G.R. No. 176566 - Eduarte y Coscolla vs. People

Accused-appellant Eliseo Eduarte y Coscolla was convicted by the Court of Appeals (CA) in a decision dated August 12, 2004 for the crime of robbery under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code.
The CA imposed an indeterminate sentence with a minimum term of arresto mayor (ranging from four (4) months and one (1) day to prision correccional in its medium period) and a maximum term of prison sentence (ranging originally up to eight (8) years, which fell within the medium period prescribed by law).

On May 26, 2009, accused-appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration, Compassion and Reduction of Penalty.
In his motion, he pleaded for a reduction of his maximum sentence from eight (8) years to six (6) years. This reduction was sought so that he could qualify for probation.
He emphasized that he had been steadily employed for more than 15 years at Unilever Philippines and that he was the sole provider for his wife and two children, underscoring the adverse impact that incarceration would have on his family.
Accused-appellant also highlighted his previously unblemished criminal record and submitted several certifications attesting to his good moral character from his superiors, parish priest, and barangay chairperson.

The accused-appellant was arrested by the police without resistance.
Prior to his arrest, he voluntarily suggested to the private complainant that they proceed to the police station.
Despite having the opportunity to flee when the complainant and her friend sought assistance from the police, he remained at the scene.

The penalty for simple robbery is governed by Article 294, which, under its fifth paragraph, provides for prision correccional (in its maximum period) to prision mayor (in its medium period).
The case involved application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. This law required that the minimum term of the sentence be within the range of the next lower penalty (i.e. arresto mayor) and the maximum term be that which would be properly imposed for the crime, considering all circumstances and any mitigating factors.
The Court clarified certain nuances in the computation of the maximum term, noting that the medium period of the maximum term should correctly range from six (6) years, one month and eleven (11) days to eight (8) years and twenty (20) days.

The Court noted several mitigating circumstances: accused-appellant’s non-resistance during arrest, his cooperative behavior (e.g. suggesting a visit to the police station), and his long-standing employment and active role in civic activities.
Based on these circumstances, the Court appreciated a mitigating circumstance analogous to voluntary surrender as provided under Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, which warranted a downward adjustment of the maximum term within its prescribed range.

Whether the maximum term for the indeterminate sentence should remain at eight (8) years or be reduced to six (6) years in light of the mitigating circumstances presented.
Whether the minimum term should be adjusted within the prescribed range under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

Whether the conduct of the accused-appellant—specifically, his non-resistance to arrest and his suggestion to visit the police station—qualifies for a mitigating circumstance analogous to voluntary surrender as contemplated under Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code.
Whether these mitigating factors sufficiently justify the modification of the originally imposed sentence in support of the ends of justice and the welfare of the accused-appellant’s family.

How the ranges of the minimum and maximum terms should be recalculated taking into account the proven mitigating circumstances.
Whether the error in the initial declaration of the medium period of the maximum term (i.e., mistakenly referring to prision mayor in its minimum period) necessitates rectification in the final sentence.