Title
Eduarte y Coscolla vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 176566
Decision Date
Oct 2, 2009
Eliseo Eduarte, convicted of robbery, sought sentence reduction for probation eligibility. Supreme Court reduced his penalty, citing mitigating circumstances, good moral character, and his role as sole breadwinner, enabling rehabilitation.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 176566)

Procedural Background

The Petitioner, Eliseo Eduarte y Coscolla, filed a Motion for Reconsideration, Compassion, and Reduction of Penalty dated May 26, 2009, following the affirmation of his conviction by the Court of Appeals on April 16, 2009. The appellate court’s decision, which was dated August 12, 2004, sentenced him to a prison term ranging from four years and two months of prision correccional as the minimum to a maximum of eight years of prision mayor. Moreover, he was ordered to pay ₱8,875.00 in restitution to private complainant Catherine Navarra.

Petitioner’s Plea for Sentencing Relief

In his motion, the Petitioner acknowledged the unlikelihood of overturning the guilty verdict but sought mercy from the court to reduce the maximum term of his sentence to six years. He expressed concern for his family, asserting his role as the sole breadwinner. Unemployed due to imprisonment, the burden would shift to his wife, who was unable to care for their children if she took a job outside the home. The Petitioner underscored his clean criminal record aside from the present case and provided various certifications attesting to his good moral character.

Legal Framework of the Offense

The penalty for the offense of simple robbery, addressed under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, stipulates different ranges of penalties based on the degree of violence or intimidation involved. Specifically, any person guilty of robbery with violence or intimidation faces penalties ranging from prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period. The applicable framework under the Indeterminate Sentence Law allows for flexibility in sentencing, wherein the court determines a minimum term that is within the range of a lesser penalty.

Correction of Sentencing Parameters

The decision dated April 16, 2009 contained an inadvertence regarding the classification of the prison term. Upon reevaluation, it was clarified that the medium period of the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence should be adjusted to reflect the range of six years, one month, and eleven days to eight years and twenty days. This correction prompted a reassessment of the Petitioner’s sentence terms.

Reevaluation of Sentencing and Mitigating Circumstances

In determining the appropriate penalty and considering the circumstances surrounding the Petitioner’s case, the court exercised its discretion to lower the minimum term to four months and one day of arresto mayor. The circumstances, including long-standing employment and community involvement, supported this decision. Moreover, the court acknowledged the presence of mitigating factors, particularly emphasizing the absence of resistance upon arrest, suggesting a degree of cooperation that warranted consideration under Article 13 of

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.