Case Summary (G.R. No. 83942)
Applicable Law
The pertinent legal framework for this case is found within the Revised Penal Code, specifically Article 217 concerning malversation of public funds, and the Indeterminate Sentence Law, which dictates the imposition of penalties based on the gravity of the crime committed.
Decision on Motion for Reconsideration
The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration against the decision made on October 19, 2011, which affirmed their conviction for malversation. The Court, led by Justice Villarama, reviewed the motion but determined there was no compelling reason to overturn the original decision. However, the Court acknowledged a miscalculation in the maximum penalty assigned, highlighting the need to amend the sentencing specifications in accordance with the legal principles regarding the penalty for malversation involving amounts exceeding P22,000.00.
Correction of Sentencing Principles
Justice Bersamin articulated the necessity for correcting the sentencing framework, indicating that the penalty structure for malversation does not neatly fit into three distinct periods as would be the case for other penalties. Instead, the penalty must be segmented correctly into minimum, medium, and maximum periods as delineated by Article 65 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court established that the correct categorization of the penalty for reclusion temporal in its maximum period, applicable to the malversation in question, should consist of a minimum period of 17 years and 4 months and a maximum period extending to reclusion perpetua, while the medium period spans from 18 years and 8 months to 20 years.
Final Determination of Penalties
The Court reiterated that, given the absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances in the case, the maximum penalty to be assigned should fall within the medium range of imprisonment specified—between 18 years, 8 months and 20 years. Consequently, when applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum penalty was established as ranging from 10 years and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months, reflecting one degree lower than the maximum.
Affirmation and Order of Restitution
In conclusion, the Court upheld the decisions of the Sandiganbayan, affirming both the conviction and the penalty while modifying aspects related to the restitution of the malversed funds. The petitioners were ordered
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 83942)
Case Background
- Parties Involved: Petitioners are Zacaria A. Candao, Abas A. Candao, and Israel B. Haron. The respondents are the People of the Philippines and the Sandiganbayan.
- Nature of the Case: The case pertains to the conviction of the petitioners for malversation of public funds under Article 217, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
- Decision Date: The resolution was issued on February 1, 2012, by the First Division of the Supreme Court.
- Prior Decisions: The petitioners sought reconsideration of the decision dated October 19, 2011, which affirmed their conviction.
Motion for Reconsideration
- Petitioners' Request: The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration regarding the earlier decision.
- Court's Response: The Court found no compelling reason to reverse the October 19, 2011 decision, which modified the petitioners' conviction.
- Justice Bersamin's Suggestion: A suggestion was made to correct the maximum of the indeterminate sentence erroneously fixed at 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal medium.
Legal Principles Involved
- Penalties for Malversation: The penalty for malversation when the amount involved exceeds P22,000.00 is set from reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua.
- Indivisible Penalties: Reclusion perpetua is indivisible, while reclus