This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2003-09-23 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| "But a judgment which ordains a penalty which does not exist in the catalogue of penalties or which is an impossible version of that in the roster of lawful penalties is necessarily void, since the error goes into the very essence of the penalty and does not merely arise from the misapplication thereof. Corollarily, such a judgment can never become final and executory."[14] Thus, the correction to be made by this Court is meant only for the penalty imposed against petitioner to be in accordance with law and nothing else. It is not tantamount to a reduction in order to be favorable to the petitioner nor an increase so as to be prejudicial to him. | |||||
|
2003-01-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We are unable to agree, however, with the penalty imposed by the trial court. The legislature never intended that where the quantity involved exceeds those stated in Section 20 of Republic Act No. 6425 the maximum penalty of death shall automatically be imposed.[103] The statute prescribes two indivisible penalties: reclusion perpetua and death. Hence, the penalty to be imposed must conform with Article 63[104] of the Revised Penal Code. As already held, the death penalty law, Republic Act No. 7659 did not amend Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code.[105] The rules in Article 63 apply although the prohibited drugs involved are in excess of the quantities provided for in Section 20 of Republic Act No. 6425.[106] Thus, finding neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the present case, appellant's possession of 591.81 kilograms of marijuana in Criminal Case No. 15800-R, does not merit capital punishment but only the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua. | |||||