Case Digest (G.R. No. 176102)
Facts:
Rosal Hubilla y Carillo v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 176102, November 26, 2014, First Division, Bersamin, J., writing for the Court. The petitioner is Rosal Hubilla y Carillo; the respondent is the People of the Philippines.The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Camarines Sur charged petitioner with homicide by information filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 20, Naga City (Crim. Case No. 2000-0275). The information alleged that on March 30, 2000 petitioner stabbed Jayson Espinola, inflicting mortal wounds that later caused his death. At trial, prosecution witnesses (including Alejandro Dequito and Nicasio Ligadia) testified that petitioner stabbed the victim at about 7:30 P.M. at the gate of Dalupaon Elementary School; the medico-legal testimony linked the stab wound to the victim’s ultimate death. Petitioner testified he had been attacked earlier that evening by a group of men, felt dizzy, later encountered someone he thought was one of his assailants and stabbed that person; he said he carried a knife for food preparation.
The RTC found petitioner guilty of homicide and imposed an indeterminate sentence (minimum four years and one day prision correccional, maximum eight years and one day prision mayor) and awarded actual and moral damages. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty and civil awards, then on reconsideration amended its decision to impose an indeterminate penalty of six months and one day of prision correccional (minimum) to eight years and one day of prision mayor (maximum), reduced actual damages, and awarded civil indemnity; the CA remanded the case to the RTC to act on petitioner’s application for probation.
Petitioner did not contest the factual findings or conviction before the Supreme Court; he raised three issues limited to sentencing and juvenile-law relief: (1) whether the CA imposed the correct penalty considering Republic Act No. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act), the Revised Penal Code and Act No. 4103 (Indeterminate Sentence Law); (2) whether h...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals impose the correct penalty on petitioner in light of RA 9344, the Revised Penal Code, and Act No. 4103 (Indeterminate Sentence Law)?
- Was petitioner entitled to probation or to suspension of sentence under RA 9344?
- Did sentencing petitioner to imprisonment contravene RA 9344 or applicable international a...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)