sum of P33,000.00, as actual damages; P50,000.00, as indemnity for the death of the victim; P25,000.00, as moral damages; and P25,000.00, as exemplary damages; and to pay the costs. "With respect to the other accused herein, namely: Ponciano Ducusin, Domingo Ducusin, Carlos Mendoza, Junior Doyola, Basilio Buklatin, Alberto Ducusin, Emilio Ducusin, Carding Braza and Boy Doe, let the instant case against them be archived to be revived once they are finally arrested and brought to this Court by the police authorities for appropriate proceedings." [2] Still feeling aggrieved by the decision of the trial court, accused Pepito Kadusale, Relito Tipontipon and Leonardo Bihison interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals. The appeal opened the whole case for review, inclusive of the penalties imposed by the court a quo , [3] a rule in vogue in criminal proceedings. On 19 March 1997, the appellate court rendered judgment affirming the convic,tion of appellants but increasing the penalty imposed to reclusion perpetua ; it explained: "However, as pointed out by the Solicitor General, the penalty imposed by the court a quo , which is within the range of reclusion temporal, is not correct. There being no modifying circumstance, the penalty for the crime of murder should be reclusion perpetua. This is explained in People vs. Munoz, 170 SCRA 107, thus: "'In People vs. Guevarra, Justice Pedro L. Yap declared for the Court that `in view of the abolition of the death penalty under Section 19, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, the penalty that may be imposed for murder is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua,' thereby eliminating death as the original maximum period. Later, without categorically saying so, the Court, through Justice Ameurfina A Melencio-Herrera in People vs. Masangkay and through Justice Andres B. Narvasa in People vs. Atencio, divided the modified penalty into three new periods, the limits of which were specified by Justice Edgardo L. Paras, in People vs. Intino, as follows: the lower half of reclusion temporal maximum as the medium; and reclusion perpetua as the maximum. `The Court has reconsidered the above cases an