People vs. Dapitan y Martin

For the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, which is now punishable by the single indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua due to the abolition of the death penalty, the court must impose reclusion perpetua regardless of the presence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances. The Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply to offenses punishable by life imprisonment.

Orencia Amil left her eight-year-old adopted son, Rolando Amil, alive at their home in Rodriguez, Rizal, on the morning of May 16, 1986. Upon returning approximately fifteen minutes later, she saw the accused Benedicto Dapitan and his co-accused Fred de Guzman leaving her property. Inside, she discovered Rolando dead from severe head injuries and stab wounds. Personal belongings, including watches, pants, and cash, were missing. Dapitan was later charged with robbery with homicide.

• Nature of the Case: The accused was charged with the special complex crime of robbery with homicide for the death of Rolando Amil and the theft of personal belongings from the home of Orencia Amil.
• The Incident: On May 16, 1986, between 8:00 and 9:00 a.m., Orencia Amil left her son Rolando alive at home. A neighbor, Celo Nilo, testified seeing the accused and an unidentified companion enter the house and heard a child's cry. When Orencia returned minutes later, she saw the accused and Fred de Guzman leaving her property. Inside, she found Rolando dead with severe head wounds and a stab wound to the neck. Missing items included two men's watches, a pair of pants, and cash.
• Defense: The accused interposed alibi, claiming he was in the house of a salesman, Ismael Anacio, in Sampaloc District from May 16 to 19, 1986. The trial court found this defense unconvincing and noted the proximity of Sampaloc to the crime scene.
• Lower Court's Findings: The RTC convicted the accused based on circumstantial evidence, primarily the positive identification by Orencia Amil and Celo Nilo, and the failure of the alibi defense.

• Application of Indeterminate Sentence Law: Petitioner argued that the trial court erred in not applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, which favors the accused. He contended that the fixed penalty of reclusion perpetua amounted to a deprivation of life or liberty without due process and constituted cruel, degrading, or inhuman punishment.
• Mitigating Circumstances: Petitioner maintained that mitigating circumstances should be appreciated in his favor, specifically voluntary surrender and having a lesser degree of perversity than his co-accused, Fred de Guzman, who allegedly committed the actual killing and taking.

• Constitutionality and Legality of Penalty: Respondent countered that the penalty of reclusion perpetua is sanctioned by the Revised Penal Code and is not cruel, degrading, or inhuman, as it is recognized by the Constitution.
• Indivisible Penalty Rule: Respondent argued that robbery with homicide under Article 294, paragraph 1, is now punishable by the single indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua due to the abolition of the death penalty. Pursuant to Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, this penalty must be imposed regardless of mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
• Inapplicability of Indeterminate Sentence Law: Respondent asserted that the Indeterminate Sentence Law expressly does not apply to offenses punishable by life imprisonment.

• Due Process and Penalty Constitutionality: Whether the imposition of reclusion perpetua constitutes a denial of due process or cruel, degrading, and inhuman punishment.
• Application of Indeterminate Sentence Law: Whether the Indeterminate Sentence Law applies to the crime of robbery with homicide.
• Appreciation of Mitigating Circumstances: Whether mitigating circumstances such as voluntary surrender should lower the penalty imposed.

• Due Process and Penalty Constitutionality: No denial of due process occurred, as the accused was afforded full opportunity to be heard. The penalty of reclusion perpetua is constitutional, as it is expressly recognized in the 1987 Constitution and has survived multiple prior constitutions.
• Application of Indeterminate Sentence Law: The Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply because Section 2 of the law excludes persons convicted of offenses punishable by death penalty or life imprisonment. Robbery with homicide, now punishable by reclusion perpetua (a life imprisonment penalty), falls within this exclusion.
• Appreciation of Mitigating Circumstances: Mitigating circumstances cannot be appreciated to lower the penalty. Because the death penalty has been abolished, the crime of robbery with homicide is now punishable by the single indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua. Under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, a single indivisible penalty must be applied regardless of mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

• Indivisible Penalty Rule — When the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, the court must impose it regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that attended the commission of the crime. The Court applied this rule because the abolition of the death penalty left reclusion perpetua as the sole penalty for robbery with homicide under Article 294(1).
• Exclusion from the Indeterminate Sentence Law — The Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103) does not apply to persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or life imprisonment. Since reclusion perpetua is a form of life imprisonment, the accused could not avail of its benefits.

• "Consequently, reclusion perpetua must be imposed in this case regardless of the presence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances." — This passage succinctly states the application of the indivisible penalty rule under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code.
• "To make that claim is to assail the constitutionality of Article 294, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code... The proposition cannot find any support." — The Court firmly rejected the argument that the penalty was unconstitutional, noting its consistency with multiple Philippine constitutions.

• People vs. Sison, G.R. No. 86455 (1990) — Cited as basis for increasing the civil indemnity for death caused by a crime from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00.
• People vs. Estoista, 93 Phil. 647 (1953) — Referenced in the Solicitor General's brief for the principle that a penalty must be "flagrantly and plainly oppressive" to be considered cruel and unusual.
• People vs. Castillo, 76 Phil. 72 (1945) — Cited for the standard of due process in criminal proceedings.

• Article 294, paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes robbery with homicide, prescribing the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.
• Article 63, Revised Penal Code — Provides that when a single indivisible penalty is prescribed, it shall be applied regardless of mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
• Section 2, Act No. 4103 (Indeterminate Sentence Law) — Excludes from its application persons convicted of offenses punishable by death penalty or life imprisonment.
• Section 19(1), Article III, 1987 Constitution — Prohibits cruel, degrading, or inhuman punishment but expressly recognizes reclusion perpetua.

• Chief Justice Marcelo B. Fernan
• Justice Hugo E. Gutierrez, Jr.
• Justice Carolina C. Griño-Aquino (took no part)
• Justice Abdulwahid A. Bidin (Ponente)
• Justice Florenz D. Regalado (took no part)

N/A — The decision was unanimous among the participating justices.