Geroche vs. People
Geroche vs. People
medical certificate that he issued. His findings indicated that Baleriano suffered
hematoma on the left side of the nose, back portion of the body at the level of the
hip region, and back portion at the right side of the scapular region as well as
abrasion on the right side of the breast and left side of the body at the axilliary
region. 7 Dr. Cabrera opined that the injuries inflicted would heal from seven to ten
days. 8
For the defense, petitioners denied the crime charged, declaring in unison that they
were in their respective houses the entire evening of May 14, 1989. They alleged,
however, that the night before, on May 13, 1989, they conducted a roving foot
patrol, together with other barangay officials, due to the rampant cattle rustling in
the area. At the time, they recovered a stolen carabao owned by a certain Francisco
Pongasi 9 from three unidentified persons who managed to escape.
On November 15, 2001, the trial court found petitioners guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Less Serious Physical Injuries under the Article 265 of the RPC.
They were sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of arresto mayor
maximum, that is, four (4) months and one (1) day to six (6) months. According to
the RTC, the prosecution failed to prove that petitioners are public officers, which is
an essential element of Article 128 of the RPC. It held:
The prosecution who has that onus probandi failed to prove one of the essential
elements of the crime; on the issue of whether or not all the accused were public
officers; while it is true that accused were named CVO's and the other as a
barangay captain and that even if the same were admitted by them during their
testimony in open court, such an admission is not enough to prove that they were
public officers; it is for the prosecution to prove by clear and convincing evidence
other than that of the testimony of witnesses that they were in fact public officers;
there exist a doubt of whether or not all the accused were in fact and in truth public
officers; doubts should be ruled in favor of the accused; that on this lone and
essential element the crime charged as violation of domicile is ruled out; that
degree of moral certainty of the crime charged was not established and proved by
convincing evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt; . . . . 10
Petitioners elevated the case to the CA, which, on November 18, 2005, set aside the
trial court's judgment. While it agreed with both parties that petitioners should not
be convicted for Less Serious Physical Injuries, the CA still ruled that they are guilty
of Violation of Domicile considering their judicial admissions that they were
barangay captain (in the case of Geroche) and part of the Citizen Armed Forces
Geographical Unit (in the case of Garde and Marfil). The dispositive portion of the
assailed Decision states:
WHEREFORE, pursuant to applicable law and jurisprudence on the matter and the
evidence on hand, the appealed decision is hereby SET ASIDE and a new one
entered finding the accused-petitioners GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Violation of Domicile under Article 128 of the Revised Penal Code and
sentencing them to an indeterminate penalty of Four (4) Months, One (1) Day of
arresto mayor maximum to Six (6) Months and One (1) Day of prision [correccional]
minimum with the accessory penalty of suspension from public office and from the
indeterminate sentence. The maximum term of the prison sentence shall be that
which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the
rules of the said Code. Yet the penalty prescribed by Article 128 of the RPC is
composed of only two, not three, periods. In which case, Article 65 of the same
Code requires the division into three equal portions the time included in the penalty,
forming one period of each of the three portions. Applying the provision, the
minimum, medium and maximum periods of the penalty prescribed by Article 128
are:
Minimum 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 3 years, 6 months and 20 days
Medium 3 years, 6 months and 21 days to 4 years, 9 months and 10 days
Maximum 4 years, 9 months and 11 days to 6 years
Thus, applying in this case, the maximum term should be within the medium period
or from 3 years, 6 months and 21 days to 4 years, 9 months and 10 days, in light of
the provisions of Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code that if there are no other
mitigating or aggravating circumstances attending the commission of the crime, the
penalty shall be imposed in its medium period.
On the other hand, the minimum term shall be within the range of the penalty next
lower to that prescribed by the RPC for the crime. The penalty next lower to that
prescribed by Article 128 is arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision
correccional in its minimum period (or 4 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4
months).
The foregoing considered, in view of the attending circumstances in this case, the
Court hereby sentences the petitioners to suffer the indeterminate penalty from two
(2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to four (4) years,
nine (9) months and ten (10) days of prision correccional, as maximum. EcIaTA
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the Decision dated November 18, 2005 and
Resolution dated June 19, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 26418
finding petitioners Edigardo Geroche, Roberto Garde and Generoso Marfil alias
"Tapol" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Domicile, penalized under
Article 128 of the Revised Penal Code, with the MODIFICATION that the penalty that
should be imposed is an indeterminate sentence from two (2) years and four (4)
months of prision correccional, as minimum, to four (4) years, nine (9) months and
ten (10) days of prision correccional, as maximum.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., Villarama, Jr., Reyes and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.