PEOPLE Vs JOSE

PEOPLE vs JOSE, G.R. No.
L-28232, Feb 6, 1971 offenses charged and proved, whereas service of

sentence is determined by the severity and character
FACTS: On June 26, 1967, four principal-accused of the penalty or penalties imposed. In the imposition
Jaime Jose, Basilio Pineda Jr., Eduardo Aquino and of the proper penalty or penalties, the court does not
Rogelio Caal conspired together, confederated with concern itself with the possibility or practicality of the
and mutually helped one another, then and there, to service of the sentence, since actual service is a
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with lewd design contingency subject to varied factors like the
to forcibly abduct Magdalena Maggie dela Riva, 25 successful escape of the convict, grant of executive
years old and single, a movie actress by profession at clemency or natural death of the prisoner. All that go
the time of the incident, where the four principal into the imposition of the proper penalty or penalties,
accused, by means of force and intimidation using a to reiterate, are the nature, gravity and number of the
deadly weapon, have carnal knowledge of the offenses charged and proved and the corresponding
complainant against her will, and brought her to the penalties prescribed by law. Multiple death penalties
Swanky Hotel in Pasay City, and hence committed are not impossible to serve because they will have to
the crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape. Having be executed simultaneously. A cursory reading of
established the element of conspiracy, the trial court article 70 will show that there are only two moves of
finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of serving two or more (multiple) penalties:
the crime of forcible abduction with rape and simultaneously or successively. The first rule is that
sentences each of them to the death penalty. two or more penalties shall be served simultaneously
if the nature of the penalties will so permit. In the case
ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court made a proper
ruling of the case considering the element of of multiple capital penalties, the nature of said penal
sanctions does not only permit but actually
conspiracy.
necessitates simultaneous service. The imposition of
RULING: No. In refusing to impose as many death multiple death penalties, far from being a useless
penalties as there are offenses committed, the trial formality, has practical importance. The sentencing of
court applied by analogy Article 70 of the Revised an accused to several capital penalties is an indelible
Penal Code, which provides that "the maximum badge of his extreme criminal perversity, which may
duration of all the penalties therein imposed upon the not be accurately projected by the imposition of only
appellant shall not be more than threefold the length one death sentence irrespective of the number of
of time corresponding to the most severe of the capital felonies for which he is liable. Granting,
penalties imposed upon the appellant, which should however, that the Chief Executive, in the exercise of
not exceed forty years." The said court is of the his constitutional power to pardon (one of the
opinion that since a man has only one life to pay for a presidential prerogatives which is almost absolute)
wrong, the ends of justice would be served, and deems it proper to commute the multiple death
society and the victim would be vindicated just as penalties to multiple life imprisonments, then the
well, if only one death penalty were imposed on each practical effect is that the convict has to serve the
of the appellants. The SC disagrees. Article 70 of the maximum forty (40) years of multiple life sentences. If
Revised Penal Code can only be taken into account only one death penalty is imposed, and then is
in connection with the service of the sentence commuted to life imprisonment, the convict will have
imposed, not in the imposition of the penalty. The to serve a maximum of only thirty years
imposition of a penalty and the service of a sentence corresponding to a single life sentence. We are,
are two distinct, though related, concepts. The therefore, of the opinion that in view of the existence
imposition of the proper penalty or penalties is of conspiracy among them and of our finding as
determined by the nature, gravity and number of regards the nature and number of the crimes
committed, as well as of the presence of aggravating
circumstances, four death penalties should be
imposed in the premises

PEOPLE Vs JOSE

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE Vs JOSE

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE Vs JOSE

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE vs JOSE, G.R. No.

L-28232, Feb 6, 1971 offenses charged and proved, whereas service of

You might also like