Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. MARTIN SIMON Y SUNGA

This case has been cited 19 times or more.

	GR No. 197712 2015-04-20	NONITO IMBO Y GAMORES v. PEOPLE PEREZ, J.
The correct application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law has long been clarified in People v. Simon[14] which ruled that the underscored portion of Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, i.e. the "offense is punished by any other law," indubitably refers to an offense under a special law where the penalty imposed was not taken from and is without reference to the RPC.
	GR No. 184355 2015-03-23	ARNULFO v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
The RTC sentenced petitioner to an imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to six (6) years and eight (8) months, as maximum, plus fine in the amount of P30,000.00. The CA upheld the RTC. Under PD 1866, as amended by RA 8294, the penalty for illegal possession of firearms classified as high powered, like cal. 45, is prision mayor minimum and a fine of P30,000.00. Applying Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code, the maximum period of the imposable penalty cannot exceed prision mayor minimum in its medium period, there being no mitigating or aggravating circumstance, i.e., six (6) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to seven (7) years and four (4) months. The minimum period, as provided in the Indeterminate Sentence Law, shall be within the range of prision correccional in its maximum period, i.e., four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day to six (6) years, the penalty next lower in degree to prision mayor minimum.[17] Thus, the minimum penalty imposable must be modified. Albeit, PD 1866, as amended by RA 8294, is a malum prohibitum and that the Revised Penal Code is generally not applicable, it has been held that when a special law, which is a malum prohibitum, adopts the nomenclature of the penalties in the Revised Penal Code, the latter law shall apply.[18]
	GR No. 200304 2014-01-15	PEOPLE v. DONALD VASQUEZ Y SANDIGAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Given that the additional 12 plastic sachets of shabu found in the possession of the appellant amounted to 4.03 grams, the imposable penalty for the crime is prision correccional. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance in this case, the imposable penalty on the appellant should be the indeterminate sentence of six months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four years and two months of prision correccional, as maximum. The penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals, thus, falls within the range of the proper imposable penalty. In Criminal Case No. 98-164175, no fine is imposable considering that in Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, a fine can be imposed as a conjunctive penalty only if the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death.[65]
	GR No. 183891 2011-10-19	ROMARICO J. MENDOZA v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
Under Article 5 of the Revised Penal Code,[12] the courts are bound to apply the law as it is and impose the proper penalty, no matter how harsh it might be. The same provision, however, gives the Court the discretion to recommend to the President actions it deems appropriate but are beyond its power when it considers the penalty imposed as excessive. Although the petitioner was convicted under a special penal law, the Court is not precluded from giving the Revised Penal Code suppletory application in light of Article 10[13] of the same Code and our ruling in People v. Simon.[14]
	GR No. 186227 2011-07-20	PEOPLE v. ALLEN UDTOJAN MANTALABA PERALTA, J.
In finding the guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant for violation of Section 5 of RA 9165, the RTC imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua as mandated in Section 98 [36] of the same law. A violation of Section 5 of RA 9165 merits the penalty of life imprisonment to death; however, in Section 98, it is provided that, where the offender is a minor, the penalty for acts punishable by life imprisonment to death provided in the same law shall be reclusion perpetua to death. Basically, this means that the penalty can now be graduated as it has adopted the technical nomenclature of penalties provided for in the Revised Penal Code. The said principle was enunciated by this Court in People v. Simon, [37] thus: We are not unaware of cases in the past wherein it was held that, in imposing the penalty for offenses under special laws, the rules on mitigating or aggravating circumstances under the Revised Penal Code cannot and should not be applied. A review of such doctrines as applied in said cases, however, reveals that the reason therefor was because the special laws involved provided their own specific penalties for the offenses punished thereunder, and which penalties were not taken from or with reference to those in the Revised Penal Code. Since the penalties then provided by the special laws concerned did not provide for the minimum, medium or maximum periods, it would consequently be impossible to consider the aforestated modifying circumstances whose main function is to determine the period of the penalty in accordance with the rules in Article 64 of the Code.
	GR No. 172605 2010-11-22	PEOPLE v. EVANGELINE LASCANO Y VELARDE PERALTA, J.
We also affirm the penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two (2) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of prision correccional, as maximum imposed by the RTC on appellant for the illegal sale of 11.54 grams of marijuana. In People v. Simon,[36] and People v. De Lara,[37] we clarified the proper penalties to be imposed for drug-related crimes under R.A. No. 6425, as amended by R.A. No. 7659. With regard to marijuana, the appropriate penalty is reclusion perpetua if the quantity of the drug weighs 750 grams or more. If the marijuana involved is below 250 grams, the penalty to be imposed is prision correccional; from 250 grams to 499 grams, prision mayor; and, from 500 grams to 749 grams, reclusion temporal.
	GR No. 179700 2009-06-22	GWYN QUINICOT Y CURATIVO v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Finally, we determine the proper imposable penalty. Both courts imposed on petitioner the indeterminate penalty of six months and one day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four years and two months of prision correccional, as maximum, for selling 0.119 gram of shabu. The sale of less than 200 grams of methampethamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug, is punishable with a penalty ranging from prision correccional to reclusion temporal, depending on the quantity. The proper penalty to be imposed for the illegal sale of 0.119 gram of shabu would be prision correcional, pursuant to the second paragraph of Section 20 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Section 17 of Republic Act No. 7659 and in consonance with the doctrine laid down in People v. Simon.[51] Further, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the imposable penalty should be the indeterminate sentence of six months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four years and two months of prision correccional, as maximum. The penalty imposed should thus be modified accordingly.
	GR No. 179090 2009-06-05	LEONILO SANCHEZ v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
However, the penalty imposed upon appellant by the CA deserves review. The imposable penalty under Section 10(a), Article VI of Republic Act No. 7610 is prision mayor in its minimum period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the RTC imposed upon appellant the penalty of six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to seven (7) years and four (4) months of prision mayor, as maximum. The CA modified this by imposing upon appellant the indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to eight (8) years, as maximum, of prision mayor, postulating that since R.A. No. 7610 is a special law, the RTC should have imposed on appellant an indeterminate sentence, "the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same."[44] On the other hand, the OSG contends that the RTC appropriately applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law, citing our ruling in People v. Simon.[45]
	GR No. 157723 2009-04-30	ROMEO SAYOC Y AQUINO v. PEOPLE TINGA, J.
We disagree, however, with the penalty imposed by the lower court. The penalty for simple highway robbery is reclusion temporal in its minimum period. However, consonant with the ruling in the case of People v. Simon,[26] since P.D. No. 532 is a special law which
	AM No. RTJ-05-1952 2008-12-24	OCA v. JUDGE NORMA C. PERELLO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It is the contention of Judge Perello that the prisoners she released were all convicted under the old law, R.A. No. 6425, and not under the new law, R.A. No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 which imposes the penalty of life imprisonment to death regardless of the quantity of the drug involved.[15] She maintains that the provisions of R.A. No. 9165 cannot be given retroactive effect insofar as these prisoners are concerned for the main reason that it would not be favorable to them. Thus, according to Judge Perello, the provisions of R.A. No. 6425, as interpreted in the case of People v. Simon,[16] must be applied to the released prisoners. Citing the Simon case, she insisted that the maximum imposable penalty for violation of R.A. No. 6425 where the quantity involved is 750 grams or less is six (6) months only, which was the reason why she ordered the immediate release of the prisoners because they had already served two (2) years of imprisonment.
	GR No. 171487 2008-03-14	ERMIN DACLES Y OLEDO v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
People v. Simon,[38] the Court spelled out the proper penalties for drug-related crimes under Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659. The appropriate penalty is reclusion perpetua if the quantity of the drug weighs 750 grams or more. If the drug weighs less than 250 grams, the penalty to be imposed is prision correccional; from 250 grams to 499 grams, prision mayor; and, from 500 grams to 749 grams, reclusion temporal.
	GR No. 169875 2007-12-18	PEOPLE v. DANILO JOCSON Y BAUTISTA PUNO, CJ.
In the case at bar, the details of the transaction were clearly and adequately shown, viz.: (a) the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher; (b) the offer to buy; (c) the promise or payment of the consideration; and (d) the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale. The initial contact was made through an informant. On the day of the operation, the informant approached accused-appellant Jocson, a.k.a. "Manong," and introduced him to SPO1 Delos Santos, the poseur-buyer. Delos Santos then offered to buy when he told "Manong," "Pare, pabili ng piso." The sale was consummated after payment and delivery when SPO1 Delos Santos handed "Manong" the marked 100-peso bill, and "Manong" took out from his pocket and handed SPO1 Delos Santos a plastic sachet containing shabu. From the moment SPO1 Delos Santos received the prohibited drug from "Manong," the illegal sale of the dangerous drug was consummated.[16] "Manong" was at once apprehended, and four more sachets of shabu were found in his possession.
	GR NO. 170837 2006-09-12	PEOPLE v. DEXTER TORRES Y DELA CRUZ CALLEJO, SR., J.
On July 28, 2005, the judgment of conviction was affirmed, but was modified as to the penalty imposed in Criminal Case No. 08-1344. In disposing the appeal, the CA gave short shrift to Dexter's claim that the two-witness rule under Sec. 8, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court was violated. Emphatically pointing out that at the time of the search, Henny was living in Dexter's house, and therefore a lawful occupant, it held that the two-witness rule applies only in the absence of a lawful occupant of the searched premises. Citing People v. Simon,[17] and considering that only 0.26 grams of shabu was involved, the appellate court reduced Dexter's sentence to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor to four (4) years and two (2) months of prison correccional. The petitory portion of the CA decision reads -
	GR NO. 152848 2006-07-12	TERESITA SUSON Y BANZON v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Finally, we determine the proper imposable penalty. The proper penalty to be imposed for the illegal sale of 0.7 gram of shabu would be a prision correcional, pursuant to the second paragraph of Section 20 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Section 17 of Republic Act No. 7659 and in consonance with the doctrine laid down in People v. Simon.[27] Further, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the imposable penalty should be the indeterminate sentence of SIX (6) MONTHS OF ARRESTO MAYOR, as the minimum, to FOUR (4) YEARS AND TWO (2) MONTHS OF PRISION CORRECCIONAL, as the maximum.
	GR Nos. 137542-43 2004-01-20	PEOPLE v. REYNAN SANTIAGO Y CASTILLO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Pursuant to R.A. 6425, as amended, and in line with People vs. Simon,[19] the penalty for the sale of 0.07 gram of shabu is prision correctional. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and there being no qualifying circumstance that attended the commission of the crime, the trial court properly imposed the penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correctional, as maximum, in Criminal Case No. C-53125. Under the same law (R.A. 6425, as amended), possession of 911.1 grams of marijuana is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. There being no mitigating or aggravating circumstance, and applying Sec. 63(2) of the Revised Penal Code,[20] the trial court's imposition of reclusion perpetua in Criminal Case No. C-53126 is in order.
	GR No. 149453 2003-10-07	PEOPLE v. PANFILO M. LACSON CALLEJO, SR., J.
Statutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be construed as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage. In that sense and to that extent, procedural laws are retroactive.[26] Criminal Cases Nos. Q-99-81679 to Q-99-81689 had long been dismissed by Judge Agnir, Jr. before the new rule took effect on December 1, 2000. When the petitioners filed the Informations in Criminal Cases Nos. 01-101102 to 01-101112 on June 6, 2001, Criminal Cases Nos. Q-99-81679 and Q-99-81689 had long since been terminated. The two-year bar in the new rule should not be reckoned from the March 29, 1999 dismissal of Criminal Cases Nos. Q-99-81679 to Q-99-81689 but from December 1, 2000 when the new rule took effect. While it is true that the Court applied Section 8 of Rule 110[27] of the RRCP retroactively, it did so only to cases still pending with this Court and not to cases already terminated with finality.
	GR No. 145337 2003-10-02	PEOPLE v. LEE HOI MING YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
As early as in our decision in People v. Simon,[11] we have recognized the suppletory application of the rules on penalties in the Revised Penal Code to the Dangerous Drugs Act after the amendment of the latter by Republic Act No. 7659 on December 31, 1993. Applying the rule in the Code governing the application of a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the lesser of the two penalties prescribed by the Dangerous Drugs Act, i.e., reclusion perpetua, should be imposed on appellant since there was no aggravating circumstance attendant in the crime of illegal sale of shabu. With respect to the pecuniary penalty, the courts may determine the amount of fine within the range provided by law, subject to the rule on increasing or reducing the same by degrees as provided by the Code.[12] In this regard, we find no error in the amount fixed by the trial court.
	GR No. 136105 2001-10-23	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO PAREDES Y SAUQUILLO DAVIDE, JR., C.J.
While we affirm the trial court's judgment of conviction, we do not agree with its imposition of the death penalty. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death prescribed in the aforesaid Section 15, as amended, is applicable in the case of shabu only if the quantity thereof is 200 grams or more pursuant to Section 20 of R.A. No. 6425, as amended by Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659. However, pursuant to the second paragraph of Section 15, and in light of our interpretation of said Section 20, as amended, in People vs. Simon,[29] the penalty of death is mandatory if the victim of the offense is a minor or if the drug involved is the proximate cause of the death of the victim. Pursuant to Section 24 of R.A. No. 6425, as amended by Section 19 of R.A. No. 7659, the imposition of the death penalty is also mandatory if the accused found guilty of such offense is a government official, employee or officer, or a member of police agencies or the armed forces.