ROSAL HUBILLA y CARILLO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 176102 November 26, 2014
FACTS:
Rosal Hubilla
- charged with Homicide (RTC Branch 20, Naga City)
- stabbed Jayson Espinola, causing death
-minor (17 years, 4 mos & 28 days)
Facts Established by the Prosecution and the Defense Summarized
by CA
March, 2000 (7:30 P.M)
Bgy Dalupaon, Pasacao, Camarines Sur
 Alejandro Dequito (cousin of victim) & his compadre Nicasio Ligadia
(corroborated testimony)- at the gate of Dalupaon Elementary School
watching the graduation ceremony of HS students
 Espinola (victim) arrived-> Hubilla approached and stabbed him
 According to Dequito (witness), with the appellant’s left arm around
the neck of the victim, appellant stabbed the victim using a bladed
weapon
 Victim brought to Bicol Medical Center
Marlyn, mother of victim, testified. According to her:
 Son stayed for more than a month in the hospital then DISCHARGED
 Son went back for check-up, found out stab wound HAD
COMPLICATION = OPERATION
 Jason DIED 1 day AFTER OPERATION
Accdg to Robert Casin, medico legal expert:
Cause of death of the victim= organ failure overwhelming infection
Underlined cause of death was a stab wound
According to Hubilla (accused):
 he was at campus watching graduation rites
 while walking towards the gate of school on his way home, he was
ATTACKED AND BOXED BY A GROUP OF 4 MEN
 He felt dizzy, fell to the ground and DID NOT RECOGNIZE who
attacked him
 He decided to go home
 While otw home, he met SOMEBODY WHOM HE THOUGHT WAS
ONE OF THE FOUR MEN who ganged up on him
 Admitted he STABBED THE PERSON
(Said he was carrying a stabbed knife because he used it in
preparing food for his friend, Richard Candelaria, who was
graduating)
 Went home; Bgy officials arrived and took him
 FELT SAD upon hearing the identity of whom he stabbed
ACCORDING TO RPC ARTICLE 249
Homicide = RECLUSION TEMPORAL
Accused = Minor = PRIVILEGED MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
Hence, penalty lowered to PRISION MAYOR (ruling of RTC & CA)
ACCORDING TO INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW
The MINIMUM of the indeterminate sentence SHOULD BE within the
penalty next lower than the imposable penalty, which, herein, was prision
correccional (i.e., six months and one day to six years).
For the MAXIMUM of the indeterminate sentence, prision mayor in its
MEDIUM PERIOD – eight years and one day to 10 years – WAS PROPER
because there were no mitigating or aggravating circumstances present
Argument INSISTED by ACCUSED after Ruling of RTC and CA:
The MAXIMUM of indeterminate sentence of eight years and one day of
prison mayor SHOULD BE REDUCED TO ONLY SIX YEARS of prision
correccional to enable him TO APPLY FOR PROBATION under PD No. 968
(will be disqualified in being GRANTED PROBATION if sentence is more
than 6 years) *GUSTO NI ACCUSED NA MAS MABABA PA SA ULTIMATE MINIMUM OF
SENTENCE GIVEN BY CA YUNG SENTENCE NIYA WHICH THE SC DID NOT ALLOW *
ACCORDING TO SC
The petitioner’s insistence is LACKING of legal basis. To yield to his
insistence would be to impose an illegal penalty, and would cause the
Court to deliberately violate the law.
ISSUE:
WON the RTC and CA erred in the PENALTY IMPOSED given to the
accused
RULING:
NO. RPC Art 249 and RA 9344 DOES NOT support FURTHER
REDUCTION of max indeterminate offense.
RTC- GUILTY of homicide as charged
4 years & 1 day of prision correccional, as minimum to
8 years & 1 day of PRISION MAYOR, AS MAXIMUM;
₱81,890.04 as actual damages for medical and funeral expenses ₱50,000.00 as moral
damages
CA- AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS
6 mos & 1 day of prision correccional, as minimum, to
6 years & 1 day to 12 years of PRISION MAYOR as maximum
P81,890.04, reduced to P16,300.00.
P50,000.00- civil indemnity
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
6 mos & 1 day of prision correccional, as minimum, to
8 years & 1 day of PRISION MAYOR
P81,890.04, reduced to P16,300.00.
P50,000.00- civil indemnity
SC
The amended decision of the CA IMPOSED THE ULTIMATE MINIMUMS
of the indeterminate penalty for homicide under the Indeterminate
Sentence Law.
We note that the petitioner was well over 23 years of age at the time
of his conviction for homicide by the RTC on July 19, 2006. Hence, the
suspension of his sentence was no longer legally feasible or
permissible.
Lastly, the petitioner posits that condemning him to prison would be in
violation of his rights as a child in conflict with the law as bestowed by
Republic Act No. 9344 and international agreements.
Hereby, the trial and appellate courts did not violate the letter and
spirit of Republic Act No. 9344 by imposing the penalty of
imprisonment on the petitioner simply because the penalty was
imposed as a last recourse after holding him to be disqualified from
probation and from the suspension of his sentence, and the term of his
imprisonment was for the shortest duration permitted by the law.
The petitioner, although he has to serve his sentence, may serve it in
an agricultural camp or other training facilities to be established,
maintained, supervised and controlled by the Bureau of Corrections, in
coordination with the DSWD, in a manner consistent with the offender
child's best interest.
Republic Act No. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006) to protect
the best interest of the child in conflict with the law through measures that will ensure
the observance of international standards of child protection, and to apply the principles
of restorative justice in all laws, policies and programs applicable to children in conflict
with the law.